Knowledge 1: I know in that I have been told by sources I for various reasons deem reliable. I have not investigated myself and generally have no direct access to primary data.
I know the moon is not made of green cheese, I know Australia exists. I know my nephew is in Kansas.
Knowledge 2: I know in that I have gathered appropriate data bearing on the subject, subjected the data to appropriate analysis, and checked and discarded the most important alternatives; I would with confidence present my conclusions to a professional journal [though the paper's acceptable is by no means guaranteed].
I know that the gender systems of certain languages and the so-called class systems of certain others are the same phenomenon, with phenomena in some Australian languags linking the two typologically. I know that English deer / German Tier are cognate and that English day / Latin dies are not.
Knowledge 3: I know in that I have gathered appropriate data bearing on the subject, subjected the data to appropriate analysis, and checked and discarded the most important alternatives, but I have not been able to account for important counter examples OR some of the data would be considered suspect by the community. Though I am convinced, I could not with confidence go public.
I know that certain Nilotic and Niger-Kordofanian languages had important early interactions and influenced one another economically. I know that Basque is not an isolate.
Distinguishing the different knowledges in debate is very important.
30 Nov 2010, 2:58 pm
