From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Wed Nov 14 09:01:42 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 14 Nov 2001 17:01:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 55001 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2001 17:01:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Nov 2001 17:01:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Nov 2001 17:01:42 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:37:54 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:13:54 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:13:38 +0000 To: pycyn , lojban Subject: ka'e (was: Re: [lojban] Introduction, and zutse/se sutse Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin >>> 11/13/01 09:55pm >>> #arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: [...] #> I think your answer is misleading. If {ca'a} is sometimes glossed as=20 #> "really is" (or some equivalent expression), then it is misleading to #> gloss {lo broda} as "that which really is broda", since {lo broda} #> can mean not only {lo ca'a broda} but also {lo ka'e broda}. #>=20 #> Further, it is possible to talk about {lo pavyseljirna} with a straight = face #> even outside Forbidden Forest contexts, so long as {lo pavyseljirna} #> is interpreted as {lo ka'e pavyseljirna} and not as {lo ca'a pavyseljirn= a}. #> lo'i ca'a pavyseljirna is the set of all unicorns in the real world, so = is #> empty, unless the locally real world is potterian or suchlike, while #> lo'i ka'e pavyseljirna is the set of all unicorns in any of a contextual= ly- #> determined set of not-necessarily-real worlds, so is nonempty. # #I think that there are a number of muddles going on here and I am=20 #not sure that I have all of them (or even the main ones) sorted out yet.=20 #The most obvious one is that between possibility and potentiality and that= =20 #seems at the heart of things. {ka'e} is glossed in terms of potentiality = "is=20 #inherently capable of."=20=20 Here's my take on this. 1. ka'e expands the world to include a contextually-determined range of possible worlds. Often, the context will determine a range that amounts to the class of potential worlds. Hence "potentiality" is a typical and common subcase of the basic meaning of "ka'e". 2. The "innately capable of" is open to the objection raised by Jorge -- that it wrongly privileges one sumti. 3. My reasons for holding (1) are: a. it makes sense & fills a gap that needs filling (the "Holmes is a detective" gap) b. discussion on this list (the last time ka'e/ca'a were discussed) c. actual usage, not so much of overt ka'e, but with implied ka'e modifying nu ("le/lo (ka'e) nu"). #Now obscure as that is in itself (is, to cite a=20 #frequent example here, a person born blind, without optic nerves say,=20 #inherently capable of seeing because he is human?) it is clearly different= =20 #from possibility, which (depending on what of several kinds is intended)=20 #takes in a range of cases that go beyond the inherent capabilities of the= =20 #things involved (it is possible that I fly on my own power, for example). = =20 I think this distinction is to be glorked from context, and, if made explic= it, to be rendered by a brivla for "is potential". #And is correct that Lojban gismu are basically about {ka'e}, not {ca'a} an= d=20 #so that when we say {lo broda} refers to things that really are broda, tha= t=20 #"really are" is about potentials.=20=20 Maybe. Alternatively, the meaning of {lo broda} simply can't be established until it has been glorked whether {lo ka'e broda} or {lo ca'a broda} is meant. #But the issue of possibles -- which is the matter of "other worlds" -- is = a=20 #different one (at least a broader one -- you can argue that potentials=20 #areabout acertain very restricted kind of possible worlds, though it's har= der=20 #to define them than to deal with potential by other means). Thus, outside= of=20 #worlds where unicorns are real or, at least, potential, lo'i (ka'e)=20 #pavyseljirna is empty. The fact that it is possible for old Bessy, my whi= te=20 #horse, to have gold horn in the middle of her forehead does not make her a= =20 #potential unicorn (see the B&B goat of a few years back). We seem to agree. --And.