Vici de LFN - Recent changes [en]

User:Leili1787

Leili1787 — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:50:26 GMT

New user account

New page

Forum:Azores & Madeira

187.42.139.185 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:57:38 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:57, November 20, 2009
Line 8:		Line 8:
	*Madeira debe es Madera. Me ia ajunta el a la lista de [[Isola]]s. Me ia cambia "Azores" a "Asores" en la mesma lista.		*Madeira debe es Madera. Me ia ajunta el a la lista de [[Isola]]s. Me ia cambia "Azores" a "Asores" en la mesma lista.
	*:Per ce Madeira debe es Madera? En la lingua portuges, se nom es Made'''i'''ra. [[User:Malafaya\|Malafaya]] 23:17, November 17, 2009 (UTC)		*:Per ce Madeira debe es Madera? En la lingua portuges, se nom es Made'''i'''ra. [[User:Malafaya\|Malafaya]] 23:17, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
		+	**"Madera" car no ave la ditongo "ei" en elefen. "Madeira" sinifia "lenio" ce es "madera" en espaniol e ance pronunsiada tal usual en Brasil. [[User:Patrick Chevin\|Patric]]

Forum:Sujestas (Simon)

Simon Davies — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:49:09 GMT

responde

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:49, November 20, 2009
Line 190:		Line 190:

	[[File:Examples1.jpg]]		[[File:Examples1.jpg]]
		+
		+	* These are an excellent way of illustrating the semantics, but they fail to capture the syntax. As you said yourself, semantics isn't linear. But syntax is. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]

Forum:Sujestas (Simon)

Cgboeree — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:09:20 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:09, November 20, 2009
Line 183:		Line 183:
	**Some exclamations have the form of arguments; others have the form of predicates. Is this a problem? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Some exclamations have the form of arguments; others have the form of predicates. Is this a problem? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	***no.		***no.
		+
		+
		+	Some examples:
		+
		+	[[File:Examples2.jpg]]
		+
		+	[[File:Examples1.jpg]]

File:Examples2.jpg

Cgboeree — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:06:52 GMT

uploaded "[[File:Examples2.jpg]]"

New page

User:Cgboeree/sandbox2

Cgboeree — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:15:40 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:15, November 20, 2009
Line 9:		Line 9:
	***'''Common''' ''(boy)'': A word which refers to a category of things or persons.		***'''Common''' ''(boy)'': A word which refers to a category of things or persons.
	***'''Abstract noun''' ''(motherhood)'': A word, derived from a noun, but used to name the concept. Could be viewed as an abbreviated version of, for example, "being a mother" or "to be a mother". (See ''nominal adjective'', below)		***'''Abstract noun''' ''(motherhood)'': A word, derived from a noun, but used to name the concept. Could be viewed as an abbreviated version of, for example, "being a mother" or "to be a mother". (See ''nominal adjective'', below)
-	***'''Pronoun''' ''(he)'': A word which indicates a thing or person previously referred to or obvious to all involved in the communication, such as the speaker, the listener, nearby people or objects, etc. Some pronouns are also used as subjunctions to introduce a subordinated predicate ("the man ''who'' fell to earth"). (See ''subjunction'' below)	+	***'''Pronoun''' ''(he)'': A word which indicates a thing or person obvious to all involved in the communication, such as the speaker, the listener, nearby people or objects, etc.
		+

	*'''Argument-as-predicate''' (apposition: "''saint'' John", "Mississippi ''river''"): A noun qualifying another, more specific, noun. can be viewed as a reduced subordinate predication ("John, ''who is'' a saint").		*'''Argument-as-predicate''' (apposition: "''saint'' John", "Mississippi ''river''"): A noun qualifying another, more specific, noun. can be viewed as a reduced subordinate predication ("John, ''who is'' a saint").
		+

	*'''Predicate''': A predicate is a word that modifies an argument or connects two arguments, modifying one or both. Typically, it involves an action, state, or quality. Predicates come in several '''valences''' ("places"), indicated the number of arguments it takes. (Note that there may be pro-forms for these, similar to pronouns.)		*'''Predicate''': A predicate is a word that modifies an argument or connects two arguments, modifying one or both. Typically, it involves an action, state, or quality. Predicates come in several '''valences''' ("places"), indicated the number of arguments it takes. (Note that there may be pro-forms for these, similar to pronouns.)
	**'''Verb''':		**'''Verb''':
-	***'''Avalent verb''' [Zero-place predicate - "it is ''raining''", "it is ''snowing''"): An occurrence, event, happening, which does not specifically involve an argument. Commonly, languages will add an "empty" pronoun and/or verb.	+	***'''Avalent verb''' (Zero-place predicate - "it is ''raining''", "it is ''snowing''"): An occurrence, event, happening, which does not specifically involve an argument. Commonly, languages will add an "empty" pronoun and/or verb.
	***'''Intransitive verb''' (One-place predicate - "John ''runs''"): Typically, a modification of an argument that involves action, change, or state. Distinguished from other modifications in that it is more likely to be the main predicate of a predication.		***'''Intransitive verb''' (One-place predicate - "John ''runs''"): Typically, a modification of an argument that involves action, change, or state. Distinguished from other modifications in that it is more likely to be the main predicate of a predication.
	***'''Transitive verb''' (Two-place predicate - he ''kissed'' her): Typically an action which one argument performs and the other is affected by. Distinguished from other relations in that they are commonly used as the main predicate in a predication. These can become reduced, that is, be used with an argument left as understood or generic, e.g. "he cooked" (= "he cooked something"), "he cooks" (= "he cooks things"), which appear to be intransitive.		***'''Transitive verb''' (Two-place predicate - he ''kissed'' her): Typically an action which one argument performs and the other is affected by. Distinguished from other relations in that they are commonly used as the main predicate in a predication. These can become reduced, that is, be used with an argument left as understood or generic, e.g. "he cooked" (= "he cooked something"), "he cooks" (= "he cooks things"), which appear to be intransitive.
-	***'''Ditransitive verb''' (Three-place predication - "they ''named'' her Mary"): A relatively unusual predicate that takes three arguments. One acts as the subject of the verb, one as the object, and one in a manner specified by the meaning of the verb but not easily expressed with a preposition or other form. Some languages will insert a "dummy" preposition before one of the arguments ("they named her ''as'' Mary) or a copula ("they named her ''to be'' Mary"). Four-place predicates (tritransitive verbs) may also exist, although they are far more likely to use other modes of expression.	+	***'''Ditransitive verb''' (Three-place predication - "they ''named'' her Mary"): A relatively unusual predicate that takes three arguments. One acts as the subject of the verb, one as the object, and one in a manner specified by the meaning of the verb but not easily expressed with a preposition or other form. Some languages will insert a "dummy" preposition before one of the arguments ("they named her ''as'' Mary) or a copula ("they named her ''to be'' Mary"). I suggest that theses should be reconceptualized as transitive verbs with appostioned objects. ("they named her-Mary")
	**'''Modifiers''' (One-place predicates): A word that modifies an argument in some way, defining it more precisely or adding detail, including these traditional categories:		**'''Modifiers''' (One-place predicates): A word that modifies an argument in some way, defining it more precisely or adding detail, including these traditional categories:
	***'''Adjective''' (modifies a noun - "''big'' boy"): Typically, a modification of an argument that indicates a quality. There are many forms of adjective, including articles, demonstratives, interrogatives, quantifiers, negatives, and possessive adjectives. Often requires the use of a verb such as "to be" in order to be used as a main predicate. Note the possibility of a reduced form with argument understood or generic, such as in "the beauty" (= "the beautiful one").		***'''Adjective''' (modifies a noun - "''big'' boy"): Typically, a modification of an argument that indicates a quality. There are many forms of adjective, including articles, demonstratives, interrogatives, quantifiers, negatives, and possessive adjectives. Often requires the use of a verb such as "to be" in order to be used as a main predicate. Note the possibility of a reduced form with argument understood or generic, such as in "the beauty" (= "the beautiful one").
Line 28:		Line 29:
	***'''Subjunction''' ("I think, ''therefore'' I am"): Similar to prepositions, but used to connect a subordinate clause to an argument. Some pronouns and adverbs are also used to introduce a subordinate clause.		***'''Subjunction''' ("I think, ''therefore'' I am"): Similar to prepositions, but used to connect a subordinate clause to an argument. Some pronouns and adverbs are also used to introduce a subordinate clause.

-	*'''Predicate-as-argument''' [''nominalization'']: An action, change, state, quality, etc., treated ''as if'' it were a thing. These are often viewed as abstractions or concepts. (Note that there are pro-forms for these, often identical to pronouns.)
-	**'''Verbal noun''' ''(confession, confessing, to confess)'': A word derived from a verb (an action or state) treated as if it were a thing. Included here are infinitives, gerunds, and other verbal nouns. Verbal nouns can be used in a generic sense, referring to the entire class of actions or states ("I want to study dance"). They can also be used more specifically, referring to a particular action or class of actions ("this is a delightful dance"). (See ''intransitive verb'' and ''transitive verb'', below)
-	**'''Adjectival noun''' ''(beauty)'': A word, derived from an adjective, but used to name the concept. Could be viewed as an abbreviated version of, for example, "being beautiful" or "to be beautiful". (See ''adjective'', below)

-	*'''Predication-as-argument''' ['''clause''']: An utterance that could stand on its own as a sentence, but is used as an argument within a larger predication. We might want to include "reduced predications" here, i.e., predications which contain at least one argument: "It is hard ''to confess a sin''", "''baking cakes'' is fun", "''Bob's running'' worried his wife", "I couldn't take ''their badgering''", "''his hitting him'' was a big mistake", "it was hard for him to confess his sins", "''his confession of the crime'' didn't stand up in court". etc. [Alternative: It is the predicate within the predication that functions as an argument - i.e. "predication-as-argument" is a variation of "predicate-as-argument")	+	*'''Predicate-as-argument''' (''nominalization''): An action, change, state, quality, etc., treated ''as if'' it were a thing. These are often viewed as abstractions or concepts. (Note that there are pro-forms for these, often identical to pronouns.)
		+	**'''Verbal noun''' ''(confession, confessing, to confess)'': A word derived from a verb (an action or state) treated as if it were a thing. Included here are infinitives, gerunds, and other verbal nouns. Verbal nouns can be used in a generic sense, referring to the entire class of actions or states ("I want to study dance"). They can also be used more specifically, referring to a particular action or class of actions ("this is a delightful dance").
		+	**'''Adjectival noun''' ''(beauty)'': A word, derived from an adjective, but used to name the concept. Could be viewed as an abbreviated version of, for example, "being beautiful" or "to be beautiful".
		+
		+
		+	*'''Pro-forms''': Pro-forms are used in place of other words to indicate an argument or predicate previously defined, usually to avoid repetition. I would NOT include pronouns that point to things outside of the "text", such as "me", "you", "that", etc.
		+

	*'''Predication''' ['''sentence'''] (using a reverse Polish notation, similar to SOV languages)		*'''Predication''' ['''sentence'''] (using a reverse Polish notation, similar to SOV languages)
Line 38:		Line 36:
	**'''[a1] 1p''' - [John] runs, [boy] big, [man] working, [runs] fast		**'''[a1] 1p''' - [John] runs, [boy] big, [man] working, [runs] fast
	**'''[a1, a2] 2p''' - [he, her] kisses, [man, earth] on, [John, Mary] and		**'''[a1, a2] 2p''' - [he, her] kisses, [man, earth] on, [John, Mary] and
-	**'''[a1, a2, a3] 3p''' - [he, her, Mary] named

-	the big boy ran fast and kissed Mary on her cheek.
-
-	((((boy) big) the) ran) fast) (((he, Mary) kissed), ((cheek, her) of) on) and

	'''weight''': In any sentence, some words carry more weight than others, and "tricks" of position, affixes, etc., announce this weight. Typically, the subject noun and the verb - '''main argument''' and '''main predicate''' - carry the most weight. This is also the main difference between verbs (of whatever valence) and other predicates.		'''weight''': In any sentence, some words carry more weight than others, and "tricks" of position, affixes, etc., announce this weight. Typically, the subject noun and the verb - '''main argument''' and '''main predicate''' - carry the most weight. This is also the main difference between verbs (of whatever valence) and other predicates.
Line 49:		Line 43:

	Note that the terms "head", "noun phrase", "verb phrase", etc., are not used.		Note that the terms "head", "noun phrase", "verb phrase", etc., are not used.
		+
		+	'''Predication-as-argument''' ['''clause''']: An utterance that could stand on its own as a sentence, but is used as an argument within a larger predication. We might want to include "reduced predications" here, i.e., predications which contain at least one argument: "It is hard ''to confess a sin''", "''baking cakes'' is fun", "''Bob's running'' worried his wife", "I couldn't take ''their badgering''", "''his hitting him'' was a big mistake", "it was hard for him to confess his sins", "''his confession of the crime'' didn't stand up in court". etc. [Alternative: It is the predicate within the predication that functions as an argument - i.e. "predication-as-argument" is really "predicate-as-argument")

Forum:Sujestas (Myaleee)

Simon Davies — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:01:30 GMT

responde

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:01, November 20, 2009
Line 68:		Line 68:
	**Si on pinti un arbor (desinia el con pinta sur paper), la arbor real es la pintida, e la imaje es la... pinti? (Como "tradui", etc.) Ma si on pinti un imaje de un arbor, la imaje es la pintida, e la arbor real no ave un nom clar. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Si on pinti un arbor (desinia el con pinta sur paper), la arbor real es la pintida, e la imaje es la... pinti? (Como "tradui", etc.) Ma si on pinti un imaje de un arbor, la imaje es la pintida, e la arbor real no ave un nom clar. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	***Esce on no ta pote dise ce la imaje es pintida (como per esemplo un casa) en cuando la arbor es depintida (no es pinta sur el)? [[User:Patrick Chevin\|Patric]]		***Esce on no ta pote dise ce la imaje es pintida (como per esemplo un casa) en cuando la arbor es depintida (no es pinta sur el)? [[User:Patrick Chevin\|Patric]]
		+	***Esta es un bon idea, me pensa. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	*picture ''turned'' to the side ?		*picture ''turned'' to the side ?
	**Torseda? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Torseda? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]

Testos de Chico Buarque (Brasil)

187.77.255.148 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:17:12 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:17, November 20, 2009
Line 14:		Line 14:
	Portante destinas		Portante destinas
	Luminada de si		Luminada de si
-	Pasa prosima a me	+	Los pasa asta me
	E turba la linias		E turba la linias
	De me mano		De me mano

Forum:Sujestas (Myaleee)

187.77.255.148 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:19:56 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:19, November 20, 2009
Line 67:		Line 67:
	*pintida--painting( plu esata ce pitur) ?		*pintida--painting( plu esata ce pitur) ?
	**Si on pinti un arbor (desinia el con pinta sur paper), la arbor real es la pintida, e la imaje es la... pinti? (Como "tradui", etc.) Ma si on pinti un imaje de un arbor, la imaje es la pintida, e la arbor real no ave un nom clar. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Si on pinti un arbor (desinia el con pinta sur paper), la arbor real es la pintida, e la imaje es la... pinti? (Como "tradui", etc.) Ma si on pinti un imaje de un arbor, la imaje es la pintida, e la arbor real no ave un nom clar. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	***Esce on no ta pote dise ce la imaje es pintida (como per esemplo un casa) en cuando la arbor es depintida (no es pinta sur el)? [[User:Patrick Chevin\|Patric]]
	*picture ''turned'' to the side ?		*picture ''turned'' to the side ?
	**Torseda? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Torseda? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]

Fatos interesante

Simon Davies — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:04:48 GMT

bonis de linguaje

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:04, November 19, 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	''' Fatos interesante'''	+	'''Fatos interesante'''
	*traduida par [[User:Myaleee\|Myaleee]]		*traduida par [[User:Myaleee\|Myaleee]]
	[[image:Kangaroo.jpg\|right]]		[[image:Kangaroo.jpg\|right]]

-	*La scrivor txesce Franz Kafka no ia vole ce on ta publica se novelas. Ante se mori, el ia prea se ami Max Brod de destrui se scrivedas, e ia mori credente ce esta es ja fada. Ma Brod no ia reali la desiras de se ami. On ia publica ''The Trial'' , ''The Castle'' e ''Amerika '' pos mori de Kafka.	+	*La scrivor txesce Franz Kafka no ia vole ce on publica se novelas. Ante se mori, el ia prea se ami Max Brod destrui se scrivedas, e ia mori credente ce esta es ja fada. Ma Brod no ia reali la desiras de se ami. On ia publica ''The Trial'', ''The Castle'' e ''Amerika'' pos la mori de Kafka.

