Re: knowledge, lojban and English

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>I agree with that too.
>
>In the case of {djuno}, if it is to mean something drastically different
>from "know" then the definition should be more explicit. For instance,
>if the presupposition of truth were to be removed, we should know
>what difference would remain between {djuno} and {jinvi}. Would they
>become near synonyms?

Maybe the hangup I am having is with this word "presupposition"
If you means omething like the "default" as in default quantifier then
it is iffy.   The problem with presuppositions is that they have
to have a presupposer, and we seem to be arguing about who the presupposer is.

If the presupposer = the knower x1 of djuno, then I can agree with you and
the issue can be settled.  This does preserve a difference with jinvi,
because in general when people state that something is their opinion, they
are recognizing that it is subjective and LIKELY not universally agreed to be
true.  In general when someone claims to know something they are indeed
assuming that what they know is "true".

But where the issue arises between us is what happens when the person stating
a djuno claim is not the "knower", and while he recognizes that le djuno is
presupposing truth, the speaker does not presuppose that truth and is either
agnostic, or even disagrees with that presupposition.  You are correct that
in English we OFTEN don't use "know" for such cases, but instead use one
of the softer words that imply non-truth from the speaker's point of
view, including "consider" and "opine and "think" and "believe".  But for
defining the Lojban word, we have a tough problem - each of those words
is used in the definition of another gismu and is more likely to be trnaslted
using those orther gismu. "know" does work if you set up sufficient context;
the other would require wordy comparisons betweent he gismu of the sort that
we did not want to put into the gismu list - there certainly has been discussion
before about putting together a treatise on gismu meanings that compares and
contrasts the gismu, but there was NO intent to have the baseline definitions
be so carefully refined as to make such discussion unnecessary.

Indeed, unless we have Robin pointing out the nuances of Turkish semantic
implications in their word for djuno/know, and similar comments from Chinese and
 other languages, this discussion is hinging too much on the English semantics,
when we have stated that it is circumstance that has us stating the Lojban
baseline in English, and the English semantics is NOT intended to be
transferred at a fine level.

I suspect that if the typical Lojbanist used djuno where he would use English
"know" and "jinvi" where he would use "opinion", that there seldome would be
a problem, BUT That this would not resolve the issue we have been debating
because I think too seldom does the nuance that I am pointing out come into
play in the English such that we notice it.  (There may be times wherte it
comes into play but that there is no way to tell for sure who is doing the
presupposing of what).

The key point here is that djuno and the common meaning of "know" differ
most significantly when there is a subjective basis for truth and the
speaker does not agree with the knower, OR takes note of the subjectivity
and (in English at least) chooses a different word.  In Lojban there is
no need to choose a different word from djuno, because the epistemology can
be described as subjective failrly easily.  English "know" does not have a
required or even implied statement of epistemology, and indeed to bring in
eopistemology requires wordiness or vagueness as to what exactly you are
bringing in (e.g. "because" - which usually not a lead-in to epistemology in
English, but might be for "know").

lojbab