Jerundios

romance languages use the gerundio after verbs to indicate a second, less important, action of the subject. the gerundio es essentially a nonfinite verb, and is viewed by romance grammarians as a verbal adverb. in most romance languages, the gerundio differs from the participle, except in french, which relies more on the use of prepositions such as “en” and “a” to mark the gerundio. english has lost all distinction between participles and gerundios. nonetheless, english distinguishes between participles used as adverbs and participles used as gerundios: in “he spoke haltingly”, the participle takes -ly to form the adverb; in “he walked whistling”, it does not.

implicit in an expression such as “he walked whistling” is a more complete expression such as “he walked and at the same time he whistled” or “he whistled while he walked”. (this is what I mean by “an abbreviated form” - not that we go through a process of reduction as we form sentences such as these!) the grammar of lfn is, intentionally, closer to the semantic level than a language such as french or english, and so tends to be much more explicit. the effort I’ve taken to keep the rules simple and to avoid the many “tricks” that languages typically use to make speech more compact is the root of this, something which was inspired by the creoles and pidgins that I love.

as I’ve said, I am not against anyone using the construction. but it is not just a matter of following the rules we’ve already set up for lfn - it is “something else”, i.e. the gerundio. the closest thing that lfn has to the gerundio is a construction involving “en” and the verbal noun. for example: en pasa - in passing, en passant. deconstructed, this is “en” with the meaning “during” plus “pasa” as the verbal noun. it is not an infinitive, and the article is understood.

while I’m at it, I also find “el core nuda” to be illogical (in terms of the rules of lfn). “he ran nude” is significantly different from “he chose wisely”. as with the gerundio, this is an “abbreviated form” for something like “he was nude while he ran” or, in lfn, “el ia es nuda en cuando el core” or “el ia es nuda en core”. again, feel free to use the construction, but let’s not pretend that it is grammatical vis-à-vis lfn.

• You make some excellent points here, and there’s certainly a syntactic difference between “ran nude” and “chose wisely”. But what if “he ran happily”? How does one run in a happy way? Do we not just mean that he was happy as he ran? In which case, how is this grossly different from “he ran whistling”? The semantic difference seems very subtle. The Romance gerundio derives from the ablative form of the Latin gerund, which was a verbal noun, so I understand your point about “en pasa”. But I believe “en pasa” can be deconstructed in two ways, corresponding to the difference between “en leje la libro” and “en (la) leje de la libro”. Your example with “haltingly” only works because “halting” is a simple adjective meaning “hesitant”, rather than a participle. When participles are used adverbially in English, they don’t take “-ly”: “The train travelled through the night, halting at every station.” How would you express that in LFN, bearing in mind that the travelling is the main thing, and the halting is secondary? Simon
• and you make a good point about “he ran happily”. in fact, that’s close to an original example of the identity of adjectives and adverbs in lfn: “el dansa felis”. I do, in fact, view “happily” as modifying the verb, which can be expanded as “he ran in a happy manner”. but you can’t reconstruct “he ran nude” or “he ran whistling” this way (unless you really, really stretch the meaning of “manner”).
  • While the most “adverby” adverbs clearly have manner semantics, “adverb” is a syntactic category, and doesn’t necessarily entail those semantics. I feel no stretch in interpreting “he ran in a nude manner” as “he, who was nude, ran”; but I find it much harder to figure out whether this is simply because of ingrained habits from other languages! “He swam nude” seems even less problematic. What about “the eagle flew high”? It’s true to say that both the eagle and its flying were high. English has complex patterns for when the “-ly” is conventionally omitted. Simon
  • Consider also preposition phrases: these can function as modifiers in both NPs and VPs; i.e. loosely speaking, they can be adjectival or adverbial. The difference between “the eagle flew in the air” and “the eagle in the air flew” is extremely subtle. And what about “he ran with delight”? Is that “he, who was delighted, ran” or “he ran in a delighted manner”? “He ran with nudity” is stilted in English, but I see no problem with “el ia core con nudia” in LFN. How is that different from “el ia core nuda”? Where are the boundaries? This is why I said the rule was a complication. Simon
• I have a hard time with “en leje la libro”. that would be using “leje” as a gerundio, but in the form of an infinitive. think of it in english or any other language that marks the infinitive (or gerundio, for that matter): “he ran during to read the book” just does use the infinitive in any recognizable way. more reasonable is “he ran during his read of the book”. this is one of the reasons I briefly introduced the possibility of not using the preposition “of” to introduce the object of a verbal noun, although it certainly appears odd.
  • In my analysis, “en leje la libro” contains a preposition (“en”) followed by an infinitive clause (“leje la libro”). Within the clause, “leje” is a verb, and “la libro” is an NP functioning as the verb’s object. Infinitive clauses are one way of filling an NP-shaped gap, as for example after a preposition. I assume you don’t have a hard time with “el ia senta a la table per leje la libro”, so why is en any different? Incidentally, another way to fill an NP-shaped gap is with a “ce” clause, as in “el ia leje la libro en ce el core” (for which we normally say “el ia leje la libro en cuando el core”, but only as a side effect left over from the days when “en ce” would have introduced a relative clause). Simon
• I would translate “the train travelled through the night, halting at every station” as “la tren viaja tra la note, e ia para a cada stasion”. for me, the nicest solution to this problem of a secondary verb is to use “e”. I even like it with adjectives: “he was naked and ran through the streets” sounds charmingly coherent to me.
  • Your translation has simplified the original text. For example, you’ve omitted the idea that the two actions were simultaneous. You may say that this idea is contained in the word “e”, but “e” could also mean that the train didn’t make its first stop until the sun had come up, for example. You’ve also lost the idea that the travelling was the major event, and the halting was a minor accompaniment. Maybe this doesn’t matter much in everyday language, but it could be vital in legal or literary texts. Simon
• it is certainly in keeping with english, romance, and esperanto usage to use adjectives and participles after verbs as cuasi-adverbs, and I have no doubt done so in my poor attempts at translation. but part of the fun of lfn for me is trying to work inside the constraints of the intent, which is to be as accessible to asians and africans as is possible by having an internally consistent grammar.
  • I agree entirely with the intent, but I don’t see any great inconsistency. (And you know me: I can usually detect the presence of an inconsistency through twenty mattresses!) Simon

(later that evening…)

I’ve come up with a way of conceptualizing these constructions that makes more sense to me: treat them as subject complements introduced by a copula implicit in the verb. this would cover both “he ran nude” and “he ran whistling”, without the pretense of calling these adjectival forms adverbs. it is, I’ll be first to admit, a bit of a “truco”, but I like it.

• So “el core nuda” would imply “el core esente nuda”, where “esente” is an adverb and “nuda” is its adjectival complement. “He ran in a being-nude manner” gets round the problem you perceive with nudity being a quality of the actor, not the action. This works for me! Simon
• as so often in our discussions, much of our disagreement comes from our different uses of terminology - mine idiosyncratic and yours conventional, I will certainly admit - and our different views on theory - mine more semantic, yours more syntactic. those differences make it fun, but often difficult. a simple example is our way of understanding adverbs. I see them as essentially a category of words that modify verbs (plus cuasi-verbs such as infinitives and participles). they are “reduced” forms of an implicit phrase that could be expressed as “in an x mode or manner”. and before you say that they aren’t really reduced forms, let me remind you of the original meanings of the -ly in english and the -ment in french! but nevermind. languages as used pay little attention to our definitions and theories! jorj
• I don’t disagree with the essence of what you’ve just said. For example, I agree entirely that the most typical members of the adverb category have meanings that can be expressed as “in an x mode or manner”. As you point out, my disagreement is with your terminology, which confuses syntax and semantics. I don’t believe it’s valid to define syntactic categories (such as “adverb” or “adverb[ial] phrase”) in terms of syntactic functions (such as “modifier”) or semantic notions (such as “describes an action”). Adverbs usually function as modifiers, but some of them can sometimes function as the head of a noun phrase (as in “ier ia es un dia fria”). Adverbs as modifiers don’t just modify verbs, but also commonly adjectives, determiners, prepositions, and so on. If you haven’t seen it, here’s an interesting paper on the subject. Simon

Preposadas ante verbos

Me no comprende “ia lasa la se muta un”. Tu intende ce la ogro ia reverti a se forma normal pos se muta prima a la leon?

