Re: ka'e

[JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

Lojbab:
>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.

The problem I see with this is that it seems to rely on the innate
capabilities of the x1sumti only.

>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".

Would you say {lo remna ka'e cadzu}? Wouldn't it depend on what
goes in the x2 place? For example, a sidewalk may be something
innately walkable by humans, but a frozen lake is not anymore
innately walkable by humans than a human is innately capable
of flying in an airplane, is it? Actually I'm not sure whether it is or
not. I'm not comfortable with the concept of innateness. Is a
sidewalk innately walkable by ants, for example?

>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.

The problem is how do you decide whether a relationship holds
"by nature" or by some other reason.

>ca'a thus seems totally orthogonal in meaning to the other members of
>CAhA.

Which in itself is kind of weird. There is then no CAhA to mean
"possibly" as oposed to "actually"?

co'o mi'e xorxes