Re: ka'e

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Lojbab:
> I wrote:
> >"pu'i" means that it has happened, and that it can happen again.
> >"nu'o" means that it hasn't happened, but could happen once or more times.
> >"ca'a" means that it is now happening, but says nothing about any
 potentiality
> >for happening at some other time.
> >"ka'e" says thatit can happen, but has not necessarily happened at any time.
>
> Thinking over what I said about the meanings of CAhA cmavo, and seeing
> that Jorge wrote a few days ago that ca'a implied ka'e, I want to opine
> that in general we would use ka'e to talk about innate capabilities of
> the sort that can manifest themselves without substantial alteration of
> their nature.
>
> We would not say that "lo remna ka'e vofli" even if we
> define that what someone does in an airplane or even more limitedly, a
> human propelled airplane is "flying".  It is not in the innate nature of
> humans to fly, but takes something external to make it possible, and we
> might say that "lo remna ca'a vofli (sepi'o lo vinji)".
>
> This is a restriction on the meaning I stated above for ka'e, since not
> everything that can happen can do so by the nature of the relationship
> or its participants.
>
> ca'a thus seems totally orthogonal in meaning to the other members of
> CAhA.

So pu`i and nu`o are also to do with innate capability?

In this case, I wonder why it was relevant to point out that
technically {lo nu} can be {lo ka`e nu} as well as {lo ca`a nu}.
In actual usage, {lo nu} is used for hypothetical events that
may never actually occur. {da poi ke`a ka`e nu} does not mean
that; it means "something which is innately capable of actually
being an event", just as {da poi ke`a ka`e vofli} means
"something which is innately capable of actually being a
flyer".

--And