From lojbab@lojban.org Sun Mar 04 06:56:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 4 Mar 2001 14:56:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 36405 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2001 14:56:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Mar 2001 14:56:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-2.cais.net) (205.252.14.72) by mta3 with SMTP; 4 Mar 2001 15:58:00 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (dynamic194.cl8.cais.net [205.177.20.194]) by stmpy-2.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f24EurW59121; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 09:56:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010304095027.00be0100@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 10:00:53 -0500 To: "Jorge Llambias" , lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] ca'e In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" 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