Difference Between Knowledge and Understanding

You don't really 'understand' that it's burning but you understand how or why things are. And when you say you understand that it's burning it's merely a facon de parler for knowing that

Not sloppy, it's a normal language. Sloppy implies it was supposed to be nicely made up and words shouldn't have blurred meaning.

But language never promised anyone it wasn't going to be blurred. I guess the reason it is blurred, it that if we had clear-cut words we would need 10s or 100 thousands more to say the things we want to, and we cannot learn that many words. For instance, we use the word "walking" for very different movenemt patterns. If we had a crystal word for each and every kind of walk at every speed level, we'd need hundreds or thousands of words for all the different walking styles. It's easier just to use one.

It's not a problem though, if you need a crystal clear concept, you just make clear "when I write KNOW i mean the following and nothing else", and then people know what's going on. You can also just make up new words.

I always say,

The chicken came before the egg.

In respect to this thread, I use this example because I understand an egg cannot be conceived without a male & female chicken (ironically from prior knowledge) but also without knowing nor understanding how & why they came to be in the first place. Which is, I guess using practical reasoning to answer a metaphysical question though it is still objective.

Agree

But most people don't say what they mean when they say they know something

And they use the word understanding for example once in the propositional sense and once in the veridical sense...that's what was meant by sloppy

and they substitute knowledge for understanding when really it is knowledge (or it is understanding - but pick one!)

I understand what you're saying; you missed my point.

I'm talking about the very nature of "knowledge", which is why I mentioned the epistemological problem. This is a deeper issue than the one you're directly addressing, which mostly concerns the way in which we discriminate the words in linguistic expression (as you appear to have said, it's a somewhat redundant semantic exercise).

To have any sort of understanding, one needs to have a priori knowledge and vice versa. In other words, one can't build a mental representation of the world without "both things." I put this in quotes because they seem to be essentially the same thing to me.

If you say you 'understand that it's burning' don't later say that you 'know the chicken came before the egg' for example

Be consistent

Just you know what you mean yourself :)

I guess you never really can be sure what other people mean.

"Knowing how" can mean a million different things, from just barely being able to bake the simplest bread, to being an expert master of baking, to being super good at baking pies but not being able to bake a cake, to being able to bake when you are drunk but not when sober etc. So someoe says "yeah I know how to bake", it can mean anything really.

Then off course you can ask more questions and get him to put more words on the table, but i guess because of the blurredness and personal misuse of words (like someone that thinks you're and expert if you can bake a frozen pizza) misunderstandings are always possible.

Yes you need to have a priori knowledge of concepts (or objects so called) So you can understand (get veridical knowledge) from objectual knowledge (knowledge of the concepts), through proposing it (propositional knowledge). So that's what was meant by the triangulation of knowledge

Love (conceptual or objectual knowledge) expresses hope (veridical knowledge or understanding) through language (propositional knowledge)

"Love expresses hope through language"

It doesn't matter how you conceptualize the three types but they're there

Yes)) and that is why culture is so important, to shape the way we talk so to speak so that we could understand each other (understanding you, meaning knowing (or "getting") you, or what you meant or knowing how you intended your utterance)

But you see understanding you really means knowing how you meant it

That's why English is a sloppy language because it appears like, ok probably not knowing you, but knowing what you meant. But that's not technically correct. I don't really know what you meant (although that's how people speak in English) but really how you meant or intended it

But again that's why in ancient Greek the distinctions between the types of knowing and understanding aren't prominent like they are in modern English

which causes English speakers to misuse or at least not be consistent with their word choices, which can confuse meaning precisely

which causes factions which causes wars etc etc you could argue 

and you could make it a whole cultural analysis showing why all violence is due to language