Robin's and Nick's lessons

[Arnt Richard Johansen <arntrich@stud.ntnu.no>]

I think that Nick's explanation of potentialities (ka'e, nu'o, pu'i and
ca'a) in chapter 12 of the lessons is wrong.

While the lessons say that "ka'e" is equivalent to "kakne" and "can", the
Grammar (chapter 10) states quite clearly that the meaning of "ka'e" is a
sense of potentiality that (to me, at least) seems to be purely
Aristotelian.  Quoting from the draft: 

	"[la djan. ka'e viska] might be true about a human being named John, 	even
though he has been blind since birth, because the ability to see is
innately built into his nature as a human being. It is theoretically
possible that conditions might occur that would enable John to see (a
great medical discovery)."

According to my intuition, both the sentences "la djan. kakne le nu viska"
and "John can see" precludes the possibility that John is blind.

Perhaps one should reconsider whether covering potentialities in a beginner
level course is a good idea after all?
-- 
Arnt Richard Johansen      | Hvis du synes *jeg* er apeaktig, skulle
http://people.fix.no/arj/  | du sett forfedrene mine!
arj@fix.no                 |