Site de Paris

En tal espresas, cuando la nom du es la identia de la nom prima (e no el posesente), esce nos usa “de”? Compare “la rio de Paris” con “la rio Seine”. Otra esemplos: “la stato (de) California”, “la republica (de) Xina”, “la mensa (de) april”. Me preferi no usa “de” asi: es como “agila-pexor”. Alga casos es nonfasil: “la titulo de presidente” – la titulo parteni a la presidente ma ance es “presidente”. Simon

• Me preferi la usa de “de,” ma posable ambos formas debe es asetada.
• “La Rio Seine” difere de “la site de Paris,” car “Rio Seine es la nom completa, no?
• Si. “Seine” es la nom. “Rio” es como un titulo. “Seine” es un descrive ce identifia. Un nom segue un otra. Compare “Montania Everest”, “Profesor Chomsky”. Me no oposa la usa de “de”. Me desira simple conose tu opinas de el. (Me dise “la sistem de A B C” a su.) Simon

Vide ance Numeros ordinal.

Nomes propre, e se “dependentes”

• Did you see my random thought further up the page? I repeat it here for convenience:
  • Here’s a thought: We have noun phrases of the form “la rio Amazon”, which we explain away by mumbling something about titles. But why don’t we say that “Amazon” here is effectively an adjective? (This is already our explanation for “raio X” and “fix PDF”, after all.) If “Joana” in “la nom Joana” is an adjective, then we can reuse it as an adverb and say: “Los ia nomi Joana se fia.” Putting Joana in quotation marks may help. In English “to name” can also mean “to put forward the name of”, but that’s better handled by a different verb in LFN. Sentences like “they named him treasurer” can be unjarringly expressed as “los ia nomi el como tesoro” - or we can reasonably treat “treasurer” as an actual name that is given, no different from “Joana”, and say “los ia nomi ‘tesoro’ el”. Simon
    • we do not mumble here! I do think the idea of proper nouns and their “titles” having special rules is legit. I don’t like proper nouns as adjectives, much less adverbs! the other use of “to name” - do you mean “nominate” o “appoint”? one more suggestion: “nos dona la nom Sam a el”.
    • But is “la rio” in “la rio Amazon” really a title? A title seems to be something like “dotor” in “dotor Boeree”, with the special rule that it coalesces with the proper name and doesn’t require a determiner. In Esperanto, “Amazon” is regarded as an “identifying description” of “la rio” - i.e. “la rio” is the head of the noun phrase, and “Amazon” is a modifier (which doesn’t imply it’s an adjective). But this does seem the wrong way round: “la rio Amazon” is kinda short for “la rio de cual se nom es Amazon”. Perhaps we just need a better word than “title”, but I can’t immediately think of one. Simon
      • no, “la rio” is not a title. I do see “la rio Amazon” differently from you, though. To me, “Amazon” es the “head” of the phrase. I can’t see proper nouns as anything but the head of noun phrases! Jorj
        • Actually, I think we both see “la rio Amazon” in the same way. I mentioned the Esperanto analysis only to say that it seemed the wrong way round. Proper nouns are indeed the heads of noun phrases, and “la rio” is a modifier. Vorlin uses a preposition (“ze”) to separate “la rio” from “Amazon”. Simon
      • If a proper name isn’t a substantive, what is?
        • Supporters of Toki Pona would beg to differ! That language has no proper nouns whatsoever, but only proper adjectives. My name in Toki Pona is “jan Simon” (jan = person). “America” is “ma Mewika” (ma = land). Simon
          • that is so far from anything cognitive linguistics tells us, I would bet Toki Pona is the only language that says this! calling a proper name an adjective doesn’t make it so!
          • Si, Toki Pona es probable la lingua sola con esta cualia. Ma si lo defini ce se nomes propre es ajetivos, donce los es nonegable ajetivos - en acel lingua! Esta modo de regarda la mundo pare intera asetable; lo es simple no la modo usual. An tal, considera ce LFN pote dise “person du” e “person tre” per distingui du persones; la salta entre esta e “jan Simon” no es enorme. La esplora de la gramaticas noncomun es fasinante. Simon
          • me divina ce me es un idealiste: me crede en universales! posable tu ta gusta http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miskito_grammar
          • Grasias per acel lia interesante. Simon
          • Me ia malleje “Miskito” > “miscada”, bres. “mesked”…) Patric
      • but “la rio” is certainly different from ordinary modifiers. is there a technical name for such “double nouns”?
        • The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language distinguishes proper names (which are phrases) from proper nouns (which are single nouns): “the United States” is a proper name, but “States” is not a proper noun. It refers to words like “Mr”, “Dr”, “Queen”, and “Archbishop” as appellations. It then talks about other pre-head dependents:
          • Pre-head dependents may, as in ordinary NPs, have the form of adjectives [North America, British Columbia, Good Friday] or nouns - generally nouns that are themselves proper names [Harvard University, Oxford Street, the Ford Foundation], or descriptors indicating what kind of entity the name applies to [Lake Michigan, Mount Everest, the River Amazon]. The descriptors are generally omissible [Everest, the Amazon].
        • It also mentions proper names with post-head dependents of two types: the Isle of Skye, the Bay of Biscay, John of Gaunt; and Henry Cotton Senior, Peter the Great, George the Fifth. Simon