-	* Pintor fema mexican Frida Kahlo ia dise ce el ia deveni un artiste car el ia es tro anoiada de reclina a leto! A eda de 18, el ia sufri feris par asidente veculal e ia spende multe mensas per resani. Se madre ia fa desinia un cavaleta per lasa el pinti cuando reclinante sur leto!	+	*La pintor fema mexican Frida Kahlo ia dise ce el ia deveni un artiste car el ia es tro anoiada par reposa a leto! A eda de 18, el ia sufri feris en un asidente veculal e ia spende multe mensas per resani. Se madre ia fa desinia un cavaleta per lasa el pinti cuando el reclina sur leto!

-	* Un pitur suspendeda a lado ia es un de la inspiras per arte astrata. La pintor rusce Vasily Kandinsky reveni a se studio a un sera e ia es stonada par la belia de un pitur ce el no vide ja a pasada. Regardante de prosima, el ia persepi ce la pitur ia es vera se propre ma ia es poneda a lado!	+	*Un pitur suspendeda a lado ia es un de la inspiras per arte astrata. La pintor rusce Vasily Kandinsky ia reveni a se studio a un sera e ia es stonada par la belia de un pitur ce el no ia vide a ante. Regardante de prosima, el ia persepi ce la pitur ia es vera se propre ma ia es poneda a lado!

-	*Un cangaru plen matur pote salta a 13 metres! Calculas matematical ia mostra ce a rapidias plu ce 29 km/h, la bondi es un metodo enerjial produinte per move plu ce core simple!	+	*Un cangaru plen matur pote salta a 13 metres! Calculas matematical ia mostra ce a rapidias plu ce 29 km/h, la bondi es un metodo de move ce peri min enerjia ce core simple!
-	* Proportial a se grandia, la ciui produi la ovo la plu grande de algace avia! La fema pone un o du ovos, cadun pesante un cuarti de se pesa corpal!	+
-	*La impresa de dito de ursos coala es vera simil a los de umanas, con la mesma spiras, siculas, e arcos. Per evita algace confusa, la siensistes australian legal ia es avertida, en 1996, de vijila per coalas a la sena de crimin!	+	*A proportio de se grandia, la ciui produi la ovo la plu grande de cualce avia! La fema pone un o du ovos, e cadun pesa un cuatri de se pesa corpal!
		+
		+	*La impresas de dito de coalas es vera simil a los de umanas, con la mesma spiras, sirculas, e arcos. Per evita cualce confusa, en Australia en 1996, on ia averti siensistes legal ce los ta vijila per coalas a la senas de crimin!

Forum:Sujestas (Patric)

187.78.61.90 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:22:47 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:22, November 19, 2009
(3 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<!-- No sutrae esta linia, o la paje no va apare en la foro! -->{{En foro\|Conversa comunial}}		<!-- No sutrae esta linia, o la paje no va apare en la foro! -->{{En foro\|Conversa comunial}}

-	*Sur la vocales final en elefen :
-	**verbos : ( esperanto : infinitiva > i / nonreal > u )
-	***a : ama
-	***e : vide
-	***i : veni
-	***verbos de ajetivos : i (blanca > blanci)
-	**sustantivos : ( esperanto : o )
-	***verbal :
-	****a : ama
-	****e :vide
-	****i : veni
-	***nonverbal :
-	****a: stela
-	****e : lete
-	****i : zombi
-	****o : leto
-	****u : iglu
-	**partisipios : ( esperanto : adj. > a / adv. > e / sust. > o )
-	***(ad)a : pasada
-	***(ant)e : pasante
-	**ajetivos/averbos : ( esperanto : adj. > a , adv. > e )
-	***a : otra
-	***e : grande
-	***i : peti
-	***o : pico
-	***u : agu
-	**personales/posesivas : ( esperanto : i > a )
-	***e : me, se
-	***u : tu
-	**preposadas e averbos : ( esperanto: a, e, i, o, u )
-	***a : tra
-	***e : entre
-	***i : cuasi
-	***o : tro
-	***u : su

-	----	+	Nos ave ja "fonte" per "spring/fountain" ma nos nesesa ance "poso" per "well/shaft" (fr: puits, es: pozo, po: poço) La fonte pote es natural ma la poso, no... [[User:Patrick Chevin\|Patric]]
-
-	Nos ave ja "fonte" per "spring/fountain" ma nos nesesa ance "poso" per "well/shaft" (fr: puits, es: pozo, po: poço) La fonte pote es natural ma la poso, no... Patric
	*bon - ajuntada [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]		*bon - ajuntada [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]
		+
		+	En reveni sur "Bres/bresonica/Bretania", me trova ce plu bon ta es "Bret" per la pais e "breton" per la lingua/abitante...
		+	Br: Breith>Breiz/breh/brezoneg/brehoneg/breton/bretoned Fr: Bretagne/breton... [[User:Patrick Chevin\|Patric]]

User:Cgboeree/sandbox2

Cgboeree — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:09:17 GMT

Show changes

Forum:Sujestas (Myaleee)

Simon Davies — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:32:17 GMT

respondes

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:32, November 19, 2009
Line 44:		Line 44:
	**ma familiar es en dision. de lfn!		**ma familiar es en dision. de lfn!
	**"Familiar" ave plu ce un sinifia. "Familial" sinifia "pertinente a un familia". On pote parla de "ojetos familial" (ojetos ce parteni a un familia), "parolas familial" (de un spesie ce on usa sola en un familia, no con otra persones), etc. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**"Familiar" ave plu ce un sinifia. "Familial" sinifia "pertinente a un familia". On pote parla de "ojetos familial" (ojetos ce parteni a un familia), "parolas familial" (de un spesie ce on usa sola en un familia, no con otra persones), etc. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
-	**En me dision., sola ''un'' de sete sinifias de "familiar" es de familia, la otras(usa xef) es "comun" etc: familiar= 1.Often encountered or seen; common.2. Having fair knowledge; acquainted: was familiar with those roads.3. Of established friendship; intimate: on familiar terms.4. Natural and unstudied; informal: lectured in a familiar style.	+	**En me dision., sola ''un'' de sete sinifias de "familiar" es de familia, la otras(usa xef) es "comun" etc: familiar=
-	5. Taking undue liberties; presumptuous: Students should not try to be familiar in their behavior toward an instructor. '''6. Familial.''' 7. Domesticated; tame. Used of animals.	+	**#Often encountered or seen; common.
		+	*#= comun, frecuente. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	**#Having fair knowledge; acquainted: was familiar with those roads.
		+	*#= conose bon. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	**#Of established friendship; intimate: on familiar terms.
		+	*#= intima, familial. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	**#Natural and unstudied; informal: lectured in a familiar style.
		+	*#= nonformal, (familial?). [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	**#Taking undue liberties; presumptuous: Students should not try to be familiar in their behavior toward an instructor.
		+	*#= noncortes, nonrespetos, nonformal. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	**#'''Familial.'''
		+	*#= familial. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	**#Domesticated; tame. Used of animals.
		+	*#= domada. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	** Donce o sutrae "familiar" o reteni el con la sinifia usual de "reconosable" a "familial" :-)		** Donce o sutrae "familiar" o reteni el con la sinifia usual de "reconosable" a "familial" :-)
		+	*** Me acorda ce la apare de "familiar" su "familial" pote malgida. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]

	*excellent ''human engineering'' for easy setup--injenio umana		*excellent ''human engineering'' for easy setup--injenio umana
Line 56:		Line 57:
	**Torseda? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Torseda? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	**he ''turned'' his head to her: torse, verje, dirije ?		**he ''turned'' his head to her: torse, verje, dirije ?
		+	**Me pensa ce "torse" e "dirije" es bon. "Verje" sinifia "cambia se dirije cuando on move". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]

Forum:Sujestas (Myaleee)

Myaleee — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:09:50 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:09, November 19, 2009
(One intermediate revision not shown)
Line 44:		Line 44:
	**ma familiar es en dision. de lfn!		**ma familiar es en dision. de lfn!
	**"Familiar" ave plu ce un sinifia. "Familial" sinifia "pertinente a un familia". On pote parla de "ojetos familial" (ojetos ce parteni a un familia), "parolas familial" (de un spesie ce on usa sola en un familia, no con otra persones), etc. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**"Familiar" ave plu ce un sinifia. "Familial" sinifia "pertinente a un familia". On pote parla de "ojetos familial" (ojetos ce parteni a un familia), "parolas familial" (de un spesie ce on usa sola en un familia, no con otra persones), etc. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	**En me dision., sola ''un'' de sete sinifias de "familiar" es de familia, la otras(usa xef) es "comun" etc: familiar= 1.Often encountered or seen; common.2. Having fair knowledge; acquainted: was familiar with those roads.3. Of established friendship; intimate: on familiar terms.4. Natural and unstudied; informal: lectured in a familiar style.
		+	5. Taking undue liberties; presumptuous: Students should not try to be familiar in their behavior toward an instructor. '''6. Familial.''' 7. Domesticated; tame. Used of animals.
		+	** Donce o sutrae "familiar" o reteni el con la sinifia usual de "reconosable" a "familial" :-)
		+
	*excellent ''human engineering'' for easy setup--injenio umana		*excellent ''human engineering'' for easy setup--injenio umana
	**me pensa ce esta es oce, como un metafor. [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]		**me pensa ce esta es oce, como un metafor. [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]
Line 51:		Line 55:
	*picture ''turned'' to the side ?		*picture ''turned'' to the side ?
	**Torseda? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Torseda? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	**he ''turned'' his head to her: torse, verje, dirije ?

Forum:Sujestas (Myaleee)

Simon Davies — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:38:14 GMT

respondes

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:38, November 18, 2009
Line 43:		Line 43:
	**si: "ci no conose" es bon. [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]		**si: "ci no conose" es bon. [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]
	**ma familiar es en dision. de lfn!		**ma familiar es en dision. de lfn!
		+	**"Familiar" ave plu ce un sinifia. "Familial" sinifia "pertinente a un familia". On pote parla de "ojetos familial" (ojetos ce parteni a un familia), "parolas familial" (de un spesie ce on usa sola en un familia, no con otra persones), etc. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	*excellent ''human engineering'' for easy setup--injenio umana		*excellent ''human engineering'' for easy setup--injenio umana
	**me pensa ce esta es oce, como un metafor. [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]		**me pensa ce esta es oce, como un metafor. [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]
	*En me article "fatos interesante", me demanda:		*En me article "fatos interesante", me demanda:
	*pintida--painting( plu esata ce pitur) ?		*pintida--painting( plu esata ce pitur) ?
		+	**Si on pinti un arbor (desinia el con pinta sur paper), la arbor real es la pintida, e la imaje es la... pinti? (Como "tradui", etc.) Ma si on pinti un imaje de un arbor, la imaje es la pintida, e la arbor real no ave un nom clar. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	*picture ''turned'' to the side ?		*picture ''turned'' to the side ?
		+	**Torseda? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]

Forum:Sujestas (Simon)

Simon Davies — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:33:13 GMT

respondes

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:33, November 18, 2009
Line 58:		Line 58:
	****"in other words, nouns, verbs, etc. are primarily semantic" – Aha. So by "primarily" you mean "in origin", if you unwind the evolution of language far enough. I was thinking you meant even in modern languages. I'm happy to agree that syntactic arguments and predicates originated as extensions of the "natural" semantic properties of things and qualities/actions.		****"in other words, nouns, verbs, etc. are primarily semantic" – Aha. So by "primarily" you mean "in origin", if you unwind the evolution of language far enough. I was thinking you meant even in modern languages. I'm happy to agree that syntactic arguments and predicates originated as extensions of the "natural" semantic properties of things and qualities/actions.
	****I also mean in modern languages, in the sense that these concepts evolve as the child learns the language. another way of saying this: I believe that the separation of semantics and syntax into two levels of processing is highly artificial and leads to a serious misunderstanding of how language works.		****I also mean in modern languages, in the sense that these concepts evolve as the child learns the language. another way of saying this: I believe that the separation of semantics and syntax into two levels of processing is highly artificial and leads to a serious misunderstanding of how language works.
		+	****I agree: the two are clearly very much intertwined in speaker's heads. But I believe an analyst can ''model'' the syntax of a language without resorting to semantics. There's no reason why language in the mind has to agree with a scientific dissection of the language's structure – except where the linguist claims they've presenting an accurate mental model of language. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]


