Skip to content

Particle & Axiom Tests

Theme: Grammar & syntax · 12 sentences.

← Grammar & syntax · ← Corpus

T-AX-001 · Particle & Axiom

S114 lo-ra-ki-mu be-vo The engine has generative capacity / is capable of producing output.

Notes

  • be-vo = growth-quality = generative potential. be (growth/increase) as the property-head modifying the entity; -vo suffix (via root vo = value/quality) marks this as a quality/degree predicate. lo-ra-ki-mu be-vo = "the engine has the quality of being generative" = has productive capacity.
  • Comparison with S115 (wi-intention): be-vo is a bare stative property — it makes no claim about direction, purpose, or agent. The reactor simply has this property. wi [clause] (S115) asserts a directed goal state, which requires an agent or design-institution. The two are clearly semantically distinct.
  • "Greater energy" can be appended: lo-ra-ki-mu be-vo lo-ra nu-be — "the engine has generative capacity [yielding] energy exceeding [current output]." The degree phrase floats after the predicate as a scope modifier, consistent with the comparison construction established in S064–S067. Both forms (bare be-vo and expanded be-vo lo-ra nu-be) appear to be grammatical.
  • Capability primitive verdict: be-vo covers dispositional capability cleanly. The quality is the entity's property, not its intent or its causal history. The watch item can be updated: compound strategy is viable for this use case.

T-AX-002 · Particle & Axiom

S115 la-ra-ki-mu wi [lo-ra nu-be ka-be] The engine is [institutionally] designed for generating greater energy output.

Notes

  • wi [clause] = purpose frame. Established in spec/grammar.md § Purpose Frame. la-ra-ki-mu wi [...] = the engine's design intent is [to generate greater energy].
  • Non-intentional agent in wi frame: ra-ki-mu (an artifact) cannot have literal will. This is design-intent attribution, identical to the pattern in S034 (la-ra-ki-mu wi [lo-ha no-fe] = the reactor must stay cool). The machine's wi is its functional design goal, not its agentive intention. Pattern confirmed: wi [X] on an artifact = prescriptive / design-goal reading. Social context (the institution that designed it) is implicit.
  • Contrast with S114: S115 asserts a directed goal state (purpose); S114 asserts a property (capacity). A reactor that was designed to generate less power might still be capable of more (be-vo). A reactor designed for more power might currently be damaged and lack that capacity (no-be-vo). The two are logically independent — the language keeps them separate.

T-AX-003 · Particle & Axiom

S116 go [ra-ma be] lo-ra-ki-mu lo-ra nu-be ka-be Because fuel was added, the engine generates greater energy output.

Notes

  • ra-ma = energy-matter = fuel. Head-final: ma (raw material/substance) is head; ra (energy) modifies it as an energy-bearing material. First use; compound candidate.
  • go [ra-ma be] = causal frame: the cause is [fuel growth/addition]. ra-ma be = "fuel increases / fuel comes into existence" = fuel is added. The inner clause is a stative-change predication: bare be (growth) with ra-ma as patient, no agent.
  • lo-ra-ki-mu lo-ra nu-be ka-be = matrix clause: engine [regarding] energy more-than action:generates. The lo-ra nu-be phrase is a topic-scope modifier ("with respect to energy, more than before") preceding the predicate ka-be.
  • Contrast with S114 and S115: S116 is a factual causal assertion — the engine is generating more, because of X. No capability claim; no design-goal claim. The go [X] matrix causal frame handles pure causation cleanly.
  • Three-way verdict (Test 1): capability = be-vo, intention = wi [clause], causation = go [X] matrix. All three are formally and semantically distinct. No new primitive needed. Capability primitive watch item: be-vo is sufficient for current corpus pressure.

T-AX-004 · Particle & Axiom

S117 lo-pu-ra-ki-mu to-ru The engines share a unified pattern / are the same model/type.

Notes

  • to-ru = pattern-unity. Head-final: ru (unity/singularity) is head; to (conceptual pattern) modifies it. "The unity in question is at the pattern level" = same design template = same model.
  • lo-pu-ra-ki-mu = patient:plural-engine. pu- prefix marks plurality on the compound.
  • Contrast with S118: to-ru asserts a single unified pattern — the two things share one conceptual template. ne-to (S118) asserts a relational pattern — the things are connected by pattern similarity, not necessarily identical. Same model (to-ru) is stronger than similar (ne-to).

T-AX-005 · Particle & Axiom

S118 lo-pu-ra-ki-mu ne-to The engines have a relational pattern / are similar to each other.

Notes

  • ne-to = relation-pattern = similarity / analogy. Head-final: to (conceptual pattern) is head; ne (relation/connection) modifies it. "The pattern is a relational one" = there exists a pattern of mutual correspondence = similarity.
  • Strength distinction: to-ru = they ARE one (pattern); ne-to = they RELATE (pattern). These are genuinely distinct: to-ru is identity, ne-to is analogy. No new primitive needed for similarity — ne-to is transparent and well-motivated.
  • Similarity primitive verdict: ne-to is sufficient. Monday's prediction confirmed.

T-AX-006 · Particle & Axiom

S119 lo-pu-ra-ki-mu pe lo-su-ru The engines are components of one unified system.

Notes

  • su-ru = structure-unity = unified system / single system. Head-final: ru (unity) is head; su (structure/organization) modifies it. "The unity in question is structural" = a single organized system.
  • pe as stative predicate: lo-X pe lo-Y = X is a component of Y. This extends pe from its primitive definition (part/component) into the predicate slot. The two-lo construction (lo-X pe lo-Y) parallels the comparison structure (lo-X quality lo-Y) established in S064–S067. First corpus use of pe as a stative predicate. The construction is compositionally clean.
  • Three-way verdict (Test 2): identity = to-ru, similarity = ne-to, component membership = pe (predicate) with su-ru whole. All three are distinct. No new primitive needed.

T-AX-007 · Particle & Axiom

S120 la-zo-li ne lo-mu-ka The person is in relation to (possesses) a tool.

Notes

  • ne as stative possession predicate. In particle use, ne precedes its NP (ne-X = recipient:X). In predicate use, ne stands alone between argument markers: la-X ne lo-Y = X holds a relational state with respect to Y. The disambiguation is structural: ne as particle would produce ne-lo-mu-ka (ungrammatical run-on) or appear before the NP without lo. In the predicate slot, ne lo-Y is unambiguous.
  • mu-ka = artifact-action = tool. Established compound (stress-test table, primitives.md).
  • Possession as relation: Tonesu does not have a dedicated possession primitive. Ownership is a type of relation (ne). This is philosophically coherent with the setting: in Tonesu culture, "having" is a relational state, not an ontological category. It can dissolve (de), strengthen (be), be transferred (ne-particle
  • de), or be in dispute (ne-fe).
  • First corpus test of possession via ne predicate. T001 and T002 remain queued as more complex possession tests (pronoun reference, shared possession).

T-AX-008 · Particle & Axiom

S121 la-ko-mu ko lo-mu-ka The container holds the tool.

Notes

  • Applies the established la-X ko lo-Y rule (spec/grammar.md § Containment Predicates). The container is the la-agent of the containment state; the tool is the lo-patient (contents).
  • ko-mu (W052) = containment-artifact = vessel/container. Used with la particle.
  • Contrast with S120: la-zo-li ne lo-mu-ka = possession (relational state between person and tool, no spatial claim). la-ko-mu ko lo-mu-ka = containment (spatial state: tool is physically inside container, no ownership claim). The two predicates are orthogonal:
  • A pilot can possess a tool that is not in a container.
  • A tool can be in a container without being owned by anyone.
  • A pilot can own a tool that is stored in a container they don't own.

T-AX-009 · Particle & Axiom

S122 la-ko-mu ko lo-pu-mu-ka The container holds multiple tools.

Notes

  • Same structure as S121 with pu- pluralizer on the contents.
  • Possession/containment verdict (Test 3): ne (possession) and ko (containment) are formally and semantically distinct. The la/lo argument positions are the same, but the predicates ne and ko carry entirely different meanings. The language cleanly separates: | Concept | Form | Predicate | |---------|------|-----------| | possession | la-X ne lo-Y | ne (relation) | | containment | la-X ko lo-Y | ko (containment) |
  • No new primitive needed. Monday's prediction confirmed.

T-AX-010 · Particle & Axiom

S123 go [lo-ra-ki-mu de] lo-ki-pa-mu pa-ki Given engine failure, the vehicle drifts through space.

Notes

  • go [X] matrix = causal/conditional frame. Established in spec/grammar.md § Causal Frame and open-questions.md (Conditionals item). The causal frame functions as the conditional when the inner clause describes a trigger condition.
  • ki-pa-mu = motion-place-artifact = vehicle / spacecraft. Head-final: mu (artifact) is head; ki-pa (motion-place, established as corridor/passage compound, S064) specifies a place-artifact defined by movement. A spacecraft is a moving-place-artifact. Ad hoc compound; candidate for registration.
  • pa-ki = place-motion = spatial drifting / uncontrolled movement through space. pa (place/space particle/root) + ki (motion) = motion-through-space. As a compound predicate: "there is spatial motion [of the subject]" = drifts.
  • Conditional readings: go [X] Y can be read as (a) present-factual ("the engine is failing; it's drifting now"), (b) general conditional ("whenever the engine fails, it drifts"), or (c) future hypothetical ("if it fails, it will drift"). The go frame is actuality-neutral — it asserts the causal relationship without specifying whether the premise is actual. This is a deliberate feature: the language marks causal structure, not factuality of conditions.

T-AX-011 · Particle & Axiom

S124 go [lo-ra-ki-mu re-de] lo-ki-pa-mu pa-ki Given a recurrent engine failure, the vehicle will drift.

Notes

  • re-de = repetition-decay = recurrent/repeated failure = "fails again." re (repetition/cycle) + de (decay/failure). First use of re-de as a predicate in a subordinate causal clause.
  • "Will" (future): Tonesu has no dedicated future tense marker. The future reading arises from the conditional structure: a hypothetical causal premise (go [...]) with a result clause implies the result is prospective. The causal frame is inherently forward-directed when the premise is not currently actual.

T-AX-012 · Particle & Axiom

S125 go [lo-ra-ki-mu ti-de-de] lo-ki-pa-mu pa-ki ti-de When/because the engine had failed, the vehicle drifted.

Generated from registry/entries.yaml.