Re: "x1 is a Y for doing x2" (was: RE: Re: antiblotation (was: RE: taksi

["Stefan \"1of3\" Koch" <OneOfThree@gmx.net>]

Hi.

Craig (??) wrote:
> I think a taksi, like a taxi, is a vehicle for transporting people.
> Thus, it taksi if it is carrying me to my destination, looking for a
> fare, or parked in the garage while its owner sleeps. In fact, if
> business is slow and it has never had a fare, and the cabbie is not
> persistent so it never will have a fare, I'd say it can *still* be a
> taxi. But if I buy the cab off of em and use it as a more normal karce,
> it has mo'u taksi. Of course, all of this assumes we decide that taxi is
> gismu-worthy, which I certainly don't buy. But it applies equally well to
> lo taksike or whatever lujvo you come up with.

and And. wrote:
> Certainly you are correct for any brivla that translates the word
> "taxi" in English and other languages. So setting aside whether
> there should be another brivla meaning "x1 is a taxi1 carrying
> passenger x2 for fare x3", we can say that there is a demonstrable
> need for a brivla meaning "x1 is a taxi2 *FOR* carrying passenger x2
> for fare x3". (...)

na'isai ;)

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.

mu'omi'e ctefan.