Don rote:

>Depending on where it is used, it may or may not require context to make
>its meaning clear. A perhaps more "precise" example is the verb "kuri" = to
>run. Its adjective form "kura", created in exactly the same way and given
>meaning in exactly the same way, when coupled with the noun "konkurso"
>(contest) in "kura konkurso" is easily understandable even without context.
>(Note: nobody will confuse a "kura konkurso" -- contest that has to do with
>running -- with "kuranta konkurso" -- a contest which is itself running,
>assuming that a contest has feet with which to run. (*) Similarly, "fala
>arbo" should not be confused with "falanta arbo".)

Of course, choosing the context cleverly, as you have done here, will seem
to disprove the point.  If, instead of 'konkurso', you had chosen something
which could conceivably run, say 'hundo', then 'kura hundo' could indeed be
understood in two ways: 1. a running dog (that is running at the moment), 2.
a racing dog, fe. a greyhound bred specificly for greyhound racing, ti.
running round dog tracks.

Kordiale, James Chandler
[log in to unmask]

"It is only fair to mention that many followers believe they in fact have a
practical test for explanatory adequacy: (1) if it's not from MIT, it's
wrong; (2) of two from MIT, the one O.K.'d by Chomsky or Halle is correct"
- Fred W. Householder, 'On some recent claims in phonological theory'

Get Your Private, Free Email at