I think sa= ying that a bridi marked by {ca'e} is true is a dangerous move to make, tho= ugh I can the reasoning behind it. To be sure, after the preacher say= s "I now pronounce you man and wife" (or whatever -- I like 'simxu speni' a= nd wish we had something as graceful in English), they are mutual spice and= they are because he said it and weren't before (actually, I don't know of = any system where this is literally true, for all we keep using this example= . In the US, they aren't mutual spice until the paper is signed for s= tate recognized marriages and, for religious-only commitments, they are alr= eady and the church merely acknowledges and blesses. But facts aside,= sticking with tradition). The crucial thing about such a sentence is= that the utterance (in proper context, of course) creates a societally determined set of expectations, rights, and duties for the coup= le and everyone else in the society. On this version of {ca'e} (which= I don't quite see how connected to the last one), the role of the sentence= is to specify what sort of cloud of societal norms are generated. "c= a'e You are sentenced to serve 5 - 7 years in the state pen" creates anothe= r set. In the one case, they are mutual spice, in the other, they are= sentenced. But saying the claim is true seems odd. I think, pe= rhaps, it is the problem of the exact start or end of an event: is the runn= er running just when he begins, before he has actually taken a stride? = ; I suspect there are some nasty problems here (and I suspect Austen dealt = with some of them and I have forgotten what he said).

From:= Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 = 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: [= lojban] {.au}/{djica}=3D{.ai}/{?}. No gismu for intention

On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 8:49 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.= com> wrote:
> Interesting read on {ca'e}; where does it come f= rom?

CLL:
<<
A bridi marked by =93ca'e=94 is true becaus= e the speaker says so. In
addition to definitions of words, =93ca'e=94 i= s also appropriate in what
are called performatives, where the very act = of speaking the words
makes them true. An English example is =93I now pr= onounce you husband
and wife=94, where the very act of uttering the word= s makes the
listeners into husband and wife. A Lojban translation might = be:

11.1) ca'e le re do cu simxu speni
= [I define!] The two of-you are-mutual spouses.
>>

> I = agree that {zukte}, as it stands, does little for intentionally, but, as> you note, that has little to do with intending to do something. I'm not
> sure (and philosophers as a group aren't = either, never mind individuals with
> very definite ideas) just what = is needed, as, perhaps, for a modifier
> "intentionally" left otherwi= se undefined.

I don't really see a problem with using the same word = for the stance
one has while performing an action (intentionally) and th= e stance one
has prior to performing it (intend to). The tense takes car= e of
distinguishing the two cases, since in one case the intention issimultaneous with the action and in the other it is prior to it. But
we= don't yet have such a gismu in Lojban.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- <= br>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group= s "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban= @googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more = options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.=

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--1009959307-487351838-1344742581=:28160--