Line 121:		Line 122:
	***You could perhaps say "deverbal nouns", suggesting nouns made from verbs, without the unwanted implications of "verbal" itself. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		***You could perhaps say "deverbal nouns", suggesting nouns made from verbs, without the unwanted implications of "verbal" itself. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	****how about "Av"?		****how about "Av"?
		+	****Is that an A for "argument" and a V for "verbal"? "A" strongly suggests "adjective", which makes this a confusing abbreviation for me. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]


Line 142:		Line 144:

	[[File:Bigboy.jpg]]		[[File:Bigboy.jpg]]
		+
		+	*That seems to capture the semantics at an intuitive level, but I have to say it feels a bit chaotic. It doesn't seem to fully reflect your excellent analysis above in terms of arguments and predicates: the diagram contains too many different shapes. It does have the advantage of being able to indicate anaphora very clearly! [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	*Here's my attempt to fit in with your model I'm using round brackets to enclose each list of arguments, and a colon to separate a predicate/argument from its predicates. The braces enclose roles. I'm sure you can pick plenty of holes in this :-) [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+
		+	and (
		+	run: PAST, fast (
		+	boy: the, big {SUBJ}
		+	),
		+	kiss: PAST (
		+	Mary {OBJ}
		+	cheek (
		+	her = Mary {OF}
		+	) {ON}
		+	)
		+	)

Forum:Sujestas (Myaleee)

Myaleee — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:19:12 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:19, November 18, 2009
Line 31:		Line 31:
	**Me gusta. Ance "inisia multiple" per "multiboot". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Me gusta. Ance "inisia multiple" per "multiboot". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	**ambos es bon.		**ambos es bon.
-	*''all around'' printer--per tota intendes
-	**Me no conose esta espresa engles. Me dise "an all-purpose printer". La ajetivo "all-round" sinifia "en tota modos". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	* I stumble upon interesting story -- trova acaso		* I stumble upon interesting story -- trova acaso
	**Esta pare bon, o "encontra acaso"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Esta pare bon, o "encontra acaso"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
Line 44:		Line 42:
	**Esce "familial" ave esta sensa en lfn? Posable "ci no conose"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Esce "familial" ave esta sensa en lfn? Posable "ci no conose"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	**si: "ci no conose" es bon. [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]		**si: "ci no conose" es bon. [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]
		+	**ma familiar es en dision. de lfn!
	*excellent ''human engineering'' for easy setup--injenio umana		*excellent ''human engineering'' for easy setup--injenio umana
	**me pensa ce esta es oce, como un metafor. [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]		**me pensa ce esta es oce, como un metafor. [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]
		+	*En me article "fatos interesante", me demanda:
		+	*pintida--painting( plu esata ce pitur) ?
		+	*picture ''turned'' to the side ?

Fatos interesante

Myaleee — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:10:36 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:10, November 18, 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	''' Fatos interesante'''		''' Fatos interesante'''
	*traduida par [[User:Myaleee\|Myaleee]]		*traduida par [[User:Myaleee\|Myaleee]]
-	[image:Kangaroo.jpg\|right]	+	[[image:Kangaroo.jpg\|right]]

	*La scrivor txesce Franz Kafka no ia vole ce on ta publica se novelas. Ante se mori, el ia prea se ami Max Brod de destrui se scrivedas, e ia mori credente ce esta es ja fada. Ma Brod no ia reali la desiras de se ami. On ia publica ''The Trial'' , ''The Castle'' e ''Amerika '' pos mori de Kafka.		*La scrivor txesce Franz Kafka no ia vole ce on ta publica se novelas. Ante se mori, el ia prea se ami Max Brod de destrui se scrivedas, e ia mori credente ce esta es ja fada. Ma Brod no ia reali la desiras de se ami. On ia publica ''The Trial'' , ''The Castle'' e ''Amerika '' pos mori de Kafka.

File:Kangaroo.jpg

Myaleee — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:03:32 GMT

uploaded "[[File:Kangaroo.jpg]]"

New page

Fatos interesante

Myaleee — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:02:42 GMT

Created page with '''' Fatos interesante''' *traduida par ~~~ [image:Kangaroo.jpg|right] *La scrivor txesce Franz Kafka no ia vole ce on ta publica se novelas. Ante se mori, el ia prea se ami …'

New page

''' Fatos interesante'''
*traduida par [[User:Myaleee|Myaleee]]
[image:Kangaroo.jpg|right]

*La scrivor txesce Franz Kafka no ia vole ce on ta publica se novelas. Ante se mori, el ia prea se ami Max Brod de destrui se scrivedas, e ia mori credente ce esta es ja fada. Ma Brod no ia reali la desiras de se ami. On ia publica ''The Trial'' , ''The Castle'' e ''Amerika '' pos mori de Kafka.

* Pintor fema mexican Frida Kahlo ia dise ce el ia deveni un artiste car el ia es tro anoiada de reclina a leto! A eda de 18, el ia sufri feris par asidente veculal e ia spende multe mensas per resani. Se madre ia fa desinia un cavaleta per lasa el pinti cuando reclinante sur leto!

* Un pitur suspendeda a lado ia es un de la inspiras per arte astrata. La pintor rusce Vasily Kandinsky reveni a se studio a un sera e ia es stonada par la belia de un pitur ce el no vide ja a pasada. Regardante de prosima, el ia persepi ce la pitur ia es vera se propre ma ia es poneda a lado!

*Un cangaru plen matur pote salta a 13 metres! Calculas matematical ia mostra ce a rapidias plu ce 29 km/h, la bondi es un metodo enerjial produinte per move plu ce core simple!
* Proportial a se grandia, la ciui produi la ovo la plu grande de algace avia! La fema pone un o du ovos, cadun pesante un cuarti de se pesa corpal!
*La impresa de dito de ursos coala es vera simil a los de umanas, con la mesma spiras, siculas, e arcos. Per evita algace confusa, la siensistes australian legal ia es avertida, en 1996, de vijila per coalas a la sena de crimin!

Colie de articles

Myaleee — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:59:48 GMT

Divertis:

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:59, November 18, 2009
Line 13:		Line 13:
	* [[Crede o no crede]]		* [[Crede o no crede]]
	* [[Strana ma vera]]		* [[Strana ma vera]]
		+	* [[Fatos interesante]]
	* [[Sitas sitable]]		* [[Sitas sitable]]
	* [[Leges de Murphy]]		* [[Leges de Murphy]]

Forum:Sujestas (Simon)

Cgboeree — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:22:25 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:22, November 18, 2009
Line 139:		Line 139:
	****let me try again: (((((boy) big) the) ran) fast) (((he, Mary) kissed), (((cheek, her) of) on)) and)		****let me try again: (((((boy) big) the) ran) fast) (((he, Mary) kissed), (((cheek, her) of) on)) and)
	****There's still a missing open-parenthesis! I think it needs to go at the very beginning. This notation is a readability disaster area :-) I'm finding it particularly confusing to see how ((cheek, her) of) works – "of" is a predicate used as an argument of "on"? Doesn't "cheek" want to be the argument of "on", and then be modified by the predicate "of" with argument "her"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		****There's still a missing open-parenthesis! I think it needs to go at the very beginning. This notation is a readability disaster area :-) I'm finding it particularly confusing to see how ((cheek, her) of) works – "of" is a predicate used as an argument of "on"? Doesn't "cheek" want to be the argument of "on", and then be modified by the predicate "of" with argument "her"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
-	****you are right - it is too much! the big problem is that these things aren't linear.	+	****you are right - it is too much! the big problem is that these things aren't linear. How about this:
		+
		+	[[File:Bigboy.jpg]]

File:Bigboy.jpg

Cgboeree — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:21:31 GMT

uploaded "[[File:Bigboy.jpg]]"

New page

Forum:Sujestas (Simon)

Cgboeree — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:41:10 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:41, November 18, 2009
Line 57:		Line 57:
	****if I follow your meaning, yes. "arguments" and "predicates" are the basic syntactic forms. all the others are based in semantics. so a transitive verb, for example, is a word that refers to an action (or related event) that involves two other "things", which are its arguments. in the evolution of language, I am suggesting, the idea of the syntactic predicate derives first and foremost from verbs (words expressing actions) and adjectives (words expressing qualities) and the idea of the syntactic argument from noun (words expressing things). in other words, nouns, verbs, etc. are primarily semantic, and not defined by their relations to other kinds of words that surround them in a sentence. however, their semantic nature gives them the qualities of arguments and predicates, so those syntactic categories derive from semantics, but have developed a non-referential function of their own. at some point, human beings began to extend the use of verbs into argument functions and nouns into predicate functions. it seems we wanted to talk about abstractions. later still, entire sentences could be used as arguments in the form of clauses. it seems we wanted to collapse separate but related sentences into a single sentence. I'm over-explaining at this point, but I assume you get my intent.		****if I follow your meaning, yes. "arguments" and "predicates" are the basic syntactic forms. all the others are based in semantics. so a transitive verb, for example, is a word that refers to an action (or related event) that involves two other "things", which are its arguments. in the evolution of language, I am suggesting, the idea of the syntactic predicate derives first and foremost from verbs (words expressing actions) and adjectives (words expressing qualities) and the idea of the syntactic argument from noun (words expressing things). in other words, nouns, verbs, etc. are primarily semantic, and not defined by their relations to other kinds of words that surround them in a sentence. however, their semantic nature gives them the qualities of arguments and predicates, so those syntactic categories derive from semantics, but have developed a non-referential function of their own. at some point, human beings began to extend the use of verbs into argument functions and nouns into predicate functions. it seems we wanted to talk about abstractions. later still, entire sentences could be used as arguments in the form of clauses. it seems we wanted to collapse separate but related sentences into a single sentence. I'm over-explaining at this point, but I assume you get my intent.
	****"in other words, nouns, verbs, etc. are primarily semantic" – Aha. So by "primarily" you mean "in origin", if you unwind the evolution of language far enough. I was thinking you meant even in modern languages. I'm happy to agree that syntactic arguments and predicates originated as extensions of the "natural" semantic properties of things and qualities/actions.		****"in other words, nouns, verbs, etc. are primarily semantic" – Aha. So by "primarily" you mean "in origin", if you unwind the evolution of language far enough. I was thinking you meant even in modern languages. I'm happy to agree that syntactic arguments and predicates originated as extensions of the "natural" semantic properties of things and qualities/actions.
		+	****I also mean in modern languages, in the sense that these concepts evolve as the child learns the language. another way of saying this: I believe that the separation of semantics and syntax into two levels of processing is highly artificial and leads to a serious misunderstanding of how language works.


Line 91:		Line 92:
	***it can be a predicate in a predication-as-argument (clause).		***it can be a predicate in a predication-as-argument (clause).
	***That still seems to be the main predicate of a predication, just not the main predication of the sentence. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		***That still seems to be the main predicate of a predication, just not the main predication of the sentence. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	***yes.


Line 118:		Line 120:
	***yes, it is still a noun. this is me actually admitting what you were arguing all along: a verb is still a verb, even when being used AS IF it were a noun. that is why I use "argument" with three subheadings (nouns, predicates-as-arguments, and predications-as-arguments) instead. words like "verbal nouns" are misleading, of course, but "nominalized verbs" or "verbs-as-arguments" are so long.		***yes, it is still a noun. this is me actually admitting what you were arguing all along: a verb is still a verb, even when being used AS IF it were a noun. that is why I use "argument" with three subheadings (nouns, predicates-as-arguments, and predications-as-arguments) instead. words like "verbal nouns" are misleading, of course, but "nominalized verbs" or "verbs-as-arguments" are so long.
	***You could perhaps say "deverbal nouns", suggesting nouns made from verbs, without the unwanted implications of "verbal" itself. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		***You could perhaps say "deverbal nouns", suggesting nouns made from verbs, without the unwanted implications of "verbal" itself. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	****how about "Av"?


Line 127:		Line 130:
	****the semantic difference between prepositions and transitive verbs is that prepositions focus on relationship without action. verbs are relationships ''with'' action (action including change of state, or even the specific absence of a change of state). some prepositions imply action (towards, over, etc.), but the action is actually carried by a nearby verb that is modified by the preposition.		****the semantic difference between prepositions and transitive verbs is that prepositions focus on relationship without action. verbs are relationships ''with'' action (action including change of state, or even the specific absence of a change of state). some prepositions imply action (towards, over, etc.), but the action is actually carried by a nearby verb that is modified by the preposition.
	****And participial adjectives/adverbs such as "using" and "surrounding" blur the distinction. I'm not sure how you define "action" precisely enough for the distinction to be useful.		****And participial adjectives/adverbs such as "using" and "surrounding" blur the distinction. I'm not sure how you define "action" precisely enough for the distinction to be useful.
		+	*****it isn't easy, but would look something like "movement or change in an object, or a state of the object, understood as a specific lack of movement or change". with transitive verbs, it's even more complicated: "movement or change in an object that is initiated by or results in movement or change in another object, or states with similar effects."


Line 135:		Line 139:
	****let me try again: (((((boy) big) the) ran) fast) (((he, Mary) kissed), (((cheek, her) of) on)) and)		****let me try again: (((((boy) big) the) ran) fast) (((he, Mary) kissed), (((cheek, her) of) on)) and)
	****There's still a missing open-parenthesis! I think it needs to go at the very beginning. This notation is a readability disaster area :-) I'm finding it particularly confusing to see how ((cheek, her) of) works – "of" is a predicate used as an argument of "on"? Doesn't "cheek" want to be the argument of "on", and then be modified by the predicate "of" with argument "her"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		****There's still a missing open-parenthesis! I think it needs to go at the very beginning. This notation is a readability disaster area :-) I'm finding it particularly confusing to see how ((cheek, her) of) works – "of" is a predicate used as an argument of "on"? Doesn't "cheek" want to be the argument of "on", and then be modified by the predicate "of" with argument "her"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	****you are right - it is too much! the big problem is that these things aren't linear.

