Re: knowledge

[Robin Turner <robin@BILKENT.EDU.TR>]

I see prototypes rearing their ugly heads again!  The counterexamples given
to the argument that use of "know" implies the truth of that which is
"known" seem pretty peripheral examples of the category. If you asked a
native English speaker for a "good" example of the use of "know", he/she
would almost certainly choose an example where the truth of the thing known
was accepted by all concerned.  There are even more peripheral examples,
such as "Man, know thyself" or even  "And Abraham knew his wife" but these
don't seem to bother anyone.  I propose, however, that even prototype
categories have boundaries beyond which use of the word is obviously
metaphorical, ironic or technical, and the truth of the thing known seems
to mark the boundary here.

The same may well apply to the equivalent of "know" in other languages,
though the boundaries may be more (or less) fuzzy than in English.  For
example,  prototypical use of Turkish "bilmek" corresponds to English know,
but the peripheral uses often do not.  For example, like many languages,
Turkish has a different verb for "know" in the sense of "be aquainted with"
("tanImak"), and it is also possible to say "Yalnis' bildim" - "I knew
wrongly", which would be extremely  unlikely in English.


Robin Turner

Bilkent Universitesi,
IDMYO,
Ankara,
Turkey.

<http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8309>