On Mon, 31 May 1999 16:36:24 EDT, "From
Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html" <Lassailly@...>
skribis:
>> >> 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 ;-)
>> =20
>> :-?
>
>(try again, mathias :)
>
>do you mean " [bonam fishuma] homo " OR " bonam [fishuma homo] " ?
[fishuma homo] would be considered as a noun, so it cannot be modified
by an adverb.
>> Ah, you have given to me an idea here:
>> =20
>> bona fishero =3D a good fisher
>> bonama fishero =3D a fisher fishing well
>> =20
>> :-)
>
>at least i made someone happy that day (sigh).
Oh, I wish I could be happy so easily. But thanks anyway :)
>> >faste-t-e bone fishi =3D to fish fast and well
>> =20
>> I must say I don't like this "-t-" feature.=20
>> fastam ed bonam fishi
>>=20
>
>does "ed" resume fastam to fishi ONLY (like "ed-a" would) or is it =
another=20
>ambiguous "and" (like "ed-e" would)?
I know conjuction "and" may be ambiguous. But at this case?
>> 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".
>
>there is no ambiguity nor impreciseness in language. only ambi-valence.
Or poly-valence, I would prefer. That would be for me the general
purpose term.
Saludos,
Marcos