jan_Lope wrote:If you give me an example we can discuss it.
tan jan seme la sina pu? (the example given by Tepan)
kepeken ilo sitelen la jan li ken sitelen lon lipu. (I made that up)
Can you claim those are wrong examples? Just because it's said the words after "lon" can be placed before "la" with the same meaning, it doesn't mean that is the only case of "la" phrase besides a whole sentence (the case with tenpo is considered to be of the "lon" type). Can't you at least see that "sina pu tan seme?" (why do you pu?) is more probable and simpler than "sina pu lon tan seme?" (do you pu in what cause? (?))? The latter doesn't make sense, is complicated and we aren't granted that "tan" can be a noun.
jan_Lope wrote:As I wrote "tan" can be an adjective, a noun, a preposition or a intransitive verb depends of it position in a sentence with equal rights. There are no "original meaning".
No, it can't. No line in the book Sonja wrote states that possibility. It only says "tan" is a preposition and nothing more.
jan_Lope wrote:You said "tan" can here a preposition also. But what is the rule of this additional rule?
I didn't add a rule. It's stated in the book that "tan" is a preposition only and that particle "la" connects two sentences or a fragment to a sentence. Since a preposition with its object is indeed a fragment of a sentence, and not a whole sentence or not out of toki pona, then it's legitimate to understand it as such. You added the rules that prepositions can be other POS's and that before "la" can only be a noun or noun phrase.
jan_Lope wrote:jan Alanto wrote:it was mentioned nowhere that:
a) before "la" can't go a preposition,
I didn't wrote that. If a complete sentence before "la" a preposition can be in a prepositional object in the verb phrase of this sentence.
pona... Let me rectify that: a) before "la" can't be a preposition
alone with its object.
jan_Lope wrote:jan Alanto wrote:b) prepositions only occur at the end of a sentence (It's said that it can be, unrestrictively) and
Please give an example.
"tan seme la soweli wawa pimeja li moku e ona?" (p. 52). But you made up a rule that it is a noun here.
jan_Lope wrote:After a noun "tan" is an adjective.
Now, you owe me an example. According to your rule, it surely is. But what about Sonja's?
jan_Lope wrote:What you mean with "changes of POS"?
A word that is of a certain part of speech (POS, in toki pona: adjective, noun, number, particle, preposition, pre-verb,and verb), becoming another, for example, a noun can be turned into a verb, according to Lesson 18 (but maybe they remain nouns, just used the same way as verbs).
jan_Lope wrote:Direct after "li" can only be slots for verbs, adjectives or nouns because after "li" starts a verb phrase.
That contradicts Lesson 8, which states a preposition can indeed be used without a verb, for example "kulupu pali li kepeken seme?" (p.35) You must see clearly that there is a preposition immediately after "li". Is it the verb "kepeken" with an adjective qualifying it as "seme"? The translation implies that "seme" is what is used, so for it to be a verb (a word that expresses action done to a noun) shouldn't it be followed by "e" "kulupu pali li kepeken e seme?"?
I could keep using pu to refute your rule that before "la" can't go a preposition, but you don't follow Sonja's book as I thought initially. I then, owe you no explanation on the usage of a preposition in the beginning of a "la" phrase, neither does Tepan, as our usage is supported by The Book and your rule prohibiting it is not.