Re: [lojban] {.au}/{djica}={.ai}/{?}. No gismu for intention

I think saying that a bridi marked by {ca'e} is true is a dangerous move to make, though I can the reasoning behind it. To be sure, after the preacher says "I now pronounce you man and wife" (or whatever -- I like 'simxu speni' and 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 state recognized marriages and, for religious-only commitments, they are already 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 couple 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. "ca'e You are sentenced to serve 5 - 7 years in the state pen" creates another 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, perhaps, it is the problem of the exact start or end of an event: is the runner 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 Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {.au}/{djica}={.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 from?

CLL:
<<
A bridi marked by “ca'e” is true because the speaker says so. In
addition to definitions of words, “ca'e” is also appropriate in what
are called performatives, where the very act of speaking the words
makes them true. An English example is “I now pronounce you husband
and wife”, where the very act of uttering the words 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 otherwise undefined.

I don't really see a problem with using the same word for the stance
one has while performing an action (intentionally) and the stance one
has prior to performing it (intend to). The tense takes care of
distinguishing the two cases, since in one case the intention is
simultaneous 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

--
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@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.