taxis & purposes (was: RE: Digest Number 1759

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

Nick:
> >    From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
> > 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.