• Si, la testo dise “ ayant vu que l’ogre avait quitté sa première forme”. Ce tu proposa? Sunido 15:12, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
• “Pos vide ce la ogro ia reveni de se muta prima.” Tu no nesesa usa “la” ante cada nom verbal, ma sola cuando la sensa ta es nonclar sin el. Per esemplo, me ia vide ce tu scrive “en la tu tradui” (o un espresa simil), do “la” no es nesesada, car un preposada es sempre ja segueda par un formula de nom. En la esemplo de la muta de la ogro, par usa la verbo “reveni” e ajunta “de”, on pote solve la problem. “Lasa” sinifia “permete continua en se state”, no “sorti de”. Simon
  • Tu dise ce un preposada es sempre ja segueda par un formula de nom. Ma en tu frase seguente tu dise “par usa la verbo”. Me opina ce “par usa la verbo” no es un formula de nom. Sunido
  • “Usa” es, clar, un verbo, de la spesie cual on nomi “infinitiva” en otra linguas. “Usa la verbo” es en fato un spesie de suproposa (un suproposa infinitiva), e tal suproposas opera sintatical como si los ta es formulas de nom. (Simil, en “la gato entra la sala sin ce on vide el”, “ce on vide el” es un suproposa cual opera sintatical como un formula de nom.) Un suproposa infinitiva conteni nunca un sujeto, donce *par me usa la verbo* es un era: on debe dise “par me usa de la verbo”, do la parola “usa” es cambiada a un nom. Bon: on ta pote razona ce, si “usa la verbo” opera como un formula de nom, alora on ta debe pote pone un determinante de posese ante el – *par me usa la verbo* con la sinifia de “par me usa de la verbo” – ma on no fa esta, esata como on no dise *sin me ce on vide el*. La suproposa conteni ja un sujeto (an si esta no es direta espresada en la suproposa infinitiva), e repete el (o contradise el) par ajunta un determinante de posese ta es bizara. Simon
  • Me no es serta ce me ia comprende. Cual es bon: “par usa la verbo” o “par la usa de la verbo”? Ce es la forma LFN de la “jerundiva”? Esce “par X” o “Xnte”? E per la pasada? Esce “pos X” es bon? “Parolinte, li silentas” = “Pos parla, el silenti”. “Parolonte, li ekstaras” = “Ante parla, el sta se”. Sunido
    • lfn no usa un forma como la jerundiva. la forma cual fini con -nte es sempre sola un ajetivo o un nom derivada de la ajetivo.
    • serta, la usa de la forma con -nte pos “es” es simil a alga sinifias de jerundiva, ma el es plu esata un junta de “es” con la ajetivo, cual sola prosimi la modo continuante.
    • un otra usa de la jerundiva es prendeda par la infinitivo en lfn.
    • “par usa la verbo” no es coreta, e “usa” no es asi un infinitivo. on pote dise “par la usa de la verbo” o “par usa de la verbo” (car on pote lasa la “la” cade pos un preposada).
      • ???! La seguente es un esemplo en la gramatica: “El ia abri la noza par colpa el forte con un martel.” Si on pote dise “per abri la botela”, evidente on pote dise ance “par abri la botela”. (Esperanto ave regulas stupida cual dise ce on pote usa infinitivas pos sola alga preposadas.) La razona de Jorj es intera nova per me. Simon
        • damn. pare ce me era. cual me ta debe dise es ce on pote dise “par la usa de la verbo”, “par usa de la verbo”, e “par usa la verbo”. tota tre es bon.
    • final, on no pote usa normal la forma con -nte como un averbo. per esemplo, on no pote dise “el pasea sibilante”, ma debe dise “el pasea en cuando el sibila” o simil. ma, en casos rara, on pote usa la forma con -nte como un averbo si la averbo vera altera la sinifia de la verbo.
      • Denova: ???! La gramatica dise ce partisipios es “egal bon usable como averbos o nomes”, e dona esta esemplo: “El ia sta tremante en la porte.” Simon
        • la intende ia es ce on no pote usa un forma con -nte como un verbo du, ma sola como un averbo cual altera la sinifia de la verbo. en la esemplo “el pasea sibilante”, “pasea” no es “sibilante”. ma en “el sta tremante”, la “sta” es vera “tremante.”
    • Grasias per tu esplica. Me nota ce tu no opina como Simon. Donce ta es bon, si on ta esplica esta en la gramatica. Sunido
