On Sun, 30 May 1999 14:40:31 EDT, "From
Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html" <Lassailly@...>
skribis:
>> But this is something which has to be specified on language's =
grammar.
>> For example, in the case of "good fisher", let's say in UTL good is
>> "bona", fish is "fishumi" and man is "homo"; -o for nouns, -a for
>> adjs, and -am for adverbs. We would have (uncompoundedly) distinct
>> ways to express what you want:
>> bona fishuma homo (both adjs affect noun)
>> bonam fishuma homo (adv affects adj which affects noun)
>>
>do you mean [bonam fishuma] homo or [bonam fishuma] homo ;-)
:-?
>> bonam fishumero
>> =20
>> As you see, it's all on grammar.
>>=20
>
>i did differently in some of my conlangs. i'll try to stick to your word=
=20
>order although i think it's one of the worst you can design for an =
auxlang :=20
Why?
>bone fishi =3D to fish well
>bona fishi-r-o =3D the good fisher
>bone-a fishiro =3D the fisher fishing well
Ah, you have given to me an idea here:
bona fishero =3D a good fisher
bonama fishero =3D a fisher fishing well
:-)
>bonea fishi-k-o =3D the efficient fishing
bona fishio (don't need for bonama; "fishio" is a directly derived
noun in my system).
>faste-t-e bone fishi =3D to fish fast and well
I must say I don't like this "-t-" feature.=20
fastam ed bonam fishi
>faste-t-a bonea fishiro =3D the quick and efficient fisher
fastama bonama fishero
>faste bonata bonea fishero fishi =3D quickly fishes the good fisher =
fishing well
fastam fishas bonama bona fishero
>japano-s-a-t-a bona fishi-k-o =3D the morally unquestionable Japanese =
whaling=20
>campaign for purpose of scientific survey.
Mmm, I'll try it other day... ;-)
>;-)
>It's just hell.
Yes, but it's consistent! :)
>"fisher". Dictionaries usually do reversely, giving a different meaning =
for=20
>"good" as for virtue, taste, efficiency, etc. (usually disconnected from=
the=20
>noun that precisely endows "good" with such meaning) except for the sake=
of=20
>providing examples.
>But now another example :
>Does "English is difficult" mean it is difficult to pronounce ? to learn=
? to=20
>read ?
>Of course you'll tell me you just precise it and you get rid of trouble,=
but=20
>it's never quite so possible. By always precising more, you make =
everything=20
>heavy.=20
If this were a real-time conversation, I would have stopped you here
saying that my language doesn't attempt to eliminate that kind of
ambiguity which I prefer to call "impreciseness". "Angleso es
desfacila" is a perfect normal sentence in UTL. Ambiguities to
eliminate in UTL are just those which provoke MT errors.
Saludos,
Marcos