Forum:Sujestas (Myaleee)

Cgboeree — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:29:06 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:29, November 18, 2009
Line 24:		Line 24:
	*arte mal-- Kitsch (art that is considered an inferior, tasteless copy of an extant style of art)		*arte mal-- Kitsch (art that is considered an inferior, tasteless copy of an extant style of art)
	**Arte inferior? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Arte inferior? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	**arte inferior es plu bon. [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]
	* print ''paper document'' ?		* print ''paper document'' ?
	**Primi un article sur paper? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Primi un article sur paper? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	**me pensa ce on no nesesa ajunta "sur paper" pos "primi". ma per "paper document", on ta dise "testo a paper". [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]
	*How to ''dual-boot'' Vista and XP--inisia duple		*How to ''dual-boot'' Vista and XP--inisia duple
	**Me gusta. Ance "inisia multiple" per "multiboot". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Me gusta. Ance "inisia multiple" per "multiboot". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	**ambos es bon.
	*''all around'' printer--per tota intendes		*''all around'' printer--per tota intendes
	**Me no conose esta espresa engles. Me dise "an all-purpose printer". La ajetivo "all-round" sinifia "en tota modos". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Me no conose esta espresa engles. Me dise "an all-purpose printer". La ajetivo "all-round" sinifia "en tota modos". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	* I stumble upon interesting story -- trova acaso		* I stumble upon interesting story -- trova acaso
	**Esta pare bon, o "encontra acaso"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Esta pare bon, o "encontra acaso"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	**ambos pare bon a me. [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]
	*crime in ''broad daylight''--en lus clar de dia		*crime in ''broad daylight''--en lus clar de dia
	**Me gusta! [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Me gusta! [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	**si, bon. [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]
	*counterterrorism experts--contraterorisme		*counterterrorism experts--contraterorisme
		+	**bon. [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]
	* people aged over 60 who are ''unfamiliar'' with PC--nonfamilial		* people aged over 60 who are ''unfamiliar'' with PC--nonfamilial
	**Esce "familial" ave esta sensa en lfn? Posable "ci no conose"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Esce "familial" ave esta sensa en lfn? Posable "ci no conose"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	**si: "ci no conose" es bon. [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]
	*excellent ''human engineering'' for easy setup--injenio umana		*excellent ''human engineering'' for easy setup--injenio umana
		+	**me pensa ce esta es oce, como un metafor. [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]

Isola

Malafaya — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:20:26 GMT

Asores no es en Africa

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:20, November 17, 2009
Line 69:		Line 69:
	*[[Er]]		*[[Er]]
	*[[Island]]		*[[Island]]
		+	*[[Isolas Asores]]
	*[[Isolas Faro]]		*[[Isolas Faro]]
	*[[Malta]]		*[[Malta]]
Line 78:		Line 79:
	*[[Capo Verde]]		*[[Capo Verde]]
	*[[Comores]]		*[[Comores]]
-	*[[Isolas Asores]]
	*[[Isolas Canario]]		*[[Isolas Canario]]
	*[[Madagasicara]]		*[[Madagasicara]]

Forum:Azores & Madeira

Malafaya — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:17:50 GMT

Per ce?

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:17, November 17, 2009
Line 7:		Line 7:

	*Madeira debe es Madera. Me ia ajunta el a la lista de [[Isola]]s. Me ia cambia "Azores" a "Asores" en la mesma lista.		*Madeira debe es Madera. Me ia ajunta el a la lista de [[Isola]]s. Me ia cambia "Azores" a "Asores" en la mesma lista.
		+	*:Per ce Madeira debe es Madera? En la lingua portuges, se nom es Made'''i'''ra. [[User:Malafaya\|Malafaya]] 23:17, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Forum:Sujestas (Myaleee)

Simon Davies — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:27:39 GMT

respondes

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:27, November 17, 2009
Line 23:		Line 23:
	----		----
	*arte mal-- Kitsch (art that is considered an inferior, tasteless copy of an extant style of art)		*arte mal-- Kitsch (art that is considered an inferior, tasteless copy of an extant style of art)
		+	**Arte inferior? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	* print ''paper document'' ?		* print ''paper document'' ?
		+	**Primi un article sur paper? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	*How to ''dual-boot'' Vista and XP--inisia duple		*How to ''dual-boot'' Vista and XP--inisia duple
		+	**Me gusta. Ance "inisia multiple" per "multiboot". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	*''all around'' printer--per tota intendes		*''all around'' printer--per tota intendes
		+	**Me no conose esta espresa engles. Me dise "an all-purpose printer". La ajetivo "all-round" sinifia "en tota modos". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	* I stumble upon interesting story -- trova acaso		* I stumble upon interesting story -- trova acaso
		+	**Esta pare bon, o "encontra acaso"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	*crime in ''broad daylight''--en lus clar de dia		*crime in ''broad daylight''--en lus clar de dia
		+	**Me gusta! [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	*counterterrorism experts--contraterorisme		*counterterrorism experts--contraterorisme
	* people aged over 60 who are ''unfamiliar'' with PC--nonfamilial		* people aged over 60 who are ''unfamiliar'' with PC--nonfamilial
		+	**Esce "familial" ave esta sensa en lfn? Posable "ci no conose"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	*excellent ''human engineering'' for easy setup--injenio umana		*excellent ''human engineering'' for easy setup--injenio umana

Forum:Sujestas (Myaleee)

Myaleee — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:59:44 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:59, November 17, 2009
Line 8:		Line 8:
	**Similia a engles en tecnica importa ! Donce me gusta seguensa, pf!		**Similia a engles en tecnica importa ! Donce me gusta seguensa, pf!
	**en esta caso, me acorda con ali. parolas simil a "seguensa" es universal - an en rusce, svensce, etc. ma me esita ave du nomes - serie e seguensa - per la mesma idea. [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]		**en esta caso, me acorda con ali. parolas simil a "seguensa" es universal - an en rusce, svensce, etc. ma me esita ave du nomes - serie e seguensa - per la mesma idea. [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]
-	*mone nonfasil ganiada--hard-earned cash.
-	**bon - o "mone ganiada par multe labora" [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]
	*''booster'' dose of vaccine		*''booster'' dose of vaccine
	**Un dosa aumentante de vasin. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Un dosa aumentante de vasin. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
Line 15:		Line 13:
	**Me gusta "refortinte". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Me gusta "refortinte". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	**me gusta "refortinte" ance. [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]		**me gusta "refortinte" ance. [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]
-	*Firefox launched five years ago today--como oji ante 5 anios
-	**On ia lansa Firefox a sinco anios ante oji. / On ia lansa Firefox ante esata sinco anios. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
-	**o "on ia lansa Firefox a esta dia sinco anios en la pasada". [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]
-	**On nesesa un preposada per introdui "sinco anios", no? Cisa on pote dise ance "a esta dia a sinco anios pasada". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	*Intel is planning a press release in late--anunsia a la jornales		*Intel is planning a press release in late--anunsia a la jornales
	**O "comunica a la jornales"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**O "comunica a la jornales"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
Line 27:		Line 21:
	**Tota estas pare posable. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Tota estas pare posable. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	**me acorda. usa la un ce tu gusta la plu! [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]		**me acorda. usa la un ce tu gusta la plu! [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]
-	*a camera for ''action'' and sports ?	+	----
-	**Ativia? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]	+	*arte mal-- Kitsch (art that is considered an inferior, tasteless copy of an extant style of art)
-	**atosia ?	+	* print ''paper document'' ?
-	**me no gusta "atosia" - ma "ativia" es oce. ance "move". [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]	+	*How to ''dual-boot'' Vista and XP--inisia duple
-	* el es proibinte o impedinte cara-- prohibitively expensive(en ajunta a "tro cara", pf)	+	*''all around'' printer--per tota intendes
-	**me ta dise "el es tro cara per compra." o "multe tro cara". "prohibitively" es un parola grande con un sinifia peti. [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]	+	* I stumble upon interesting story -- trova acaso
		+	*crime in ''broad daylight''--en lus clar de dia
		+	*counterterrorism experts--contraterorisme
		+	* people aged over 60 who are ''unfamiliar'' with PC--nonfamilial
		+	*excellent ''human engineering'' for easy setup--injenio umana

Forum:Sujestas (Simon)

Simon Davies — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:38:44 GMT

respondes

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:38, November 17, 2009
Line 20:		Line 20:
	**What you say here is fine. But I thought you didn't like Lojban :-) Actually, Lojban goes further and has only predicates: "the dog" is "that which is-dog". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**What you say here is fine. But I thought you didn't like Lojban :-) Actually, Lojban goes further and has only predicates: "the dog" is "that which is-dog". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	***way way back in high school, scientific american has this article about "loglan". i fell in love immediately. i agree that you can go all the way and consider everything a predicate. any noun is really a "point" (referring to the object itself) that is qualified by the class it belongs to. proper nouns are a "point" connected to a name. however, defining everything as a predicate means that predicate no longer really means anything more than "word". :-) loglan went too far, of course, away from natural language for it to be truly useful for human communication. the test of whorf's hypothesis never even happened. i have glanced at lojban but found it no better than loglan. too much tinkering trying to please everyone, i suspect.		***way way back in high school, scientific american has this article about "loglan". i fell in love immediately. i agree that you can go all the way and consider everything a predicate. any noun is really a "point" (referring to the object itself) that is qualified by the class it belongs to. proper nouns are a "point" connected to a name. however, defining everything as a predicate means that predicate no longer really means anything more than "word". :-) loglan went too far, of course, away from natural language for it to be truly useful for human communication. the test of whorf's hypothesis never even happened. i have glanced at lojban but found it no better than loglan. too much tinkering trying to please everyone, i suspect.
		+	***Ah yes, that's a famous article! Lojban has been very stable for some time now. It's sad that it had to be split off from Loglan in the first place. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]


Line 32:		Line 33:
	**I agree. All nouns' meanings vary with context, certainly. But you can at least look the meanings up in the dictionary. Pronouns' meanings, whether deictic or anaphoric, are ''entirely'' context-dependent. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**I agree. All nouns' meanings vary with context, certainly. But you can at least look the meanings up in the dictionary. Pronouns' meanings, whether deictic or anaphoric, are ''entirely'' context-dependent. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	**that is a very good point. I can't completely agree with "entirely", inasmuch as different pronouns do carry some specifications (near, distant, male, female, singular, plural, etc.) depending on the language. pronouns like "I" and "you", however, carry very clear significance beyond context! they point directly at the speaker and listener, external to the utterances in which they participate. but, the most basic meaning of most pro-forms is that they represent another word somewhere else in the utterance, and borrow their semantics from that other word and what it refers to.		**that is a very good point. I can't completely agree with "entirely", inasmuch as different pronouns do carry some specifications (near, distant, male, female, singular, plural, etc.) depending on the language. pronouns like "I" and "you", however, carry very clear significance beyond context! they point directly at the speaker and listener, external to the utterances in which they participate. but, the most basic meaning of most pro-forms is that they represent another word somewhere else in the utterance, and borrow their semantics from that other word and what it refers to.
		+	**"Entirely" was a slight exaggeration, but not much. "Near" and "distant" (like "here" and "there", "now" and "then") are meaningless unless you know where the speaker and/or listener are. Similarly the meanings of "I" and "you" depend on the environment in which the utterance occurs. Languages that distinguish different types of "you" (or different types of "I", for that matter) convey some non-deictic meaning in their personal pronouns too. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]


Line 46:		Line 48:
	***I'm interested in whether the lowest level (the predication) can be treated as an argument (like "snake!"), consisting of the verb and ''its'' arguments. Your analysis has it the other way round, with the verb modifying its subject, and that equates the predication with the modified subject. Either way, it seems that the lowest level can be regarded as a type of argument. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		***I'm interested in whether the lowest level (the predication) can be treated as an argument (like "snake!"), consisting of the verb and ''its'' arguments. Your analysis has it the other way round, with the verb modifying its subject, and that equates the predication with the modified subject. Either way, it seems that the lowest level can be regarded as a type of argument. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	****I don't think I understand your point.		****I don't think I understand your point.
		+	****Do the arguments modify the verb, or vice versa? If the verb modifies the arguments, then the whole predication (verb and all) is just a modified argument. If the arguments modify the verb, then it's interesting that the whole predication can still be used as an argument (predication-as-argument). It's not a major point, just a curiosity. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]


Line 53:		Line 56:
	***I was simply trying to agree with you, using more exact phrasing. A verbal noun is what you get if you convert a verb to an argument, with no semantic drift. Are you not arguing that any predicate can be converted to an argument, and vice versa, as the building blocks of sentences? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		***I was simply trying to agree with you, using more exact phrasing. A verbal noun is what you get if you convert a verb to an argument, with no semantic drift. Are you not arguing that any predicate can be converted to an argument, and vice versa, as the building blocks of sentences? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	****if I follow your meaning, yes. "arguments" and "predicates" are the basic syntactic forms. all the others are based in semantics. so a transitive verb, for example, is a word that refers to an action (or related event) that involves two other "things", which are its arguments. in the evolution of language, I am suggesting, the idea of the syntactic predicate derives first and foremost from verbs (words expressing actions) and adjectives (words expressing qualities) and the idea of the syntactic argument from noun (words expressing things). in other words, nouns, verbs, etc. are primarily semantic, and not defined by their relations to other kinds of words that surround them in a sentence. however, their semantic nature gives them the qualities of arguments and predicates, so those syntactic categories derive from semantics, but have developed a non-referential function of their own. at some point, human beings began to extend the use of verbs into argument functions and nouns into predicate functions. it seems we wanted to talk about abstractions. later still, entire sentences could be used as arguments in the form of clauses. it seems we wanted to collapse separate but related sentences into a single sentence. I'm over-explaining at this point, but I assume you get my intent.		****if I follow your meaning, yes. "arguments" and "predicates" are the basic syntactic forms. all the others are based in semantics. so a transitive verb, for example, is a word that refers to an action (or related event) that involves two other "things", which are its arguments. in the evolution of language, I am suggesting, the idea of the syntactic predicate derives first and foremost from verbs (words expressing actions) and adjectives (words expressing qualities) and the idea of the syntactic argument from noun (words expressing things). in other words, nouns, verbs, etc. are primarily semantic, and not defined by their relations to other kinds of words that surround them in a sentence. however, their semantic nature gives them the qualities of arguments and predicates, so those syntactic categories derive from semantics, but have developed a non-referential function of their own. at some point, human beings began to extend the use of verbs into argument functions and nouns into predicate functions. it seems we wanted to talk about abstractions. later still, entire sentences could be used as arguments in the form of clauses. it seems we wanted to collapse separate but related sentences into a single sentence. I'm over-explaining at this point, but I assume you get my intent.
		+	****"in other words, nouns, verbs, etc. are primarily semantic" – Aha. So by "primarily" you mean "in origin", if you unwind the evolution of language far enough. I was thinking you meant even in modern languages. I'm happy to agree that syntactic arguments and predicates originated as extensions of the "natural" semantic properties of things and qualities/actions.


Line 92:		Line 96:
	** What about adverbs modifying predications? (And, more trivially, adverbs modifying other adverbs – presumably no different from those that modify adjectives.) [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		** What about adverbs modifying predications? (And, more trivially, adverbs modifying other adverbs – presumably no different from those that modify adjectives.) [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	***what you would call modifying a predication I would call modifying the predicate of the predication, in the same way that an adverb modifies an adjective, not the noun or noun-plus-adjective. if it appears to be modifying the noun, it is an adjective, not an adverb. adverbs can modify other adverbs because adverbs are predicates.		***what you would call modifying a predication I would call modifying the predicate of the predication, in the same way that an adverb modifies an adjective, not the noun or noun-plus-adjective. if it appears to be modifying the noun, it is an adjective, not an adverb. adverbs can modify other adverbs because adverbs are predicates.
		+	***I don't disagree with these points. But I'm thinking of something else: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunct_%28linguistics%29 sentence adverbs] as in "Naturally, we will be there".


Line 121:		Line 126:
	***I appreciate the category/function distinction. I'm not quite sure I follow what you're saying in your second sentence. Are you regarding "in" as meaning "be in"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		***I appreciate the category/function distinction. I'm not quite sure I follow what you're saying in your second sentence. Are you regarding "in" as meaning "be in"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	****the semantic difference between prepositions and transitive verbs is that prepositions focus on relationship without action. verbs are relationships ''with'' action (action including change of state, or even the specific absence of a change of state). some prepositions imply action (towards, over, etc.), but the action is actually carried by a nearby verb that is modified by the preposition.		****the semantic difference between prepositions and transitive verbs is that prepositions focus on relationship without action. verbs are relationships ''with'' action (action including change of state, or even the specific absence of a change of state). some prepositions imply action (towards, over, etc.), but the action is actually carried by a nearby verb that is modified by the preposition.
		+	****And participial adjectives/adverbs such as "using" and "surrounding" blur the distinction. I'm not sure how you define "action" precisely enough for the distinction to be useful.


Line 128:		Line 134:
	***Even with the extra close-parenthesis, there are still only 7 open-parentheses to 11 close-parentheses. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		***Even with the extra close-parenthesis, there are still only 7 open-parentheses to 11 close-parentheses. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	****let me try again: (((((boy) big) the) ran) fast) (((he, Mary) kissed), (((cheek, her) of) on)) and)		****let me try again: (((((boy) big) the) ran) fast) (((he, Mary) kissed), (((cheek, her) of) on)) and)
		+	****There's still a missing open-parenthesis! I think it needs to go at the very beginning. This notation is a readability disaster area :-) I'm finding it particularly confusing to see how ((cheek, her) of) works – "of" is a predicate used as an argument of "on"? Doesn't "cheek" want to be the argument of "on", and then be modified by the predicate "of" with argument "her"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]


Line 133:		Line 140:
	* Can you give some examples of what you're thinking of here? It sounds a bit like head and dependents to me, but I suspect you may be thinking of something else. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		* Can you give some examples of what you're thinking of here? It sounds a bit like head and dependents to me, but I suspect you may be thinking of something else. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	**you're looking for more than is there :-) in a sentence with many nouns and verbs, two stand out: the subject and the verb. any two-place predicate has, of course, two arguments. you could call them subject and object (and second object, for the rare three-place predicates). the subject is the main argument, the verb is the main predicate, the object is the secondary argument.		**you're looking for more than is there :-) in a sentence with many nouns and verbs, two stand out: the subject and the verb. any two-place predicate has, of course, two arguments. you could call them subject and object (and second object, for the rare three-place predicates). the subject is the main argument, the verb is the main predicate, the object is the secondary argument.
		+	**I agree. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]

Forum:Sujestas (Simon)

Cgboeree — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 01:26:01 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:26, November 17, 2009
(One intermediate revision not shown)
Line 19:		Line 19:
	**I am not just trying to rename old concepts. I'm starting from scratch based on my understanding of language development in children as well as of pidgins and creoles. in a sentence like "the dog yawns", "dog" is actually a feature of a particular animal (as indicated by "the") of the class "dogs". if you say "dogs yawn", "dogs" is not really a common noun pluralized; it is an abstract noun. "big dogs" is a reduced predication which is then modified by the predicate "yawns".		**I am not just trying to rename old concepts. I'm starting from scratch based on my understanding of language development in children as well as of pidgins and creoles. in a sentence like "the dog yawns", "dog" is actually a feature of a particular animal (as indicated by "the") of the class "dogs". if you say "dogs yawn", "dogs" is not really a common noun pluralized; it is an abstract noun. "big dogs" is a reduced predication which is then modified by the predicate "yawns".
	**What you say here is fine. But I thought you didn't like Lojban :-) Actually, Lojban goes further and has only predicates: "the dog" is "that which is-dog". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**What you say here is fine. But I thought you didn't like Lojban :-) Actually, Lojban goes further and has only predicates: "the dog" is "that which is-dog". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	***way way back in high school, scientific american has this article about "loglan". i fell in love immediately. i agree that you can go all the way and consider everything a predicate. any noun is really a "point" (referring to the object itself) that is qualified by the class it belongs to. proper nouns are a "point" connected to a name. however, defining everything as a predicate means that predicate no longer really means anything more than "word". :-) loglan went too far, of course, away from natural language for it to be truly useful for human communication. the test of whorf's hypothesis never even happened. i have glanced at lojban but found it no better than loglan. too much tinkering trying to please everyone, i suspect.


Line 28:		Line 29:

	* I agree that pronouns are a subcategory of nouns. Proper nouns and common nouns ''together'' form the other subcategory. Pronouns can be defined as nouns whose meanings vary with the context. There are also syntactic reasons for distinguishing pronouns, such as their tendency to reject modification – although presumably, in your analysis, you would say that a subject or object pronoun is modified by the verb. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		* I agree that pronouns are a subcategory of nouns. Proper nouns and common nouns ''together'' form the other subcategory. Pronouns can be defined as nouns whose meanings vary with the context. There are also syntactic reasons for distinguishing pronouns, such as their tendency to reject modification – although presumably, in your analysis, you would say that a subject or object pronoun is modified by the verb. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
-	**you say it yourself: their tendency. each language has its particular rules that determine the specifics of usage. (all nouns' meanings vary with ocntext, of course.)	+	**you say it yourself: their tendency. each language has its particular rules that determine the specifics of usage. (all nouns' meanings vary with context, of course.)
	**I agree. All nouns' meanings vary with context, certainly. But you can at least look the meanings up in the dictionary. Pronouns' meanings, whether deictic or anaphoric, are ''entirely'' context-dependent. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**I agree. All nouns' meanings vary with context, certainly. But you can at least look the meanings up in the dictionary. Pronouns' meanings, whether deictic or anaphoric, are ''entirely'' context-dependent. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	**that is a very good point. I can't completely agree with "entirely", inasmuch as different pronouns do carry some specifications (near, distant, male, female, singular, plural, etc.) depending on the language. pronouns like "I" and "you", however, carry very clear significance beyond context! they point directly at the speaker and listener, external to the utterances in which they participate. but, the most basic meaning of most pro-forms is that they represent another word somewhere else in the utterance, and borrow their semantics from that other word and what it refers to.


Line 43:		Line 45:
	***true in a sense. but not all predications are embedded in other predications like "predications-as-arguments".		***true in a sense. but not all predications are embedded in other predications like "predications-as-arguments".
	***I'm interested in whether the lowest level (the predication) can be treated as an argument (like "snake!"), consisting of the verb and ''its'' arguments. Your analysis has it the other way round, with the verb modifying its subject, and that equates the predication with the modified subject. Either way, it seems that the lowest level can be regarded as a type of argument. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		***I'm interested in whether the lowest level (the predication) can be treated as an argument (like "snake!"), consisting of the verb and ''its'' arguments. Your analysis has it the other way round, with the verb modifying its subject, and that equates the predication with the modified subject. Either way, it seems that the lowest level can be regarded as a type of argument. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	****I don't think I understand your point.


Line 49:		Line 52:
	***treated within the utterance in the same manner as would a thing, ie as an argument. I don't understand your last sentence.		***treated within the utterance in the same manner as would a thing, ie as an argument. I don't understand your last sentence.
	***I was simply trying to agree with you, using more exact phrasing. A verbal noun is what you get if you convert a verb to an argument, with no semantic drift. Are you not arguing that any predicate can be converted to an argument, and vice versa, as the building blocks of sentences? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		***I was simply trying to agree with you, using more exact phrasing. A verbal noun is what you get if you convert a verb to an argument, with no semantic drift. Are you not arguing that any predicate can be converted to an argument, and vice versa, as the building blocks of sentences? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	****if I follow your meaning, yes. "arguments" and "predicates" are the basic syntactic forms. all the others are based in semantics. so a transitive verb, for example, is a word that refers to an action (or related event) that involves two other "things", which are its arguments. in the evolution of language, I am suggesting, the idea of the syntactic predicate derives first and foremost from verbs (words expressing actions) and adjectives (words expressing qualities) and the idea of the syntactic argument from noun (words expressing things). in other words, nouns, verbs, etc. are primarily semantic, and not defined by their relations to other kinds of words that surround them in a sentence. however, their semantic nature gives them the qualities of arguments and predicates, so those syntactic categories derive from semantics, but have developed a non-referential function of their own. at some point, human beings began to extend the use of verbs into argument functions and nouns into predicate functions. it seems we wanted to talk about abstractions. later still, entire sentences could be used as arguments in the form of clauses. it seems we wanted to collapse separate but related sentences into a single sentence. I'm over-explaining at this point, but I assume you get my intent.


Line 61:		Line 65:
	***yes it is. I only mentioned it here because it is less obvious.		***yes it is. I only mentioned it here because it is less obvious.
	***Omitting things can confuse the reader :-) [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		***Omitting things can confuse the reader :-) [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	****sorry!


Line 86:		Line 91:
	*Adverb (modifies another predicate: e.g. a verb - "he runs ''fast''", an adjective - "''very'' big man").		*Adverb (modifies another predicate: e.g. a verb - "he runs ''fast''", an adjective - "''very'' big man").
	** What about adverbs modifying predications? (And, more trivially, adverbs modifying other adverbs – presumably no different from those that modify adjectives.) [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		** What about adverbs modifying predications? (And, more trivially, adverbs modifying other adverbs – presumably no different from those that modify adjectives.) [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	***what you would call modifying a predication I would call modifying the predicate of the predication, in the same way that an adverb modifies an adjective, not the noun or noun-plus-adjective. if it appears to be modifying the noun, it is an adjective, not an adverb. adverbs can modify other adverbs because adverbs are predicates.


Line 114:		Line 120:
	***transitive verbs and prepositions are semantic categories. predicates, main or secondary, are syntactic functions. the meanings of verbs and prepositions naturally lead them to be used more in one way or the other.		***transitive verbs and prepositions are semantic categories. predicates, main or secondary, are syntactic functions. the meanings of verbs and prepositions naturally lead them to be used more in one way or the other.
	***I appreciate the category/function distinction. I'm not quite sure I follow what you're saying in your second sentence. Are you regarding "in" as meaning "be in"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		***I appreciate the category/function distinction. I'm not quite sure I follow what you're saying in your second sentence. Are you regarding "in" as meaning "be in"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	****the semantic difference between prepositions and transitive verbs is that prepositions focus on relationship without action. verbs are relationships ''with'' action (action including change of state, or even the specific absence of a change of state). some prepositions imply action (towards, over, etc.), but the action is actually carried by a nearby verb that is modified by the preposition.


Line 120:		Line 127:
	***add a close-parenthesis at the end. "her cheek" is joined to "he kissed mary" by "on".		***add a close-parenthesis at the end. "her cheek" is joined to "he kissed mary" by "on".
	***Even with the extra close-parenthesis, there are still only 7 open-parentheses to 11 close-parentheses. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		***Even with the extra close-parenthesis, there are still only 7 open-parentheses to 11 close-parentheses. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	****let me try again: (((((boy) big) the) ran) fast) (((he, Mary) kissed), (((cheek, her) of) on)) and)


	weight: In any sentence, some words carry more weight than others, and "tricks" of position, affixes, etc., announce this weight. Typically, the subject noun and the verb carry the most weight. This is also the main difference between verbs and other predicates.		weight: In any sentence, some words carry more weight than others, and "tricks" of position, affixes, etc., announce this weight. Typically, the subject noun and the verb carry the most weight. This is also the main difference between verbs and other predicates.
	* Can you give some examples of what you're thinking of here? It sounds a bit like head and dependents to me, but I suspect you may be thinking of something else. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		* Can you give some examples of what you're thinking of here? It sounds a bit like head and dependents to me, but I suspect you may be thinking of something else. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
-	**you're looking for more than is there :-) in a sentence with many nouns and verbs, two stand out: the subject and the verb.	+	**you're looking for more than is there :-) in a sentence with many nouns and verbs, two stand out: the subject and the verb. any two-place predicate has, of course, two arguments. you could call them subject and object (and second object, for the rare three-place predicates). the subject is the main argument, the verb is the main predicate, the object is the secondary argument.


Line 131:		Line 139:
	**"is" is a dummy required by the transformation rules of english.		**"is" is a dummy required by the transformation rules of english.
	**Yes, that works. It might be clearer to say that the predicate is "is-big". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Yes, that works. It might be clearer to say that the predicate is "is-big". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	***the need for "is" is a quality of english. for me, "big" suffices.

