silly question

[Elrond <grey.havens@earthling.net>]

Hi,
	I'm reading/learning the grammar book, and I just hit an aspect of
the language which isn't well-explained. It's about selma'o LA.
Let's consider the following:

le nu la djan. cmene ku cu fadni le cmene la'i djan.
(begin-named John) (is common) (in-aspect-to naming) (among (the set of
those named John) ).

In the definition of {la'i}, properties of such-defined sets are
properties of sets in general, in the particular case of the newly defined
set. Unfortunately, in my above example, which is (hopefully) grammatical
and sensible, I'm using a property (being-named john) which is commonly
not applicable to sets.
	Therefore, my question is: am I missing something in the grammar
book that makes the above bridi valid, or should I build the bridi in a
different way to mean the same thing in a proper way ?

Thanks for any enlightenment,
raph


-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/TW/MU d(+) s:- a-- C++ UL++>+$ P+ L+++>+ E- W N o? K? (!)w-- O? M V? 
PS+ !PE Y PGP+ t? 5? X++@ R? !tv b+++ DI? D+ G++ e h r(-)% y+ 
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------