Subject: Re: [lojban] Introduction, and zutse/se sutse

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 00:18:37

la pycyn cusku di'e

>{ka'e} is glossed in terms of potentiality "is
>inherently capable of."

The problem with this gloss is that it seems to be biased
towards the x1 of the relationship. {ka'e broda} is a
relationship. Does it mean that x1 is inherently capable of
entering the relationship, or does it mean that x1, x2, x3...
are each inherently capable of entering the relationship?

I can understand a lujvo meaning "x1 is inherently capable
of x2", maybe that's what {se jinzi} means, but it is more
difficult to understand that gloss for a selbri modifier.

>Now obscure as that is in itself (is, to cite a
>frequent example here, a person born blind, without optic nerves say,
>inherently capable of seeing because he is human?)

Also, is a tree inherently capable of being seen by the blind?

Possibility makes more sense as a function for {ka'e}.
Potentiality seems more like a property of a sumti than
of a bridi.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp