| The biggest problem I see with this proposal -- aside from its being
unnecessary because it is a response to frivolous quibbles -- is that it makes no sense. {ka} and {du'u} are part of the same spectrum (and, indeed, seem now to have become identical up to linguistic conventions, which is OK by me) of semantic functions, while {si'o} belongs with {nu} and {li'i} as concrete real world (whatever that may be) events. Ideas (with one range of exceptions to be dealt with in some detail elsewhere eventually) are mental events in particular people minds, like experiences, and, to a lesser extent, events. These are the realities to which the semantic objects refer (better make that "defer") in various ways. To put {si'o} in with {ka} is either to make all thought abstract and impersonal or all semantics concrete and personal, neither very useful ideas in the long run (monism or solipsism). |