Re: more epistemic perversity

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

>I'm not sure whether
>--More--
>you agree with that evaluation of the _English_ sentences.

The particle "really" is part of what makes the English sentence seem odd
(becuase it implies that one "knowledge" is not "real-world"; but I agree that
even without really, it sounds a little odd because we "hear" the 'really'
even when it is not spoken.  But if the two versions of knowledge are
equally likely to be real-world, we do not find the use of "know" so odd:

John knows that Pete has 2 kids, but Jim knows that Pete has 3 kids.  Which
is really true, I can't say.

seems fine to me- I can imagine both people giving the contradictory
information to me and reporting this situation to another using the word
"know".

>As for these:
>
>(a) do rirni re da i ku'i la djan djuno le du'u do ca'a rirni pa da

That works even more easily because you left the first sentence tenseless
and the second rirni clause is not.  But in any case, you left out the x4s
that lead to perfect sense:

(a) do rirni re da fo lenu do morji .i ku'i la djan djuno ledu'u
do ca'a rirni pada fo leni vitke ledo lanzu zdani kei ku'i lenu la djan
na djuno ledu'u do kansa be ledo pamoi speni bei rirni le drata

In English we do not have these implied extra places, but instead have the
stated or elided assumption of a single absolute reality.  In Lojban there
is no absolute reality and we have the elided expression of a variety of
x4 epistemologies that allow different truths to coexist or to collide.

lojbab