Re: more epistemic perversity

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

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.

>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.

 >>Does English's "know" exclude those people? I find it hard to believe=20
>>that a given word in a language would exclude people for believing=20
>>something or other.
>
>But know does not have only one meaning, while djuno only has one
>meaning. Which meaning of "know" do you mean here?

The one that corresponds to Lojban {djuno}, of course.
Whichever that meaning ends up being, it does not exclude
anybody, since there are other words available or creatable to
express other meanings.

co'o mi'e xorxes