From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Mon Jun 02 15:43:05 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 91411 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2003 22:43:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Jun 2003 22:43:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lmsmtp01.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.111) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Jun 2003 22:43:03 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-58-253.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.58.253]) by lmsmtp01.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B22341E78C for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 00:43:01 +0200 (MEST) To: Subject: taxis & purposes (was: RE: Digest Number 1759 Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:43:01 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 20046 Nick: > > From: "And Rosta" > > Stefan: > > >> As somebody said: brivla are not tense specific. This also means that > >> brivla are not specific concerning CA'A. So even if a taxi never had a > >> passenger it is "innately capable" (= {ka'e}) of having one and is > >> therefore a taxi. So what you want is already there > > > As for the ka'e taxi, the semantics of CAhA are currently unclear; > > it is something the BF will need to rule on. It is by no means > > established that the "innately capable" gloss is consistent with > > the rest of what is said about CAhA. (The alternative interpretation > > of "ka'e" is, roughly, "could be/could have been".) Still, whichever > > meaning {ka'e} has, I don't think "that which is innately capable > > of being a taxi carrying a passenger for a fare" or "that which > > could be/could have been a taxi carrying a passenger for a fare" > > is an adequate rendition of English "taxi". It is far too broad > > There is no escaping the purposive element of "for" in the sense > > of words like "taxi" and "knife". That is, these are categories > > partly defined by their purposes > > Kibbitzing where I have no business being: any car is innately capable > of becoming a taxi, so that isn't what you want after all. I don't > think the point is purpose, either, so much as conventional > association: a car which announces its availability for hire in a > culturally agreed on way I'd have thought that if a car announces its availability for hire then it is announcing that its purpose -- its intended function -- is that it be hired. Maybe you're reading too much into "purpose"? --And.