Re: knowledge and belief

["Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>]

>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 16:24:41 -0600
>From: Steven Belknap <sbelknap@uic.edu>
>Cc: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
>
>mark shoulson:
>>Just to muddy the waters further, how does this play with those indirect
>>questions that have been making so many heads spin?  What about "Steven
>>knows that Jorge knows who went to the store"?  You can't replace the second
>>"knows" with "believes" or "opines", even in Lojban, can you?  The first
>>maybe.  Does {mi krici ledu'u makau klama le zarci} make any sense in
>>Lojban, as a "less certain" form of {mi djuno ledu'u makau klama le zarci}
>>as the claim seems to be?
>
>That would be:
>
><la stivn cu djuno du'u la xorxes cu djuno nu da cu klama le zarci kei>
>
>I don't think this adds any additional problem, although perhaps I'm
>missing something.

Well, you're missing the gadri before nu and du'u...

But didn't you just say that I couldn't truthfully say <da djuno ledu'u de
djuno ledu'u bu'a>?  And isn't that exactly what you have written there?
Also, your sentence would translate to "Steven knows that Jorge knows that
someone went to the store"; indirect questions tend to need kau.

I'll accept the argument that {krici} would work as well as {djuno} here,
though I still don't really understand your (Steven's) distinction between
the two.

~mark