      • El es ja en la gramatica!! Me es stonada. Simon
      • Simon, ance me ia es stonada par la responde de Jorj. Me ia espera ce tu va reata. Simon, me vole sabe si tu acorda ce on no debe dise “el pasea sibilante”? Me opina ce la regula nova de Jorj es complicante e nonusos. Sunido
      • Me opina ce “el pasea sibilante” es bon. La regula nova de Jorj dise ce on pote un averbo partisipial sola cuando la verbo se mesma fa la ata de la partisipio (como en “la sta trema”). Ma acel aveni rara. La usa natural de un averbo partisipial es per ajunta un ata minor fada par la sujeto de la verbo. Serta, paseas no pote sibila, ma ci ta vole comprende ce la pasea e no la paseor fa la sibila? Simon
• pardona, simon, sunido. me ia compara lfn con alga otra usas de “jerundio” en otra linguas e deveni confusada. el ave un sinifia diferente en cada lingua! jorj
• me no comprende vos reata regardante “el pasea sibilante”. esta no es complicada. “sibilante” es un ajetivo cual altera la sujeto, no un averbo cual altera la verbo. la pasea no sibila, el sibila. on pote ajunta “sibilante” pos un virgula, me suposa. o on pote dise “el pasea e sibila”. esta no es un regula nova. jorj
• Me comprende la tu intende, ma “el pasea sibilante” sinifia “el pasea en un modo sibilante” (o “el fa un pasea cual es sibilante”), e esta sinifia “el pasea e sibila”. Ave plu ce un modo per dise cuasi la mesma cosa. “Como el pasea?” “El pasea rapida / el pasea con un sibila / el pasea sibilante.” Simon
• Si “el pasea sibilante” pote sinifia sola ce la ata de pasea emete un sibila, la partisipios averbal va es nonusable en la plu de casos. “El sta tremante” sinifia ce el sta (fato major) e trema (fato minor, acompaniante). “El ia mori perdeda en la jungla” no sinifia ce la mori ia es perdeda, ma ce el ia es perdeda e ia mori. Simon
  • aora, me es stonada! 🙂 “en un modo sibilante” pote indica ce el pasea tan rapida ce el emete un sona sibilin. la tu sujeste pare a me como un usa esperantin (como “me parla esperantin”). me comprende serta como on ta vole usa un espresa como “el pasea sibilante”, ma a min me ta dise “el pasea, sibilante” (simil a tu sujeste a su, regardante prados). ma bon, me no vole disputa. jorj
• un demanda peti: esce tu dise “el core nuda”? nos dise el en engles, serta, ma no en lfn, si?
• Ance en franses on pote dise “il court nu”, donce esta forma es romanica e fasil. Sunido
  • “El core nuda” pare bon a me. “Nuda” es un averbo, o on pote comprende el como un ajetivo. La sinifia cambia apena. “Core nuda” no es un modo definida de core – on no pote trova el en la disionario. La nudia es simple un state acompaniante. Ma un state cual acompania un ata es un modo de fa la ata! Simon
• interesante. nos permete “el vade pos come” e “el come ante vade”, si? (en engles, on ta dise “he goes after eating”, etc.) per ce nos permete “el vade comente”? “el vade pos come” es un corti de “el vade pos cuando el come”. donce on pote corti “el vade en cuando el come” a “el vade en come”, no? el sona strana, ma esta ta es coerente. personal, me ta dise “el vade e come (simultan)”. e “el es nuda e core”. la usa de formas con -nte en la modo vos sujeste pare idiomal e confusante. (nota: me no oposa ce vos usa la forma con -nte como vos desira.)
  • “Vade” es un mal esemplo, car “vade en” sujesta tro forte “entra”. Me no regarda “el vade pos come” como un corti de “el vade pos cuando el come”, ma como un otra modo (plu corta!) de dise la mesma. (Me vole dise ce on no comensa con la forma plu longa, e sutrae alga parolas. On comensa direta con la modo plu corta. Probable esta ia es la tu intende, an tal.) “El vade en come” es coerente, si. Esemplos plu clar: “el come en vade”, “el parla en dormi”. Ma ave un difere de sinifia: “el parla en dormi” sinifia “he talks while sleeping” – la dormi es la ata xef – ma “el pasea siblante” sinifia cuasi “he whistles while walking” – la pasea es la ata xef. Si on dise “el pasea en sibla”, la efeto es strana per acel razona. Simon