RE: [lojban] Re: "x1 is a Y for doing x2" (was: RE: Re: antiblotation (was: RE: taksi

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

Stefan:
> Craig (??) wrote:
> > I think a taksi, like a taxi, is a vehicle for transporting people 
> > Thus, it taksi if it is carrying me to my destination, looking for a
> > fare, or parked in the garage while its owner sleeps. In fact, if
> > business is slow and it has never had a fare, and the cabbie is not
> > persistent so it never will have a fare, I'd say it can *still* be a
> > taxi. But if I buy the cab off of em and use it as a more normal karce,
> > it has mo'u taksi. Of course, all of this assumes we decide that taxi is
> > gismu-worthy, which I certainly don't buy. But it applies equally well to
> > lo taksike or whatever lujvo you come up with 
> 
> and And. wrote:
> > Certainly you are correct for any brivla that translates the word
> > "taxi" in English and other languages. So setting aside whether
> > there should be another brivla meaning "x1 is a taxi1 carrying
> > passenger x2 for fare x3", we can say that there is a demonstrable
> > need for a brivla meaning "x1 is a taxi2 *FOR* carrying passenger x2
> > for fare x3". (...)
> 
> na'isai ;)
> 
> As somebody said: brivla are not tense specific. This also means that 
> brivla are not specific concerning CA'A. So even if a taxi never had a 
> passenger it is "innately capable" (= {ka'e}) of having one and is 
> therefore a taxi. So what you want is already there 

The point about unspecified tense and CAhA-modality is a red-herring
as annoying as it is frequent. "ko'a broda" expresses a truth-evaluable
proposition only once the tense and modality has been added. So when,
in discussing Lojban, we ask "Is {ko'a broda} true?" or "Is ko'a a
broda?", we take for granted a given tense and modality.

If we really have to go to the effort of preempting the red-herring
then replace all occurrences of "taxi" by "ca ca'a taxi".

As for the ka'e taxi, the semantics of CAhA are currently unclear; 
it is something the BF will need to rule on. It is by no means 
established that the "innately capable" gloss is consistent with
the rest of what is said about CAhA. (The alternative interpretation
of "ka'e" is, roughly, "could be/could have been".) Still, whichever
meaning {ka'e} has, I don't think "that which is innately capable
of being a taxi carrying a passenger for a fare" or "that which 
could be/could have been a taxi carrying a passenger for a fare" 
is an adequate rendition of English "taxi". It is far too broad.
There is no escaping the purposive element of "for" in the sense
of words like "taxi" and "knife". That is, these are categories
partly defined by their purposes.

--And.