Forum:Sujestas (Myaleee)

Simon Davies — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:03:19 GMT

respondes

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:03, November 16, 2009
Line 18:		Line 18:
	**On ia lansa Firefox a sinco anios ante oji. / On ia lansa Firefox ante esata sinco anios. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**On ia lansa Firefox a sinco anios ante oji. / On ia lansa Firefox ante esata sinco anios. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	**o "on ia lansa Firefox a esta dia sinco anios en la pasada". [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]		**o "on ia lansa Firefox a esta dia sinco anios en la pasada". [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]
		+	**On nesesa un preposada per introdui "sinco anios", no? Cisa on pote dise ance "a esta dia a sinco anios pasada". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	*Intel is planning a press release in late--anunsia a la jornales		*Intel is planning a press release in late--anunsia a la jornales
	**O "comunica a la jornales"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**O "comunica a la jornales"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
Line 25:		Line 26:
	** reinstitui o reinstala ?		** reinstitui o reinstala ?
	**Tota estas pare posable. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Tota estas pare posable. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
-	**me acorda. usa la un tu gusta la plu! [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]	+	**me acorda. usa la un ce tu gusta la plu! [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]
	*a camera for ''action'' and sports ?		*a camera for ''action'' and sports ?
	**Ativia? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Ativia? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]

Forum:Sujestas (Jorj)

Myaleee — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:35:55 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:35, November 16, 2009
Line 279:		Line 279:

	* En regarda a nos discute a supra, pos pensa, me va aseta tu esplica ce infinitivas es nomes, e ce en "regarda la mar plase", "regarda la mar" es un spesie de formula de nom. Me no pensa ce tu esplica es ''plu'' bon ce me esplica, ma los es ''tan'' bon la un como la otra. (E me reteni me opina ce on no pote defini la categorias de sintatica a modo semantical :-) [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		* En regarda a nos discute a supra, pos pensa, me va aseta tu esplica ce infinitivas es nomes, e ce en "regarda la mar plase", "regarda la mar" es un spesie de formula de nom. Me no pensa ce tu esplica es ''plu'' bon ce me esplica, ma los es ''tan'' bon la un como la otra. (E me reteni me opina ce on no pote defini la categorias de sintatica a modo semantical :-) [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
-	**cara Jorj, me prea vide tu opinas sur me sujestas! la discutes a supra ia preocupa tu, no? [[User:Myaleee\|Myaleee]]

Forum:Sujestas (Myaleee)

Cgboeree — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:14:25 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:14, November 16, 2009
Line 7:		Line 7:
	**Esce "un segue" es bon per "a sequence"? Cisa "un segueda" es plu bon. O an plu bon: "un serie". Posable on "seri jenes"? O "seriali"? Nos ave "un seguador" en musica; me no gusta multe esta parola, an si me ia sujesta el ante un anio. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Esce "un segue" es bon per "a sequence"? Cisa "un segueda" es plu bon. O an plu bon: "un serie". Posable on "seri jenes"? O "seriali"? Nos ave "un seguador" en musica; me no gusta multe esta parola, an si me ia sujesta el ante un anio. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	**Similia a engles en tecnica importa ! Donce me gusta seguensa, pf!		**Similia a engles en tecnica importa ! Donce me gusta seguensa, pf!
-	*mone nonfasil ganiada--hard-earned cash.	+	**en esta caso, me acorda con ali. parolas simil a "seguensa" es universal - an en rusce, svensce, etc. ma me esita ave du nomes - serie e seguensa - per la mesma idea. [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]
		+	*mone nonfasil ganiada--hard-earned cash.
		+	**bon - o "mone ganiada par multe labora" [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]
	*''booster'' dose of vaccine		*''booster'' dose of vaccine
	**Un dosa aumentante de vasin. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Un dosa aumentante de vasin. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	**refortinte o stimulante?		**refortinte o stimulante?
	**Me gusta "refortinte". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Me gusta "refortinte". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	**me gusta "refortinte" ance. [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]
	*Firefox launched five years ago today--como oji ante 5 anios		*Firefox launched five years ago today--como oji ante 5 anios
	**On ia lansa Firefox a sinco anios ante oji. / On ia lansa Firefox ante esata sinco anios. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**On ia lansa Firefox a sinco anios ante oji. / On ia lansa Firefox ante esata sinco anios. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	**o "on ia lansa Firefox a esta dia sinco anios en la pasada". [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]
	*Intel is planning a press release in late--anunsia a la jornales		*Intel is planning a press release in late--anunsia a la jornales
	**O "comunica a la jornales"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**O "comunica a la jornales"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	**ambos es bon. [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]
	*''restore'' old configuration(programa)		*''restore'' old configuration(programa)
	**Restora? Repone? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Restora? Repone? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	** reinstitui o reinstala ?		** reinstitui o reinstala ?
	**Tota estas pare posable. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Tota estas pare posable. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	**me acorda. usa la un tu gusta la plu! [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]
	*a camera for ''action'' and sports ?		*a camera for ''action'' and sports ?
	**Ativia? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Ativia? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	**atosia ?		**atosia ?
		+	**me no gusta "atosia" - ma "ativia" es oce. ance "move". [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]
	* el es proibinte o impedinte cara-- prohibitively expensive(en ajunta a "tro cara", pf)		* el es proibinte o impedinte cara-- prohibitively expensive(en ajunta a "tro cara", pf)
		+	**me ta dise "el es tro cara per compra." o "multe tro cara". "prohibitively" es un parola grande con un sinifia peti. [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]

Forum:Sujestas (Jorj)

Myaleee — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:02:37 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:02, November 16, 2009
Line 279:		Line 279:

	* En regarda a nos discute a supra, pos pensa, me va aseta tu esplica ce infinitivas es nomes, e ce en "regarda la mar plase", "regarda la mar" es un spesie de formula de nom. Me no pensa ce tu esplica es ''plu'' bon ce me esplica, ma los es ''tan'' bon la un como la otra. (E me reteni me opina ce on no pote defini la categorias de sintatica a modo semantical :-) [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		* En regarda a nos discute a supra, pos pensa, me va aseta tu esplica ce infinitivas es nomes, e ce en "regarda la mar plase", "regarda la mar" es un spesie de formula de nom. Me no pensa ce tu esplica es ''plu'' bon ce me esplica, ma los es ''tan'' bon la un como la otra. (E me reteni me opina ce on no pote defini la categorias de sintatica a modo semantical :-) [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	**cara Jorj, me prea vide tu opinas sur me sujestas! la discutes a supra ia preocupa tu, no? [[User:Myaleee\|Myaleee]]

Sicisme

InnocentOdion — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:50:03 GMT

Filosofia de Sicisme:

New page

Sicisme es un relijio fundada de Guru Nanak Dev, la prima de la 12 gurus - la guru finale es la Guru Grant Sahib (Punjabi: ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ, gurū granth sāhib), la libro santa de sicisme. El es la sinco grande relijio orginazada en la mundo con sirca 20 milion seguores.

La parola "Sikh" es la parola en punjabi de la sanscrit parola "śiṣya' (शिष्य), en LFN "aprendor".

===Filosofia de Sicisme===

La filosofia de sicisme es simple, e in la paje prima de la Guru Grant Sahib, la crede es esplicada.

ੴ ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਿਰਭਉ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਅਜੂਨੀ ਸੈਭੰ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥
Ik▫oaŉkār saṯ nām karṯā purakẖ nirbẖa▫o nirvair akāl mūraṯ ajūnī saibẖaŉ gur parsāḏ.

Un creator univseral Dio. La nom es Veria. Creos-esiste personifada. No teme. No odia. La imaje de la nonmorinte, estra nase, autoesistante. De la onora de la guru (el es conosable).

॥ ਜਪੁ ॥

Jap.

Canta e medita.

ਆਦਿ ਸਚੁ ਜੁਗਾਦਿ ਸਚੁ ॥
Āḏ sacẖ jugāḏ sacẖ.

Vera en la prima-comensante. Vera a tota partes la veas.

ਹੈ ਭੀ ਸਚੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਹੋਸੀ ਭੀ ਸਚੁ ॥੧॥
Hai bẖī sacẖ Nānak hosī bẖī sacẖ. ||1||

Vera asi e aora. O Nanak, Per sempre e sempre vera.

===La Sico K's===
Sicistes batizada ave 5 nesesadas ce los obligada reteni, la "sico K's".

'''Cex'''- (ਕੇਸ, kes, ofte scribada "kesh") es nonsisorada capeles. Un siciste batizade es no permitade alterar, sisorir o sutrae capeles, per ce la capeles en sicisme es crede eser un gifte de Dio, e alterar la capeles (totale, de la testa, gama, etc) es disrespetar la crea de Dio.

'''Canga'''- (kanga) es un pena de lenio. El aida la limpa de la cex. Un siciste peni el capeles (de la testa) semi-dial per ijenia.

'''Cirpan''' - (ਕਿਰਪਾਨ, kirpaan) es du parolas. La prima es "kirpa", ce es pardona, compati, amablia, e du "aap" es onora, jentilia, e dinia. La cirpan es un spadeta - referi la cirpan de daga es ofendente per multe sicistes. El es no arma de violentia, ma es projete la inosente, debil, enfantes, vea, etc. Per sicistes, la cirpan no es un arma.

'''Cara''' - (kara) es un brasaleta amar. La cara recorda la mision de la sicistes, ce es eser persones bon e fa atas bon.

'''Catxera''' - (kachhera, kachha) es simila al pantaletas, simila a pantala de boxores, e recorda la siciste eser fidos e parar nonlegal seso (seso no en sposi con la sposa)

Please, help me to find the best sites about loans.

Simon Davies — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:59:11 GMT

deleted "[[Please, help me to find the best sites about loans.]]" Spam: spam

New page

Forum:Sujestas (Simon)

Simon Davies — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:27:04 GMT

respondes

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:27, November 15, 2009
Line 81:		Line 81:
	** Can it be anything ''other'' than the main predicate of a predication? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		** Can it be anything ''other'' than the main predicate of a predication? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	***it can be a predicate in a predication-as-argument (clause).		***it can be a predicate in a predication-as-argument (clause).
-		+	***That still seems to be the main predicate of a predication, just not the main predication of the sentence. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]


Line 106:		Line 106:
	**This is a good idea, although I'm hesitant to use the term "adjective" for such words. A noun that modifies another is still a noun. You argue this yourself when you say that "watching" and "television" in "watching television makes me fall asleep" are both nouns. (Either "watching" modifies "television", or vice versa, depending the fundamental question of whether a verb is a modifier.) [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**This is a good idea, although I'm hesitant to use the term "adjective" for such words. A noun that modifies another is still a noun. You argue this yourself when you say that "watching" and "television" in "watching television makes me fall asleep" are both nouns. (Either "watching" modifies "television", or vice versa, depending the fundamental question of whether a verb is a modifier.) [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	***yes, it is still a noun. this is me actually admitting what you were arguing all along: a verb is still a verb, even when being used AS IF it were a noun. that is why I use "argument" with three subheadings (nouns, predicates-as-arguments, and predications-as-arguments) instead. words like "verbal nouns" are misleading, of course, but "nominalized verbs" or "verbs-as-arguments" are so long.		***yes, it is still a noun. this is me actually admitting what you were arguing all along: a verb is still a verb, even when being used AS IF it were a noun. that is why I use "argument" with three subheadings (nouns, predicates-as-arguments, and predications-as-arguments) instead. words like "verbal nouns" are misleading, of course, but "nominalized verbs" or "verbs-as-arguments" are so long.
		+	***You could perhaps say "deverbal nouns", suggesting nouns made from verbs, without the unwanted implications of "verbal" itself. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]


Line 112:		Line 113:
	**Typically, yes. But the only real difference between transitive verbs and prepositions is that transitive verbs are the main predicates in predications, and prepositions are local predicates of arguments. You can usually find a transitive verb that means the same as a preposition ("contain", "surround", "precede", "use", "accompany", etc). [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Typically, yes. But the only real difference between transitive verbs and prepositions is that transitive verbs are the main predicates in predications, and prepositions are local predicates of arguments. You can usually find a transitive verb that means the same as a preposition ("contain", "surround", "precede", "use", "accompany", etc). [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	***transitive verbs and prepositions are semantic categories. predicates, main or secondary, are syntactic functions. the meanings of verbs and prepositions naturally lead them to be used more in one way or the other.		***transitive verbs and prepositions are semantic categories. predicates, main or secondary, are syntactic functions. the meanings of verbs and prepositions naturally lead them to be used more in one way or the other.
		+	***I appreciate the category/function distinction. I'm not quite sure I follow what you're saying in your second sentence. Are you regarding "in" as meaning "be in"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]


Line 117:		Line 119:
	** I can't make sense of this. The parentheses don't balance! Why is "on her cheek" not shown as a predicate of "kissed"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		** I can't make sense of this. The parentheses don't balance! Why is "on her cheek" not shown as a predicate of "kissed"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	***add a close-parenthesis at the end. "her cheek" is joined to "he kissed mary" by "on".		***add a close-parenthesis at the end. "her cheek" is joined to "he kissed mary" by "on".
		+	***Even with the extra close-parenthesis, there are still only 7 open-parentheses to 11 close-parentheses. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]


Line 127:		Line 130:
	* How do you analyse this in your model? Is "big" a predicate of "is"? (But it's an adjective, not an adverb.) Do you model "is" as a transitive verb that can take an adjectival predicate as its object argument? (I hope not!) [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		* How do you analyse this in your model? Is "big" a predicate of "is"? (But it's an adjective, not an adverb.) Do you model "is" as a transitive verb that can take an adjectival predicate as its object argument? (I hope not!) [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	**"is" is a dummy required by the transformation rules of english.		**"is" is a dummy required by the transformation rules of english.
		+	**Yes, that works. It might be clearer to say that the predicate is "is-big". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]


Line 132:		Line 136:
	** So they're nouns "used as adjectives", with the resulting predicates then being used as arguments? Or are you simply dismissing the verb "to be" as syntactic sugar? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		** So they're nouns "used as adjectives", with the resulting predicates then being used as arguments? Or are you simply dismissing the verb "to be" as syntactic sugar? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	***I like that: "syntactic sugar". sweet! :-)		***I like that: "syntactic sugar". sweet! :-)
		+	***[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_sugar It comes from programming-language design.] [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+

	*Exclamations might be considered complete sentences!		*Exclamations might be considered complete sentences!

Forum:Sujestas (Simon)

Cgboeree — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:47:31 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:47, November 15, 2009
Line 80:		Line 80:
	*Intransitive verb. Distinguished from other modifications in that it is more likely to be the main predicate of a predication.		*Intransitive verb. Distinguished from other modifications in that it is more likely to be the main predicate of a predication.
	** Can it be anything ''other'' than the main predicate of a predication? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		** Can it be anything ''other'' than the main predicate of a predication? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	***it can be a predicate in a predication-as-argument (clause).


Line 89:		Line 90:
	*The ones that modify adjectives primarily indicate degree		*The ones that modify adjectives primarily indicate degree
	** Adverbs that modify verbs can also indicate degree: e.g. "slightly". And those that modify adjectives can indicate time, place, direction and manner. This is probably what you mean by "primarily". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		** Adverbs that modify verbs can also indicate degree: e.g. "slightly". And those that modify adjectives can indicate time, place, direction and manner. This is probably what you mean by "primarily". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	***yes.


	*The ones that modify verbs indicate time, place, direction, or manner.		*The ones that modify verbs indicate time, place, direction, or manner.
	** You could argue that time, place, and direction are just special cases of manner. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		** You could argue that time, place, and direction are just special cases of manner. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	***I wouldn't.


	*Some adverbs are also used as subjunctions to introduce a subordinated predication ("I will go ''when'' I want to go").		*Some adverbs are also used as subjunctions to introduce a subordinated predication ("I will go ''when'' I want to go").
	**As with pronouns, I would see the adverb "when" and the subjunction "when" as two different words with the same form. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**As with pronouns, I would see the adverb "when" and the subjunction "when" as two different words with the same form. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	***as I responded above, "when" has two related meanings.


