Lon as adjective (was "TP vs. the Conlang Test Case Challenge")

Archives from the old Yahoo! group
Arĥivoj de la malnova Yahoo!-grupo
Locked
frpeterjackson

Lon as adjective (was "TP vs. the Conlang Test Case Challenge")

Post by frpeterjackson »

> > Set 2, 16. The CEO of IBM is the spouse of someone> > present.> > TP: jan suli pi kulupu IBM li jan olin pi jan lon.> > En: Big person of group called IBM is the SO of> > somebody present.> > I've never seen lon used as an adjective.>> The sprung from a discussion (on the list or on IRC? I> forget) about improvising <lon> as a noun meaning "place".> Given that, plus the verb meaning "to be present" from the> dictionary, I generalized it to the adjective.>> > The TP dictionary doesn't mention that it can be used as such.>> Sonja mentioned that the parts of speech in TP are rather fluid> and driven by context, as in Chinese, and if <tawa> can mean "go",> "toward", and "movement"...>> > Not exactly sure how I might fix the sentence, though.>> <...pi jan lon ni> "of someone at this"?>I agree that "lon" can function as an adjective (or "modifier", asmama pi TP calls it). All of the other prepositions (kepeken, sama,tan, tawa) can function as adjectives, so why not "lon"? Thegrammatical categories used in the official word list are more anorientation for European lang. speakers than an insight into theactual nature of TP. The word list itself defines "prep." as "quasi-preposition". A better designation might be interjections (a, mu),pronouns, (mi, sina, ona, ni), particles, (pi, la, li, e, o),conjunctions (en, anu) and substantives (or OTHER), that is,everything else, most of which can function as nouns, verbs,modifiers and even (in limited cases) prepositions. The only anomalyleft, then, would be "kin", which cannot function as a noun or verbas far as I know. (Anyone got an ideas on this?)As a "verb" then, "lon" means "be there, be present, be real/true,exist, be awake". The only trouble is that as an adjective it canmean too much, since it can mean not only "present", but "real"and "true", as well.Mi akordas ke "lon" povas funkcii kiel adjektivo (aux a-vorto, kielmama pi TP gxin nomas). Cxiuj aliaj prepozicioj (kepeken, sama, tan,tawa) povas funkcii kiel adjektivoj. Cxar ne do "lon"? La gramatikajkategorioj uzitaj en la fundamenta vortaro. La vortaro memdifinas "prep." kiel "kvazauxprepozicio". Eble estus pli bonakategoriigi la vortojn kiel interjekcioj, pronomoj, eroj (dividiloj),konjunkcioj kaj substantivoj (aux ALIAJ), nome, cxiu plu, laplejparto da kiu povos funkcii kiel o-vortoj, verboj, a-vortoj, kajecx (en restriktitaj kazoj) prepozicioj. La sola anomalio restota doestus "kin", kiu ne pova funkcii kiel o- aux a-vorto. (Kion viopinias?)Kiel verbo do, "lon" signifas "ĉeesti, esti tie, veri, ekzisti, estiveka". La sola gxeno estas ke kiel adjektivo gxi povas signifi troe,cxar gxi povas signifi ne nure "cxeestanta" sed ankaux "reala"kaj "vera".jan Pita
Locked