Ajetivos fininte par o
Nos no ave multe ajetivos ce fini par -o. Me crede ce un ajetivo de -o/-a en la linguas romanica deveni usual -a en LFN.
- Algas es termas internasional fisada, donce sin problem: audio, calipso, macro, maxo, stereo, tecno, video.
- Otras es nomes de linguas e poplas, ance bon: filipino, galego, hangugo, niongo, sebuano, sesoto.
- “Sanscrito” ave -o en espaniol, italian e portuges. (En italian el ave -a cuando ajetivo a un nom femin.)
- Mediteraneo ave -o en espaniol, italian e portuges, ma sola car el es un ajetivo a un nom masin. Posable el debe es “Mediteranea” en LFN.
- “Cono” e “tubo” opera como otra nomes de formas: ajetivos a base. Poca strana, ma tolerable. Tu ia considera “sircula”, “triangula”, “cono”, “tubo” per la nomes, e “sirculin”, “triangulin”, “conin”, “tubin” per la ajetivos?
- parolas de colores e formas es prima ajetivos. Un sircula es un ojeto sircula, no sirculin (“como un sircula”). esta es la confusa con “oro” e “arjento,” ce es colores en ajunta ce eser metales. un cosa oro es un cosa con la color de oro; un cosa de oro es un cosa fada de oro. tubo e cono segue la nomes afince la nom, cuando derivada de la ajetivo, reteni la formas “tubo” e “cono.”
- Bon. Grasias per la clari. Me no ia sabe ce un difere esiste entre “oro” (color) e “de oro”. Simon
- Formas de nubes (cumulo, nimbo, siro) es ance ajetivos a base. Posable estas debe es nomes, e la ajetivos debe es formada par -al.
- cumulo, etc, es ance formas. per ce la nom fini en -o, me ia reteni la -o per la ajetivo.
- Bon. Simon
- La parolas “acaso”, “bobo”, “pico” e “pronto” es bela e bon.
- La otras es:
- antimicrobio > antimicrobial
- arjento > de arjento (como “de lenio”, “de lana”, “de petra”, etc)
- oro > de oro
- coardo > coarda (es. cobarde, it. codardo/a)
- corajo > coraja — “corajo” es un nom en italian, ma LFN ajetivi el, suposable per pote dise “coraji” en loca de “corajosi”.
- cosmetico > cosmetica
- ilario > ilarios? (ilaria > forma basal)
- seto — un problem: el no sujeste forte se sinifia (ca. set, es. sed, it. sete, fr. soif, po. sede), ma la otra posables es ja parolas con otra sinifias. Me sujeste ce “seti” ta es plu bon ce “seto”: la parola latina “sitis” parteni a la declina tre (-i > -e), no la declina du (-o).
- visco > viscos (visco > sticky matter)
- zelo > zelos, zelia > zelo
- ilario, visco, zelo, coardo, seto: esta es reduis de formas ce fini en -os en multe linguas. pe, si on ave “zelos” on debe ave “zelosia,” ma con “zelo,” on pote ave “zelia.” compara con “jelos,” ce deveni “jelosia” como en multe linguas. per esta razon me eleje -o, per reteni alga de la sona de la orijinales en -os. Jorj
- Si on ave “zelo” (nom = zeal, como en espaniol), on pote ave “zelos”, no? On no nesesa “zelosia”. Simon
- La mesma per “ilario”: si la nom es “ilaria”, on pote ave “ilarios”. O posable “ilar” per la ajetivo, cuasi como en italian (“ilare”). Simon
- En cual lingua “coardo” e “seto” fini par -os? Simon
- Per ce redui “viscos” a “visco”? Acel causa ce la nom “viscia” es min simil a “viscosidad” en la otra linguas. Simon
- Cara Jorj ,tu frecuente usa “razon” e no “razona” Me avisa razon =nom e razona =verbo ,pf . Myaleee
Pardona me usa de engles:
When I created the original list of words, I tried to “discover” as best I could the semantic foundation of each word. For example, “thirst” is primarily a quality (“thirsty”) and the abstraction (“thirst”) derives from the quality. Similarly, “zeal” as an abstraction is secondary to the quality “zealous.” Since “zeal” is masculine in the romance languages, I kept the -o for the adjective in order to retain some recognizability. I picked “seto” in order to follow the same pattern and to clarify that it is not the noun (setia is), but you could be right that it should be seta instead (following fama for hungry).
A similar reasoning applies to colors and shapes: “cone” is semantically first a quality (“conical”) and only then an object (“cone”). colors are more difficult. Clearly, “blue” is first a quality. Following lfn rules, “blue” would then refer also to a blue object (and it does). However, in the romance languages (and many more) “blue” would also refer to the abstraction, i.e. the color blue. If we followed the rules of lfn, it would have to be “bluia,” but I decided to allow an exception here and use the same word for the quality, thing, and abstraction.
Although I frequently err with “razona,” the logic above covers this word as well: It is primarily an action (to reason) and the abstraction follows from that. By the rules of lfn, razona is the verb, and razona is the noun “derived” with -Ø.
The original intent was that, like creoles and pidgins, lfn would be strongly semantically based, thereby allowing minimal syntax and morphology. So qualities would always be adjectives, things would always be nouns, and actions would always be verbs. Practicality required simple ways to convert between adjectives, nouns, and verbs, and so the various suffixes came about (though I tried to use -Ø as much as possible). And I tried to keep a degree of “naturalness” vis-a-vis the romance languages. That, of course, is where some of the difficulties come from!
Me espera ce esta razonas va clari esta discute. Jorj
- Grasias: multe interesante. Pos comprende tu razonas, me acorda. Posable un parte de me problem con “zelo” es ce me es abituada a esperanto, do la fini -o indica sempre un nom. Car la numero de ajetivos con la fini -o en LFN es tan peti, me no ia abitua me per reata a los a modo nova. Colores es interesante: on pote dise ce bluia es blu (blueness is itself blue), ce cosa no vade con otra astratas (conia no es cono). On imajina bluia como un ojeto blu e neblos. Me pensa ancora ce “cosmetico” debe es “cosmetica”, e ce “antimicrobio” debe es “antimicrobial” (como parolas nondeduida). Simon
- grasias per comprende. cambia “cosmetico” e “antimicrobio” es bon. los no relata a la otra problemes. Jorj