	*Nominal adjective (argument-as-predicate - "''saint'' John", "Mississippi ''river''"). Essentially what is commonly called an apposition: A noun qualifying another, more specific, noun. can be viewed as a reduced subordinate predication ("John, ''who is'' a saint").		*Nominal adjective (argument-as-predicate - "''saint'' John", "Mississippi ''river''"). Essentially what is commonly called an apposition: A noun qualifying another, more specific, noun. can be viewed as a reduced subordinate predication ("John, ''who is'' a saint").
-	**This is a good idea, although I'm hesitant to use the term "adjective" for such words. A noun that modifies another is still a noun. You argue this yourself when you say that "watching" and "television" in "watching television makes me fall asleep" are both nouns. (Either "watching" modifies "television", or vice versa, depending the fundamental question og whether a verb is a modifier.) [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]	+	**This is a good idea, although I'm hesitant to use the term "adjective" for such words. A noun that modifies another is still a noun. You argue this yourself when you say that "watching" and "television" in "watching television makes me fall asleep" are both nouns. (Either "watching" modifies "television", or vice versa, depending the fundamental question of whether a verb is a modifier.) [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	***yes, it is still a noun. this is me actually admitting what you were arguing all along: a verb is still a verb, even when being used AS IF it were a noun. that is why I use "argument" with three subheadings (nouns, predicates-as-arguments, and predications-as-arguments) instead. words like "verbal nouns" are misleading, of course, but "nominalized verbs" or "verbs-as-arguments" are so long.


Line 106:		Line 110:
	*Preposition. Typically puts one argument into a specific relationship to another argument. Included are temporal and spatial relationships, and relationships of use, purpose, and possession. Often requires a "dummy" verb such as "to be" in order to be used as the main predicate in a predication.		*Preposition. Typically puts one argument into a specific relationship to another argument. Included are temporal and spatial relationships, and relationships of use, purpose, and possession. Often requires a "dummy" verb such as "to be" in order to be used as the main predicate in a predication.
	**Typically, yes. But the only real difference between transitive verbs and prepositions is that transitive verbs are the main predicates in predications, and prepositions are local predicates of arguments. You can usually find a transitive verb that means the same as a preposition ("contain", "surround", "precede", "use", "accompany", etc). [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Typically, yes. But the only real difference between transitive verbs and prepositions is that transitive verbs are the main predicates in predications, and prepositions are local predicates of arguments. You can usually find a transitive verb that means the same as a preposition ("contain", "surround", "precede", "use", "accompany", etc). [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	***transitive verbs and prepositions are semantic categories. predicates, main or secondary, are syntactic functions. the meanings of verbs and prepositions naturally lead them to be used more in one way or the other.


	* (((boy) big) the) ran) fast) ((he, Mary) kissed), ((cheek, her) of) on) and		* (((boy) big) the) ran) fast) ((he, Mary) kissed), ((cheek, her) of) on) and
	** I can't make sense of this. The parentheses don't balance! Why is "on her cheek" not shown as a predicate of "kissed"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		** I can't make sense of this. The parentheses don't balance! Why is "on her cheek" not shown as a predicate of "kissed"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	***add a close-parenthesis at the end. "her cheek" is joined to "he kissed mary" by "on".


	weight: In any sentence, some words carry more weight than others, and "tricks" of position, affixes, etc., announce this weight. Typically, the subject noun and the verb carry the most weight. This is also the main difference between verbs and other predicates.		weight: In any sentence, some words carry more weight than others, and "tricks" of position, affixes, etc., announce this weight. Typically, the subject noun and the verb carry the most weight. This is also the main difference between verbs and other predicates.
	* Can you give some examples of what you're thinking of here? It sounds a bit like head and dependents to me, but I suspect you may be thinking of something else. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		* Can you give some examples of what you're thinking of here? It sounds a bit like head and dependents to me, but I suspect you may be thinking of something else. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	**you're looking for more than is there :-) in a sentence with many nouns and verbs, two stand out: the subject and the verb.


	In English, we need to add a verb such as "is" to give adjectives and prepositions the weight of verb: "he is big", "he is in the house", etc., thus creating what is traditionally called a complement.		In English, we need to add a verb such as "is" to give adjectives and prepositions the weight of verb: "he is big", "he is in the house", etc., thus creating what is traditionally called a complement.
	* How do you analyse this in your model? Is "big" a predicate of "is"? (But it's an adjective, not an adverb.) Do you model "is" as a transitive verb that can take an adjectival predicate as its object argument? (I hope not!) [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		* How do you analyse this in your model? Is "big" a predicate of "is"? (But it's an adjective, not an adverb.) Do you model "is" as a transitive verb that can take an adjectival predicate as its object argument? (I hope not!) [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	**"is" is a dummy required by the transformation rules of english.


	* Noun complements are viewed here as a nominal adjective.		* Noun complements are viewed here as a nominal adjective.
	** So they're nouns "used as adjectives", with the resulting predicates then being used as arguments? Or are you simply dismissing the verb "to be" as syntactic sugar? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		** So they're nouns "used as adjectives", with the resulting predicates then being used as arguments? Or are you simply dismissing the verb "to be" as syntactic sugar? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
-		+	***I like that: "syntactic sugar". sweet! :-)

	*Exclamations might be considered complete sentences!		*Exclamations might be considered complete sentences!
	**Some exclamations have the form of arguments; others have the form of predicates. Is this a problem? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Some exclamations have the form of arguments; others have the form of predicates. Is this a problem? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	***no.

Forum:Sujestas (Simon)

Simon Davies — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 09:58:39 GMT

ajunta

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:58, November 15, 2009
(One intermediate revision not shown)
Line 8:		Line 8:
	* "A person or thing." Would "entity" be a simpler equivalent to this phrase? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		* "A person or thing." Would "entity" be a simpler equivalent to this phrase? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	**sure. I just like to keep things very concrete.		**sure. I just like to keep things very concrete.
		+	**No problem. Keeping things concrete is excellent, but I find it can be helpful to package each key concept into a single word. In this case we seem to be talking about something very like entities and relationships. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]


	* It's interesting that you regard a verb as modifying its arguments. I've always thought of the arguments as modifying the verb, just as the arguments to a mathematical function modify the function's meaning by parameterizing it. I think you need to provide some justification for this move, particularly in the light of what I say in the next point. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		* It's interesting that you regard a verb as modifying its arguments. I've always thought of the arguments as modifying the verb, just as the arguments to a mathematical function modify the function's meaning by parameterizing it. I think you need to provide some justification for this move, particularly in the light of what I say in the next point. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	**that is exactly how how see all the predicates, verbs included. "persons or things" are perceptually more stable than qualities, relations, actions, etc.		**that is exactly how how see all the predicates, verbs included. "persons or things" are perceptually more stable than qualities, relations, actions, etc.
		+	**That's good: a criterion for distinguishing people/things from the other stuff. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]


	* Strictly speaking, your analysis doesn't allow arguments to consist of simpler arguments plus predicates. You say, reasonably enough, that an argument is "a word or set of words", but you don't explain that both "dogs" and "big dogs" are arguments. And if "big dogs" is an argument, then why isn't "big dogs yawn" also an argument? Of course you could argue that "big dogs yawn" ''is'' an argument (a predication-as-argument). But I think there's an important structural difference between "big" and "yawn", which is captured by making the verb the heart of the structure. The verb is modified by the arguments, which are themselves modified by their own local predicates. It seems wrong to say that "yawn" is just as much a predicate of "dogs" as "big" is. Perhaps "yawn" could be analysed as an external predicate, and "big" as an internal one. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		* Strictly speaking, your analysis doesn't allow arguments to consist of simpler arguments plus predicates. You say, reasonably enough, that an argument is "a word or set of words", but you don't explain that both "dogs" and "big dogs" are arguments. And if "big dogs" is an argument, then why isn't "big dogs yawn" also an argument? Of course you could argue that "big dogs yawn" ''is'' an argument (a predication-as-argument). But I think there's an important structural difference between "big" and "yawn", which is captured by making the verb the heart of the structure. The verb is modified by the arguments, which are themselves modified by their own local predicates. It seems wrong to say that "yawn" is just as much a predicate of "dogs" as "big" is. Perhaps "yawn" could be analysed as an external predicate, and "big" as an internal one. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	**I am not just trying to rename old concepts. I'm starting from scratch based on my understanding of language development in children as well as of pidgins and creoles. in a sentence like "the dog yawns", "dog" is actually a feature of a particular animal (as indicated by "the") of the class "dogs". if you say "dogs yawn", "dogs" is not really a common noun pluralized; it is an abstract noun. "big dogs" is a reduced predication which is then modified by the predicate "yawns".		**I am not just trying to rename old concepts. I'm starting from scratch based on my understanding of language development in children as well as of pidgins and creoles. in a sentence like "the dog yawns", "dog" is actually a feature of a particular animal (as indicated by "the") of the class "dogs". if you say "dogs yawn", "dogs" is not really a common noun pluralized; it is an abstract noun. "big dogs" is a reduced predication which is then modified by the predicate "yawns".
		+	**What you say here is fine. But I thought you didn't like Lojban :-) Actually, Lojban goes further and has only predicates: "the dog" is "that which is-dog". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]


Line 21:		Line 24:
	** That's a bit loose. Do you mean that the phrase "the sun" is a proper noun? (But nouns are single words.) I would say that "sun" is a common noun, but the phrase "the sun" is a proper name. I would preserve "proper noun" for words like "George" that are proper names by themselves. Similarly, "the United Kingdom" is a proper name, but "kingdom" is a common noun. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		** That's a bit loose. Do you mean that the phrase "the sun" is a proper noun? (But nouns are single words.) I would say that "sun" is a common noun, but the phrase "the sun" is a proper name. I would preserve "proper noun" for words like "George" that are proper names by themselves. Similarly, "the United Kingdom" is a proper name, but "kingdom" is a common noun. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	**"the" is an adjective whose meaning in this case is something along the lines of "the one and only proper (sun)". "the" marks it as proper, true, but "sun" is the name.		**"the" is an adjective whose meaning in this case is something along the lines of "the one and only proper (sun)". "the" marks it as proper, true, but "sun" is the name.
		+	**The precise definition here may well depend on which language is being discussed. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]


	* I agree that pronouns are a subcategory of nouns. Proper nouns and common nouns ''together'' form the other subcategory. Pronouns can be defined as nouns whose meanings vary with the context. There are also syntactic reasons for distinguishing pronouns, such as their tendency to reject modification – although presumably, in your analysis, you would say that a subject or object pronoun is modified by the verb. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		* I agree that pronouns are a subcategory of nouns. Proper nouns and common nouns ''together'' form the other subcategory. Pronouns can be defined as nouns whose meanings vary with the context. There are also syntactic reasons for distinguishing pronouns, such as their tendency to reject modification – although presumably, in your analysis, you would say that a subject or object pronoun is modified by the verb. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	**you say it yourself: their tendency. each language has its particular rules that determine the specifics of usage. (all nouns' meanings vary with ocntext, of course.)		**you say it yourself: their tendency. each language has its particular rules that determine the specifics of usage. (all nouns' meanings vary with ocntext, of course.)
		+	**I agree. All nouns' meanings vary with context, certainly. But you can at least look the meanings up in the dictionary. Pronouns' meanings, whether deictic or anaphoric, are ''entirely'' context-dependent. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]


Line 37:		Line 42:
	**You could argue that everything is either a predicate or an argument, and that a predication is just a (confusingly named!) type of argument. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**You could argue that everything is either a predicate or an argument, and that a predication is just a (confusingly named!) type of argument. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	***true in a sense. but not all predications are embedded in other predications like "predications-as-arguments".		***true in a sense. but not all predications are embedded in other predications like "predications-as-arguments".
		+	***I'm interested in whether the lowest level (the predication) can be treated as an argument (like "snake!"), consisting of the verb and ''its'' arguments. Your analysis has it the other way round, with the verb modifying its subject, and that equates the predication with the modified subject. Either way, it seems that the lowest level can be regarded as a type of argument. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]


Line 42:		Line 48:
	** You don't mean that the word is treated as if it were a thing, of course. You mean that the action or state is treated as if it were a thing. Again, this is an illustration, not a definition. All you really mean is that a verbal noun is a noun that presents the predicate meaning of a verb as an argument. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		** You don't mean that the word is treated as if it were a thing, of course. You mean that the action or state is treated as if it were a thing. Again, this is an illustration, not a definition. All you really mean is that a verbal noun is a noun that presents the predicate meaning of a verb as an argument. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	***treated within the utterance in the same manner as would a thing, ie as an argument. I don't understand your last sentence.		***treated within the utterance in the same manner as would a thing, ie as an argument. I don't understand your last sentence.
		+	***I was simply trying to agree with you, using more exact phrasing. A verbal noun is what you get if you convert a verb to an argument, with no semantic drift. Are you not arguing that any predicate can be converted to an argument, and vice versa, as the building blocks of sentences? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]


Line 47:		Line 54:
	** This is true even if the verbal noun doesn't have an object. Consider the noun "pluve" in LFN. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		** This is true even if the verbal noun doesn't have an object. Consider the noun "pluve" in LFN. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	***I moved this idea to under "predication-as-argument". "pluve" would actually fit under both.		***I moved this idea to under "predication-as-argument". "pluve" would actually fit under both.
		+	***Yes. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]


Line 52:		Line 60:
	** Is this not true of nouns generally? "This is the piano (specific) I learned to play the piano (generic) on." [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		** Is this not true of nouns generally? "This is the piano (specific) I learned to play the piano (generic) on." [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	***yes it is. I only mentioned it here because it is less obvious.		***yes it is. I only mentioned it here because it is less obvious.
		+	***Omitting things can confuse the reader :-) [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]


Line 57:		Line 66:
	** So this isn't quite the same transformation as with a verb, even though you claim verbs and adjectives are both predicates. This is presumably because (as you say) the adjective requires the verb "to be" (explicit or understood) if it is to be used predicatively. "Beauty" isn't "beautiful" presented as a noun: it's "be beautiful" presented as a noun. Likewise for abstract nouns like "motherhood". Whereas a verbal noun is simply a verb converted into a noun, with no change of meaning, adjectival and abstract nouns involve the addition of "be". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		** So this isn't quite the same transformation as with a verb, even though you claim verbs and adjectives are both predicates. This is presumably because (as you say) the adjective requires the verb "to be" (explicit or understood) if it is to be used predicatively. "Beauty" isn't "beautiful" presented as a noun: it's "be beautiful" presented as a noun. Likewise for abstract nouns like "motherhood". Whereas a verbal noun is simply a verb converted into a noun, with no change of meaning, adjectival and abstract nouns involve the addition of "be". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	***that is, of course, true in english and many other languages. I don't consider it fundamental, however. I do see "beauty" as the nominalization of "beautiful" (like "good" is the adjectival noun of "good").		***that is, of course, true in english and many other languages. I don't consider it fundamental, however. I do see "beauty" as the nominalization of "beautiful" (like "good" is the adjectival noun of "good").
		+	***Thinking about this some more, it seems clear that the word "beautiful" already has the idea of "be" built into it, i.e. "beautiful" means "being beautiful", "which is beautiful", "which has beauty". So we can say that any predicate can be converted to an argument with no change of meaning (other than the superficial change occasioned by the change of syntax). That's very good. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	** Your analysis collapses adjectives, verbal adjectives, adverbs and nominal adjectives together into "adjectival noun". Not really a problem, but worth pointing out. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		** Your analysis collapses adjectives, verbal adjectives, adverbs and nominal adjectives together into "adjectival noun". Not really a problem, but worth pointing out. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	***just a matter of level-of-analysis. one could certainly add "verbal adjectival nouns", etc.		***just a matter of level-of-analysis. one could certainly add "verbal adjectival nouns", etc.

