Somewhere in my comments here (and in a couple of other places which I can't find now), I said or implied something really dumb, namely that Verbs can't have a passive meaning in tp. The instant case was that 'len pi lukin ala' had to mean '"clothes of not seeing","blindfold", say, not ""clothes of not being seen", "cloak of invisibility" in this case. In fact, of course, the passive sense (or the related potential) is often the most common for Verbs as modifiers: 'soweli moku' is more likely and edible animal one that is eating, and the same applies pretty much across the board. Of course, the active sense (and its habitual forms) are also possible and even common.
Two factors seem to have contributed to this momentary (I hope) lapse on my part. The first is the fact that tp does not have a passive construction. There is no pattern like going from "The man hunted the duck" to "The duck was hunted by the man". Indeed, no preposition (or other word pushed into service) covers the agentive function of "by" on a regular basis. We do have, for example, 'tan' for authorship, for example, but that is about source rather than agent. And no verb form or construction regularly indicates the shifting roles of agent and patient (if that is what they are). But secondly, what we have when we consider such situations are systematic ambiguities which do not obviously lend themselves to systematic resolutions. What we can get from 'jan li alasa e waso' is both 'jan li alasa' and 'waso li alasa', from "The man hunts the duck" to "The man hunts" and "The duck is hunted" or, at least "The duck is game". But, of course, the duck hunts as well -- for minnows, say, so the issue is not immediately resolvable by knowledge of the different subjects (and remember all those thrillers about table turning beasts:"The hunter has become the hunted", which in tp is just "jan alasa li kama jan alasa" -- another case of antilogy akin to the proposal to make 'lukin' the word for "seek" 'mi lukin e ijo li lukin ala e ona' "I am looking for it but don't see it").
This problem has been known for tp from the start (does 'jan li moku' mean that he is eating or that he is food?) but has come to the fore as more detailed grammars are being constructed. Are we to take the man and the duck cases to be grammatically the same, with an ambiguous word at its core or are we to take them as grammatically different (Subject/Verb and Subject/Modifier(or Noun)) with homonymous insertions. The story so far seems to be of Nicene complexity, involving the same word but different roles and the roles treated in a variety of ways.
Sorry to have gone on like this. This apologize seems to have become the outline of the first draft of an essay. But back to the point. Sorry for my comment; your line was pefectly fine, just stepping into a mare's nest.