Message-Id: <199501292020.AA27151@nfs2.digex.net>
Date:         Sun, 29 Jan 1995 20:18:33 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject:      Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Sat, 28 Jan 95 18:08:38 MST.)
Status: RO

Chris:
> >I'm rather baffled about what the link between "I define" and creating
> >a performative can be.
> Well, "I define" isn't quite right but there really is no English equivalent
> phrase which changes a statement into a performative.

"I define" is not only not quite right but quite wrong. I had hitherto
imagined it meant {cahe} was an UI for marking the defining of terms,
as in academic discussion.

> >Yes, you can claim it is false, and this is exactly the problem.
> >"Julius Caesar hereby commands/commanded you to go away" is false.
> If we were to assume that ca'e is NOT "hereby", but truly makes a
> performative, it'll be tricky to extract a useful meaning from: "ca'e la
> djuliys siz,r ca minde lenu do to'omo'i klama"; it's a silly sentence, but
> my guess about the interpretation would be that the speaker is thereby
> redefining their personal ideolect such that that statement is true, by
> stretching the meaining of "minde" in some unspecified way.

I am inclined to agree with you. If {cahe} does indeed work as you
report, then it can be defined as marking that the utterance is
true by virtue of being uttered, such that the indication of truth
replaces the implicit indication of illocutionary force.
Thus, rather than

   asserted(dei): mi minde lenu do klama

{cahe mi minde lenu do klama} would yield

   true(dei): mi minde lenu do klama

---
And