Forum:Sujestas (Simon)

Cgboeree — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 01:33:27 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:33, November 15, 2009
Line 7:		Line 7:

	* "A person or thing." Would "entity" be a simpler equivalent to this phrase? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		* "A person or thing." Would "entity" be a simpler equivalent to this phrase? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	**sure. I just like to keep things very concrete.


	* It's interesting that you regard a verb as modifying its arguments. I've always thought of the arguments as modifying the verb, just as the arguments to a mathematical function modify the function's meaning by parameterizing it. I think you need to provide some justification for this move, particularly in the light of what I say in the next point. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		* It's interesting that you regard a verb as modifying its arguments. I've always thought of the arguments as modifying the verb, just as the arguments to a mathematical function modify the function's meaning by parameterizing it. I think you need to provide some justification for this move, particularly in the light of what I say in the next point. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	**that is exactly how how see all the predicates, verbs included. "persons or things" are perceptually more stable than qualities, relations, actions, etc.


	* Strictly speaking, your analysis doesn't allow arguments to consist of simpler arguments plus predicates. You say, reasonably enough, that an argument is "a word or set of words", but you don't explain that both "dogs" and "big dogs" are arguments. And if "big dogs" is an argument, then why isn't "big dogs yawn" also an argument? Of course you could argue that "big dogs yawn" ''is'' an argument (a predication-as-argument). But I think there's an important structural difference between "big" and "yawn", which is captured by making the verb the heart of the structure. The verb is modified by the arguments, which are themselves modified by their own local predicates. It seems wrong to say that "yawn" is just as much a predicate of "dogs" as "big" is. Perhaps "yawn" could be analysed as an external predicate, and "big" as an internal one. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		* Strictly speaking, your analysis doesn't allow arguments to consist of simpler arguments plus predicates. You say, reasonably enough, that an argument is "a word or set of words", but you don't explain that both "dogs" and "big dogs" are arguments. And if "big dogs" is an argument, then why isn't "big dogs yawn" also an argument? Of course you could argue that "big dogs yawn" ''is'' an argument (a predication-as-argument). But I think there's an important structural difference between "big" and "yawn", which is captured by making the verb the heart of the structure. The verb is modified by the arguments, which are themselves modified by their own local predicates. It seems wrong to say that "yawn" is just as much a predicate of "dogs" as "big" is. Perhaps "yawn" could be analysed as an external predicate, and "big" as an internal one. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	**I am not just trying to rename old concepts. I'm starting from scratch based on my understanding of language development in children as well as of pidgins and creoles. in a sentence like "the dog yawns", "dog" is actually a feature of a particular animal (as indicated by "the") of the class "dogs". if you say "dogs yawn", "dogs" is not really a common noun pluralized; it is an abstract noun. "big dogs" is a reduced predication which is then modified by the predicate "yawns".


	* Words like "the ''sun''" are proper nouns.		* Words like "the ''sun''" are proper nouns.
	** That's a bit loose. Do you mean that the phrase "the sun" is a proper noun? (But nouns are single words.) I would say that "sun" is a common noun, but the phrase "the sun" is a proper name. I would preserve "proper noun" for words like "George" that are proper names by themselves. Similarly, "the United Kingdom" is a proper name, but "kingdom" is a common noun. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		** That's a bit loose. Do you mean that the phrase "the sun" is a proper noun? (But nouns are single words.) I would say that "sun" is a common noun, but the phrase "the sun" is a proper name. I would preserve "proper noun" for words like "George" that are proper names by themselves. Similarly, "the United Kingdom" is a proper name, but "kingdom" is a common noun. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	**"the" is an adjective whose meaning in this case is something along the lines of "the one and only proper (sun)". "the" marks it as proper, true, but "sun" is the name.


	* I agree that pronouns are a subcategory of nouns. Proper nouns and common nouns ''together'' form the other subcategory. Pronouns can be defined as nouns whose meanings vary with the context. There are also syntactic reasons for distinguishing pronouns, such as their tendency to reject modification – although presumably, in your analysis, you would say that a subject or object pronoun is modified by the verb. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		* I agree that pronouns are a subcategory of nouns. Proper nouns and common nouns ''together'' form the other subcategory. Pronouns can be defined as nouns whose meanings vary with the context. There are also syntactic reasons for distinguishing pronouns, such as their tendency to reject modification – although presumably, in your analysis, you would say that a subject or object pronoun is modified by the verb. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	**you say it yourself: their tendency. each language has its particular rules that determine the specifics of usage. (all nouns' meanings vary with ocntext, of course.)


	* Some pronouns are also used as subjunctions to introduce a subordinated predicate ("the man ''who'' fell to earth").		* Some pronouns are also used as subjunctions to introduce a subordinated predicate ("the man ''who'' fell to earth").
	** This is an interesting idea, but it seems a bit language-specific. I would prefer to say that "who" is either a pronoun ''or'' a subjunction, depending on how you use it, just as "muddy" is an adjective in "the muddy water" and a verb in "to muddy the water". (Two separate lexical items, with a transparent etymological connection.) [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		** This is an interesting idea, but it seems a bit language-specific. I would prefer to say that "who" is either a pronoun ''or'' a subjunction, depending on how you use it, just as "muddy" is an adjective in "the muddy water" and a verb in "to muddy the water". (Two separate lexical items, with a transparent etymological connection.) [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	***in the case of "who", there are several meanings. one of them is "someone" plus "I-want-to-know". another is "the-one-previously-referred-to" plus "has-the-following-quality/relation/action/etc."


	* Predicate-as-argument. An action, change, state, quality, etc., treated ''as if'' it were a thing.		* Predicate-as-argument. An action, change, state, quality, etc., treated ''as if'' it were a thing.
	** In other words: a predicate treated as an argument! The reference to "action, change, state, quality; thing" is more of an illustration of the typical pattern than a definition. I approve of the way you've used "typically" in other parts of your analysis! [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		** In other words: a predicate treated as an argument! The reference to "action, change, state, quality; thing" is more of an illustration of the typical pattern than a definition. I approve of the way you've used "typically" in other parts of your analysis! [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	***"action, change, state, quality, thing" refer to actual experiences and not to some linguistic pattern.
	**You could argue that everything is either a predicate or an argument, and that a predication is just a (confusingly named!) type of argument. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**You could argue that everything is either a predicate or an argument, and that a predication is just a (confusingly named!) type of argument. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	***true in a sense. but not all predications are embedded in other predications like "predications-as-arguments".


	* Verbal noun. A word derived from a verb (an action or state) treated as if it were a thing.		* Verbal noun. A word derived from a verb (an action or state) treated as if it were a thing.
	** You don't mean that the word is treated as if it were a thing, of course. You mean that the action or state is treated as if it were a thing. Again, this is an illustration, not a definition. All you really mean is that a verbal noun is a noun that presents the predicate meaning of a verb as an argument. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		** You don't mean that the word is treated as if it were a thing, of course. You mean that the action or state is treated as if it were a thing. Again, this is an illustration, not a definition. All you really mean is that a verbal noun is a noun that presents the predicate meaning of a verb as an argument. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	***treated within the utterance in the same manner as would a thing, ie as an argument. I don't understand your last sentence.


	* With an object included, the verbal noun could also be considered a "reduced predication".		* With an object included, the verbal noun could also be considered a "reduced predication".
	** This is true even if the verbal noun doesn't have an object. Consider the noun "pluve" in LFN. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		** This is true even if the verbal noun doesn't have an object. Consider the noun "pluve" in LFN. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	***I moved this idea to under "predication-as-argument". "pluve" would actually fit under both.


	* Verbal nouns can be used in a generic sense, referring to the entire class of actions or states ("I want to study dance"). They can also be used more specifically, referring to a particular action or class of actions ("this is a delightful dance").		* Verbal nouns can be used in a generic sense, referring to the entire class of actions or states ("I want to study dance"). They can also be used more specifically, referring to a particular action or class of actions ("this is a delightful dance").
	** Is this not true of nouns generally? "This is the piano (specific) I learned to play the piano (generic) on." [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		** Is this not true of nouns generally? "This is the piano (specific) I learned to play the piano (generic) on." [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	***yes it is. I only mentioned it here because it is less obvious.


	* Adjectival noun - A word, derived from an adjective, but used to name the concept.		* Adjectival noun - A word, derived from an adjective, but used to name the concept.
	** So this isn't quite the same transformation as with a verb, even though you claim verbs and adjectives are both predicates. This is presumably because (as you say) the adjective requires the verb "to be" (explicit or understood) if it is to be used predicatively. "Beauty" isn't "beautiful" presented as a noun: it's "be beautiful" presented as a noun. Likewise for abstract nouns like "motherhood". Whereas a verbal noun is simply a verb converted into a noun, with no change of meaning, adjectival and abstract nouns involve the addition of "be". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		** So this isn't quite the same transformation as with a verb, even though you claim verbs and adjectives are both predicates. This is presumably because (as you say) the adjective requires the verb "to be" (explicit or understood) if it is to be used predicatively. "Beauty" isn't "beautiful" presented as a noun: it's "be beautiful" presented as a noun. Likewise for abstract nouns like "motherhood". Whereas a verbal noun is simply a verb converted into a noun, with no change of meaning, adjectival and abstract nouns involve the addition of "be". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	***that is, of course, true in english and many other languages. I don't consider it fundamental, however. I do see "beauty" as the nominalization of "beautiful" (like "good" is the adjectival noun of "good").
	** Your analysis collapses adjectives, verbal adjectives, adverbs and nominal adjectives together into "adjectival noun". Not really a problem, but worth pointing out. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		** Your analysis collapses adjectives, verbal adjectives, adverbs and nominal adjectives together into "adjectival noun". Not really a problem, but worth pointing out. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	***just a matter of level-of-analysis. one could certainly add "verbal adjectival nouns", etc.
	** You could argue that abstract nouns are just a special case of adjectival nouns, derived from nouns "used as adjectives" (nouns as modifiers), as in the old LFN noun-noun compounds (om-rana). [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		** You could argue that abstract nouns are just a special case of adjectival nouns, derived from nouns "used as adjectives" (nouns as modifiers), as in the old LFN noun-noun compounds (om-rana). [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	***yes, you could.


	*p - Predicate. (Note that there may be pro-forms for these, similar to pronouns.)		*p - Predicate. (Note that there may be pro-forms for these, similar to pronouns.)
	** This is presumably a reference to words like "does" in "she already does". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		** This is presumably a reference to words like "does" in "she already does". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+	***yes


	*Intransitive verb. Distinguished from other modifications in that it is more likely to be the main predicate of a predication.		*Intransitive verb. Distinguished from other modifications in that it is more likely to be the main predicate of a predication.
	** Can it be anything ''other'' than the main predicate of a predication? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		** Can it be anything ''other'' than the main predicate of a predication? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
		+

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:01, November 20, 2009
Line 68:		Line 68:
	**Si on pinti un arbor (desinia el con pinta sur paper), la arbor real es la pintida, e la imaje es la... pinti? (Como "tradui", etc.) Ma si on pinti un imaje de un arbor, la imaje es la pintida, e la arbor real no ave un nom clar. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Si on pinti un arbor (desinia el con pinta sur paper), la arbor real es la pintida, e la imaje es la... pinti? (Como "tradui", etc.) Ma si on pinti un imaje de un arbor, la imaje es la pintida, e la arbor real no ave un nom clar. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	***Esce on no ta pote dise ce la imaje es pintida (como per esemplo un casa) en cuando la arbor es depintida (no es pinta sur el)? [[User:Patrick Chevin\|Patric]]		***Esce on no ta pote dise ce la imaje es pintida (como per esemplo un casa) en cuando la arbor es depintida (no es pinta sur el)? [[User:Patrick Chevin\|Patric]]
		+	***Esta es un bon idea, me pensa. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	*picture ''turned'' to the side ?		*picture ''turned'' to the side ?
	**Torseda? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Torseda? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:03, November 16, 2009
Line 18:		Line 18:
	**On ia lansa Firefox a sinco anios ante oji. / On ia lansa Firefox ante esata sinco anios. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**On ia lansa Firefox a sinco anios ante oji. / On ia lansa Firefox ante esata sinco anios. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	**o "on ia lansa Firefox a esta dia sinco anios en la pasada". [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]		**o "on ia lansa Firefox a esta dia sinco anios en la pasada". [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]
		+	**On nesesa un preposada per introdui "sinco anios", no? Cisa on pote dise ance "a esta dia a sinco anios pasada". [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
	*Intel is planning a press release in late--anunsia a la jornales		*Intel is planning a press release in late--anunsia a la jornales
	**O "comunica a la jornales"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**O "comunica a la jornales"? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
Line 25:		Line 26:
	** reinstitui o reinstala ?		** reinstitui o reinstala ?
	**Tota estas pare posable. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Tota estas pare posable. [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]
-	**me acorda. usa la un tu gusta la plu! [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]	+	**me acorda. usa la un ce tu gusta la plu! [[User:Cgboeree\|Jorj]]
	*a camera for ''action'' and sports ?		*a camera for ''action'' and sports ?
	**Ativia? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]		**Ativia? [[User:Simon Davies\|Simon]]