Re: ka'e

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

>>What makes me uncomfortable is its seemeingly extreme
>>subjectivity.
>
>Is there something wrong with subjectivity?

Not with subjectivity in itself. I'm uncomfortable with {ka'e} being
defined in such a subjective manner that I can't tell what it means.
I don't understand how {lo remna ka'e vofli} can be false while
{lo remna ca'a vofli} is true.

>>And if making human fly is not an innate property of planes, then I don't
>>know what is.
>
>Indeed.  And I have no problem with lo remna ka'e vofli  lo vinji - I just
>don't think thatis part of the in-mond set of x2s when x2 is elliptical.

Well, that's what you think. How do I know in general whether a ka'e
statement is true? Do I have to ask you what are the natural in-mind set
of ellipticals?

 >Surely we can talk of properties of functions?

Yes, of course. {le ka ckaji ce'u} is the property of being a property.
{le ka la rik la alis zmadu ce'u} is the property of being what Rick
exceeds Alice at, and so on.

>People ka'e walk on sidewalks
 >
>ka'e seems to be useful mostly in making statements of generalities of this
>sort.

It should be noted that {ka'e} has been used with a more general meaning,
not only for generalities.

{ka'e broda} in usage often means {cumki fa le nu broda} rather
than {jizbri fa le du'u broda}.

co'o mi'e xorxes