Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 29/05/99 19:15:15  , Marcos a =E9crit :

> On Fri, 28 May 1999 16:51:01 EDT, "From
>  Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html" <[log in to unmask]>
>  skribis:
> =20

>  >i don't get that one. did you ever read the Chinese "white horse"=20
paradigma=20
> ?
> =20
>  No, tell me.

well, that's another problem because i don't know one word of Chinese ;-).=20
But i'll try to explain it as well as i can :
In the 18th century, European grammarians considered that in "white horse",=20
adjective "white" was "subjected" to noun "horse" : "horse" could "stand by=20
itself" (as a noun) while "white" couldn't (as an adjective). There was a=20
kind of hierarchy between attributive and substantive PoS (noun / adjective)=
.=20
For Chinese grammarians, in "white horse" neither "white" nor "horse" would=20
prevail on another : "the horse that is not attached to the white is a horse=20
and the white that is not attached to the horse is white".
Nowadays, we know that a noun cannot "stand by itself" and must fit into a=20
predicate-argument pair however implicit it is. And we know that an=20
"adjective" is only the attributive form of a concept while a "noun" is its=20
substantive form.
 =20
>  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 ;-)
=20
>  Let's take it now compoundly (with the suffix -er-, though we could
>  use hom- as well):
> =20
>  bona fishumero
> =20
>  As an adjective modifies the noun (whether it's compounded/derived or
>  not), bona affects the object expressed by "fishumero" and not its/his
>  qualities, so the meaning would be "good man who fishes". If you
>  wanted to exalt his fishing qualities, you would say something like
>  "bon-fishuma homo", or perhaps syntax rules could permit an adverb
>  before a compound noun which affects its adjective part:
> =20
>  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
i always avoid to reverse SVO order in integration, be it with adj-noun or=20
within compound or derived words.
let's say :
i : verb
o : substantive
a : adj =3D attributive to a substantive
e : adv =3D attributive to a verb
-r- : nomen agentis
-k- : noun of action
-s- : genitive
-t- : and (resumptive)

bone fishi =3D to fish well
bona fishi-r-o =3D the good fisher
bone-a fishiro  =3D the fisher fishing well
bonea fishi-k-o =3D the efficient fishing
faste-t-e bone fishi =3D to fish fast and well
faste-t-a bonea fishiro =3D the quick and efficient fisher
faste bonata bonea fishero fishi =3D quickly fishes the good fisher fishing =
well
japano-s-a-t-a bona fishi-k-o =3D the morally unquestionable Japanese whalin=
g=20
campaign for purpose of scientific survey.
;-)
It's just hell.
This works well with words derived or compound because they are kind of=20
univoque : you can pick either the "verb fish-" or the "noun -er" within=20
"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 ? t=
o=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. Unless (1) you find a way to take into account and collect contextual=20
clues from preceding morphemes (2) you do like Japanese do :=20
(boku-wa) kore-wo kaku.
(me-TOP) this-ACC write.
i write this.
kore-wa kaki-gatai.
this-TOP write-difficult.
this is difficult to write.
boku(ni)-wa kore-ga kaki-gatai.
(to) me-TOP this-NOM write-difficult.
it is difficult for me to write this.
But then you have to design the syntax so as to allow this kind of=20
attributive construction ("my writing is difficult") or need further PoS=20
pronouns and the specific attributive construction my little cousins use all=20
the time :
examples :
i write this & it (writing this) is difficult.
"it is difficult for me to write this."=20
stone hurt john his head.
"the stone hurts john's head".=20
> =20
>  Saludos,
>  Marcos
> =20

salut gars !
Mathias