[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
And Rosta scripsit:
> If furze and gorse are aren't synonyms (they aren't for me), then it is
> not fundamentally different. If they are synonyms, then believing that
> furze is not gorse is literally the same thing as believing that furze is
> not furze, so "furze is not gorse" must receive a nonliteral interpretation,
> under which the two terms are not synonyms.
You seem to equivocate here between the subjective definition of synonymy
and some supposed objective definition. If gorse and furze are synonyms
for John, then John can't possibly believe that gorse is not furze, unless
he is a Tortoise.
> Why? De dicto beliefs are not linguistic beliefs. We can report de dicto
> in Lojban the beliefs of someone who does not know Lojban.
I don't think so (i.e. I think not). Consider Pierre the bilingual, whose
de dicto beliefs are "Londres est joli" and "London is ugly". What he doesn't
know, of course, is that the London where he now lives is the same as the
Londres that he heard of when he lived in France. Short of metalinguistic
expression, these two sentences can't be translated into Lojban in full.
> Synonymy would be a fact about my knowledge of Lojban, not about
> the believer's beliefs.
But from someone's belief that A is not B, you can infer that A and B are
nonsynonymous for him (unless indeed he is a Tortoise). So the views are
not unrelated.
--
John Cowan jcowan@hidden.email http://www.reutershealth.com
"Not to know The Smiths is not to know K.X.U." --K.X.U.