[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] ca'e

At 08:54 PM 03/03/2001 +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:

la pycyn cusku di'e

>{ca'e} is an evidential, meaning "on the evidence of my definition" or
>however you want to put it.  In particular, it does not *claim* something
>as a definition any more than {za'a} means that I am seeing it now.

I'm never sure how to make any sense of {ca'e}. By definition
of what? If I say:

   ca'e ro mlatu cu danlu
   By definition, every cat is an animal.

Does that speak to the definition of {mlatu}? of {danlu}?
of both? of neither? Is it a statement about cats and animals
or about the words "mlatu" or "danlu"? Does the statement
(in Lojban) have any meaning?
My intent was to have it be somewhat similar to ru'a for a postulate, but focussed more on semantically restricting or defining the terms in use. I could also imagine it to be used to "define" a "possible world". ru'a on the other hand, I would use for assumptions about the real world that I may or may not have evidence for, but want to dispense with the epistemological problems associated with the claim.
An example: Many libertarians claim that government has a monopoly on "coercion". This seems to hinge more on the definitions of "government" and on "coercion" and on "monopoly", though they seem to state it more as an assumption than as a definition. I would insist on ca'e because it points out that there is a semantics issue that is being shoved under the rug (the concepts in question are not part of the place structure of "government").
On the other hand, "I assume that my daughter is at home" because she said she would be and is seldom late, is clearly a case for ru'a and not ca'e. 

lojbab

lojbab
--
lojbab                                             lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                    703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 http://www.lojban.org