[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [jboske] kau, take 2



Nick Nicholas scripsit:

<digression>

> -- I know who killed Laura Palmer!
> -- Yeah, who?
> -- The same guy who killed Theresa Banks!
> 
> No, that's not an answer; we want a name.

I think the not-an-answer-ness of this is fact-specific.  The dialogue

-- I know where Bolshoi Olyania is.
-- Yeah, where?
-- Two kilometers from Krasny Sigorsk.

is uncommunicative, assuming the asker doesn't know much about Russian villages
(indeed, one can know this fact without having a clue where either Bolshoi
Olyania or Krasny Sigorsk are); whereas in

-- I know who Cicero is.
-- Who?

the answer "Tully" is reckoned uncommunicative (if pedantically true) whereas
the answer "The greatest Roman orator" at least gets you some points on the
exam.

</digression>

> Intension:
> 
> Dale Cooper knows that, for some X, X killed Laura Palmer
> => Dale knows someone killed Laura
> 
> Extension:
> 
> For some X, Dale Cooper knows that X killed Laura Palmer
> => Dale knows who killed Laura

No, that won't wash.  For some X, I know that X is a spy (that is, I know
there are spies), but "I know who is a spy" is false, because I don't
know any spies.  If you search for "Ortcutt" in the Lojban archives you
can see lots of discussion on this.

IMHO it's dangerous to use "know" as the matrix verb in kau discussion,
because of the factivity it drags in.  Much safer to use "wonder".
(I believe And pointed this out, many and many a year ago.)

To recap your examples, we get "Dale wonders whether someone killed Laura"
vs. "Dale wonders who killed Laura".  In the former case, Laura might be
killed or unkilled; in the latter, Laura's death is presumed.

-- 
John Cowan  jcowan@hidden.email  www.reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan
"The exception proves the rule."  Dimbulbs think: "Your counterexample proves
my theory."  Latin students think "'Probat' means 'tests': the exception puts
the rule to the proof."  But legal historians know it means "Evidence for an
exception is evidence of the existence of a rule in cases not excepted from."