Person 1 says I gave a metro card with $30.00 on it to person A
Person 2 says yes, but person A didn't know that...
Person 1 says yes he did, because I told him!

Question -

Person 1 contends that if you are given a sealed envelope and "told" there's $30.00 in it, you don't "KNOW" what's in the envelope until you open it - you were TOLD what was in it, you HEARD what was in it, but you still don't KNOW what was in it until you open it -

Person 2 contends that you DO know because you were "TOLD"

Person 1 contends that the phraseology, the word "KNOW" in this context does not mean "heard" or to be told, but rather the absolute knowledge thereof.
Person 1 contends that the CORRECT use of the word KNOW in this context CANNOT and should not (according to accepted grammatical usage) be interpreted in any other way.

Person 2 contends that both and/or either are correct in their interpretation, and that the would know in this context CAN and is accepted as being told and heard rather the absolute knowledge thereof -

Who is correct?

When I hear you speak, I know just exactly what you mean.

Hi don -
I don't get your answer - but I was thinking, perhaps I should restate the question -
Just because I'm told something doesn't necessarily mean that I KNOW it - someone may tells me they went to the store - but if I can't CONFIM that they went - all I KNOW, is what they said they did, not what they actually had done.

Perhaps in my example, person 2 should have said, yes, but person A can't CONFIM that... - though I am still a little uncertain about the differences between KNOWING and CONFIRMING?

Let me ask it this way. If I tell you that deadliest snake in the world has nested in you mailbox to get out of the snow.

Do you Know that the snake is there, or do you just accept what I said to you as fact and never open your mailbox.

To actually "KNOW" what's in the mailbox you have to open it.

However in the situation you've given, you did not give a history of the participants. If person A is known to me to be a truthful person, then I can choose to accept his word as truth. If person A is know to me to be a liar, then I would be wise not to accept his word as truthful. Either way, until I look in the envelope, I do not "Know" what the contents are.

Thanks Don - you are of course correct in your summation - I was however looking to learn if person 2's use of the word "KNOW", as used in the above context, was in fact a correct accepted grammatical use of the word to know, as opposed to that of person 1 who seems to feel it is acceptable to interpret the word "KNOW" as in having been told or heard!

Thanks!

Person 2, would be correct in saying the he/she knows what person A told him/her, that there was a $30 coupon in the envelope.

However, until Person 2 physically looks in the envelope, the contents of the envelope cannot be verified.

Person 2 is right in that both interpretations are correct, It is perfectly acceptable to use the word "know" as a synonym for "belive," as long as the context is clear. For example, I know that the sun is approximately 93 million miles from earth, even though I have never personally measured the distance. I know that Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president of the US and that he was assassinated in April 1985, even though I wasn't there. And I know that most people in China speak Chinese, although I have personally met only a very tiny percentage of the population of China. I have been told all these things, by sources I consider reputable. It's possible that one or more of these facts could someday be shown to be wrong, but until then I am comfortable with what I think I know. On the other hand, if your name is OJ Simpson and you tell me that your wife was killed by drug dealers - I do not "know" that at all!