Did the lion know who swam in the pond?

[Seiichi Myoga]

The lion and rooster are friends. Yesterday, the lion saw a strange dog swimming in the pond. While the lion was away, the rooster went swimming. Who did the lion know that swam in the pond? (W. D. O'Grady, Syntactic Development)

Let's suppose the question that appears at the end is this:
Did the lion know who swam in the pond?

The answer to the new question should be (1b). Am I right?
(1) a. Yes, he did.
b. No, he didn't.

Thank you in advance
Seiichi MYOGA

[Honey2]

that is right
_________________
live quite life

[Skrej]

It depends upon which definition of 'know' you use.

If you take 'know' to mean 'recognize or be acquainted with', then the answer is 1b).

If you take the definition of 'know' as 'perceive directly, have factual knowledge of', then it would be 1a).

He knows (is factually aware) that somebody was swimming in the pond (a strange dog), but he didn't know (wasn't acquainted with) who was swimming.

The same argument could be made of O'Grady's, original question, although the syntax of that question seems to lead us more towards the 'acquainted with' definition of 'know'.

It's a semantical trap.
_________________
Plan to be spontaneous tomorrow.
***
Did you hear they arrested the Energizer Bunny on battery charges?
***

[Seiichi Myoga]

Thank you, both Honey2 and Skrej.
Especially, I appreciate your help and comments, Skrej.

I was asking this in order to see what difference there is between the indirect interrogative and (2), which someone says means "Who did the lion witness swimming in the pond?".

(2) Who did the lion know swam in the pond?

The first time I read your comments, I thought it was possible to use (2) to disambiguate the possible meanings that the corresponding indirect question can have. And the construction like (2) is only possible if "know" means "have information (through perception or experience)." That was exactly what I had expected, although I didn't know the fact that the indirect interrogative at issue may be ambiguous (I had assumed the condition of exhaustiveness: "who" in the interrogative required that the lion know the fact that for every x that swam in the pond, x swam in the pond.

But considering your comments elsewhere, at least "know=be sure" is also OK(, but is only different in function, probably).

The same argument could be made of O'Grady's, original question, although the syntax of that question seems to lead us more towards the 'acquainted with' definition of 'know'.

Admitting (2) may be ambiguous in the meanings of "know," do you accept (2) if we take it to mean "recognize"?

(2) Who did you know looks like Bill?

Seiichi MYOGA