Multilingual large language models (LLMs) face an often-overlooked challenge stemming from intrinsic semantic differences across languages. Linguistic divergence can sometimes lead to cross-linguistic disagreements--disagreements purely due to semantic differences about a relevant concept. This paper identifies such disagreements as conflicts between two fundamental alignment norms in multilingual LLMs: cross-linguistic consistency (CL-consistency), which seeks universal concepts across languages, and consistency with folk judgments (Folk-consistency), which respects language-specific semantic norms. Through examining responses of conversational multilingual AIs in English and Japanese with the cases used in philosophy (cases of knowledge-how attributions), this study demonstrates that even state-of-the-art LLMs provide divergent and internally inconsistent responses. Such findings reveal a novel qualitative limitation in crosslingual knowledge transfer, or conceptual crosslingual knowledge barriers, challenging the assumption that universal representations and cross-linguistic transfer capabilities are inherently desirable. Moreover, they reveal conflicts of alignment policies of their developers, highlighting critical normative questions for LLM researchers and developers. The implications extend beyond technical alignment challenges, raising normative, moral-political, and metaphysical questions about the ideals underlying AI development--questions that are shared with philosophers and cognitive scientists but for which no one yet has definitive answers, inviting a multidisciplinary approach to balance the practical benefits of cross-linguistic consistency and respect for linguistic diversity.