Re: more epistemic perversity

[Rob Zook <rzook@INFORMIX.COM>]

At 09:50 PM 2/17/98 -0300, Jorge J. Llamb=EDas wrote:
>la rob mi spuda di'e
>>>For example, if John dreams that you have only one child, you will
>>>claim:
>>>
>>>    la djan djuno le du'u mi rirni pa da kei fo le nu senva
>>>    John knows that I have only one child because he had a dream.
>>>
>>>It's definitely not how I would say it.
>>
>>But it's not really relavent how you would say it, but how the
>>imaginary John would say it.
>
>No, John is not making the claim! I was talking about how
>someone would report John's belief that Lojbab has only
>one child.

Oops. I did not read that very well.


>>Perhaps this John beleives that all
>>his dreams fortell the future or contain information about non-
>>dream world events. In that context, the sentance makes perfect
>>sense.
>
>But you yourself used "John believes" there, didn't you? I agree
>that John may very well believe that his dreams foretell
>the future. But in that context, English speakers that do not
>share that belief do not use the word "know" to report it, just
>like you there.

Perhaps, but I thought we where debating the use of djuno not the
English word "know". Simply because le gi'uste shows "know" as
a English gloss of "djuno", does not mean "djuno" =3D "know", anymore
than "gestault" =3D "wholeness".

Furthermore, if John does report to me "I know you have one child
because I dreamed it", and he say he knows that his dreams contain true
information. Then whether I think he's deluded or not, I see no reason=20
why I cannot say:

la djan djuno le du'u mi rirni pa da kei fo le nu senva
John knows that I have only one child because he had a dream.

Simply because the English gloss sounds "strange" to us seems completely
and totally irrelavent. Most exact word by word glosses from language
X into English sound rather "strange".=20

If I were actually translating that for some one else I might say
"John believes I have only one child because he had a dream". In
English one does not use the word "know" when one regards the belief=20
involved as false, or most people generally regard the belief as
false.

What le gi'uste seems to say to me is that djuno does not have that
implicit _judgement_ of the x2. It simply states that x1 knows x2
in subject x3 via epistemology x4, and you can use it that way regardless
of whether or not you agree that x2 is true for you. Using djuno one
can make a report of someones claim of knowing something without any
hidden judgement of it's truth or justification.

Both you and And seem to want to use English prescription of usage
of the word "know" to prescribe the usage of the Lojban "djuno", that
seems utterly ridiculous. Since when would a prescription for an English
gloss prescribe the use of a foreign language word?


Rob Z.
--------------------------------------------------------
"...That no government, so called, can reasonably be
trusted for a moment, or reasonably be supposed to have=20
honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly=20
upon voluntary support."
--- Lysander Spooner,=20
    No Treason: the Constitution of No Authority