Sujestes:

• la rio Amazon
• la mar Pasifica
• la isola Skye
• America Norte
• re George 5
• san Lusia
• Piotr (?) la grande
• la Universia Harvard?
• John de Gaunt?
• Henry Cotton major
• la Fundada Ford

Estas es bon! Simon

• La Funda(da) Ford ? Patric
  • “Fundada” es plu bon ca “funda”, serta. La linguas romanica dise “la fundada Ford” sin “de”, ma alga de los (no tota) dise ance “la universia Harvard”. Si on no gusta descrive “Ford” e “Harvard” como ajetivos, on pote dise ce esta espresas ave la mesma strutur como “la rio Amazon”. Ma vera, la rio es Amazon, e la isola es Skye, ma la fundada e la universia no es Ford e Harvard - los es persones ci ia dona se nomes a esta cosas. An tal, on parla frecuente de “Harvard” sin prefisa lo par “la universia”. Como nos ta deside si “de” es nesesada? Simon
• La Fundada Ford no es la Fundada de Ford ma un fundada nomida Ford como la rio Amazon ia es nomida de la foresta Amazon do ia vive la Amazonas lejendal donce los no es ajetivos… Me pote dise : El labora a Ford = a la Fundada Ford… o El es instruor a Havard… Esta es nomida “apposition” : la ville de Paris > la site Paris… Patric
  • Tu es coreta. (Me ia pensa de la parola “apposition”, ma no ia mensiona lo, car en esperanto on dise ce “me sore Sara” no es “apposition”, e ce sola espresas como “Sara, me sore” conteni lo. A veses, esperanto malgida me :) Simon
• Me fasil imajina lo: ance me ia es venenida… Patriko
  • Me no opina ce esperanto es venenos — me gusta multe parla e scrive en lo. Ma lo conteni multe cosas strana, e la esperantistes ia crea un teoria gramatical nonusual per esplica esta cosas. A veses, me era, credente ce se teoria es normal e natural, probable car me ia parla esperanto tra tan multe anios ce lo pare aora natural a me… Simon
• Ance a me “bedaùrinde”!… Patric
• Es frecuente en la linguas propre ce los ave ajetivos ce deveni sustantivos… En elefen nos ave lo simil per la pronomes de person ce es ance ajetivos e es per esta ce pote es confusas como “Me gusta tu canta”, ma no a la person tre: “Me gusta el/se canta”… Esta no ta aveni si nos ta ave formas ajetival como pe: mi, ti, li, ni. vi, li…o otras… En creol de Caboverde “nos” es ajetivo e la pronom de la person prima de plural es “nu”… Vide un peso de un testo en esta lingua:
• “Duranti 500 anu, skravizadoris/kolonialistas uza armas i tudu kasta di objetus pa kastiga-nu pa obriga-nu ser sima es. Nu pega na arma, nu da-s tiru, nu po-s fora di nos tera. Gosi ta parse es sinhor pa kontinua trabadju di skravizadoris/kolonialistas, pa defende morti di nos lingua, morti di nos identidadi, non pa nu fika ta papia ingles ki e lingua mundial, mas un lingua ki ka ta sirbi-nu kuazi pa nada.” Patric

per segue la linguas romanica, me trova ce los usa un letera major en la “Funda Ford” e la “Universia Harvard”, e me acorda car “Funda” e “Universia” es vera un parte de la nom. me demanda per vos es: esce nos usa un letera major per “re”, “san”, etc? per “dotor”, “senior”, etc? Jorj

• Alga pensas acaso: Per nomes de mensas e dias e linguas, nos segue la linguas romanica e usa un letera minor, an si esta es nonlojical. Donce nos pote razona ce nos ta segue los ance asi. An tal, “dotor” e “senior” es frecuente cortida, e la disionario lista la cortis con un letera major. Me pensa ce la nomes de persones difere de la nomes de mensas, car cada anio ave p.e. se agosto propre. Donce cisa “Agosto 2009” es un nom propre, ma “agosto” no es. Esta es como “Universia Harvard” e “universia”, e “Dotor Boeree” e “dotor”. Ma scrive “agosto” e “Agosto 2009” ta es asurda! Posable nos pote justi “agosto 2009” par dise ce el es un corti abitual de “la agosto de 2009”, cual indica un cosa unica sin es vera un nom propre. Esta ta opera como la linguas: “la lingua italian” indica un cosa unica, ma “italian” es simple un ajetivo, e on pote corti el (par abitua) a “italian”, cual opera como un nom propre. Simon
• jeneral, me preferi no usa leteras major, an per “senior”, “seniora”, “dotor”, “re”, “san”, etc. me ta preferi an ce nos usa leteras minor per la cortis - sr, sra, dr. la mesma per rios, mares, isolas, etc. ma me pensa ce nomes de instituis, organizas, fundas, asosias, companias, partidas, universias, etc. nesesa leteras major per la parolas major (la Universia Harvard, la Fundada Ford, etc) car la nomes propre inclui ambos partes. me reconose ce “universia” e “fundada” es traduis de la nomes en engles (en esta caso) e me crede ce traduis de parolas normal en un nom propre es bon. Jorj
• Me no desacorda con esta ideas. Simon