Found this reply unclear in its import. More importantly, I have just run out of milk. --- On Thu, 13/5/10, jlsperanza@xxxxxxx <jlsperanza@xxxxxxx> wrote: > McEvoy: > > I know that > >> "I have wrongly been informed that the capital of > >> France is Lyon". Ungrammatical. > > is false.> > > Ritchie is right: you MAY THINK you know -- (versus "you > maybe know it"). So? > While "know" and "inform" behave similarly, they are not > the same verb. Neither is "throw". And? > "I wrongly knew it" is perhaps MORE ungrammatical than "I > have been wrongly informed". Gee thanks. But this assertion hardly establishes why "I have been wrongly informed" is ungrammatical at all. > But the problem is that "mis-know" is a solecism (Unlike > "mis-inform"). Quite*. And where one has been 'mis-informed' one may well have been "wrongly informed". So that if mis-informed is not a solecism it would seem "wrongly informed" is not ungrammatical. I could go on.. Dnl * No reason "mis-know" must be treated as a solecism any stronger than the convention of treating "knowing x" as necessarily implying that x is the case (if x is not the case it is wrong, _according to this convention_, to say we "know" x rather than merely think we "know"). But even if we accept that Newton's theory is false, and so are the ancient sky-maps that ships navigated by, both remain within the body of human "knowledge" - and "knowledge" and "knowing" may be used in a sense that does not imply the information "known" is necessarily true. But even if we accept the convention, the assymetry between knowing and 'being informed' would remain: for while, according to that convention, we cannot "know" what is false, there is no reason why therefore we cannot receive information that is false - as indeed is a common experience. Yes. I did go on... ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html