RE: [jboske] unresolved debates

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

Jordan:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:13:26PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > xorxes:
> [...]
> > > >3. CAhA, da'i, mu'ei etc 
> > > 
> > > ka'e = su'omu'ei
> > > ca'a = <this>mu'ei
> > > nu'o = ka'e jenai ca'a
> > > pu'i = ?
> > 
> > So we are in agreement that "is innately capable" is a mis-gloss
> > of {ka'e}? You, me, Adam and, I see, Jordan seem to be. I.e. it
> > means {cumki} more than {kakne} 
> 
> Eh? I think it *is* kakne. I see {su'omu'ei} as a reasonable
> explaination of what kakne means (there's probably a different (more
> restricted) accessability relation going on than for cumki though) 
> Or actually su'oba'oi would be better, no?

I had supposed that "i kakne play the trombone" is false but
"cumki I play the trombone" is true, under average assumptions.
I don't see a difference between cumki and su'o mu'ei/ba'oi. 
So either cumki is equivalent to kakne or else either ka'e is
not equivalent to kakne or ka'e is not equivalent to su'o mu'ei.

I'm a bit hazy about what exactly kakne and "innately capable"
mean, though.

--And.