nornen:
Well, along these lines, also "the red ball" could be an ellipsis of "the ball which is red", and adjectives never modify nouns, but are always predicate nouns of invisible subclauses.

The difference between "the red ball" and "the tree over there" is that "the red ball" is perfectly grammatical on its own - an English adjective modifying an English noun. "The tree over there" is not inherently grammatical, but it makes sense in spoke and written English because we as English speakers commonly omit bits and pieces of clauses. We understand that the adverb is modifying the word "tree" not directly, but by modifying an understood clause. We understand this implicitly, because it's a common, natural occurrence in the English language, and because adverbs that modify "to be" are rare and look so similar to adjectives anyway.

Does this generally occur in Esperanto? I have no idea.

sparksbet:

nornen:
Well, along these lines, also "the red ball" could be an ellipsis of "the ball which is red", and adjectives never modify nouns, but are always predicate nouns of invisible subclauses.

"The tree over there" is not inherently grammatical, but it makes sense in spoke and written English

This actually could be a text-book definition of "grammatical". Unfortunately, I do not know what "inherently grammatical" means.
Grammars [1] don't prescribe rules about how to write or talk, but they describe the rules according to which one writes and talks.

----
[1] At least any serious grammar.

nornen:Grammars [1] don't prescribe rules about how to write or talk, but they describe the rules according to which one writes and talks.

----
[1] At least any serious grammar.

I disagree, but this is another debate entirely.

Rejsi:

nornen:Grammars [1] don't prescribe rules about how to write or talk, but they describe the rules according to which one writes and talks.

----
[1] At least any serious grammar.

I disagree, but this is another debate entirely.

Agreed. But nevertheless prescriptive versus descriptive grammars (especially syntax) is an interesting topic. I will start a thread in the Esperanto part of this forum (probably tomorrow) and I am very interested in your point of view.

nornen:

sparksbet:"The tree over there" is not inherently grammatical, but it makes sense in spoke and written English

This actually could be a text-book definition of "grammatical". Unfortunately, I do not know what "inherently grammatical" means.
Grammars [1] don't prescribe rules about how to write or talk, but they describe the rules according to which one writes and talks.

----
[1] At least any serious grammar.

My wording wasn't particularly specific. Let me try again. "The tree over there" doesn't follow the standard rules of spoken and written English, in which adverbs do not modify nouns. It is a descriptive fact that English adverbs modify verbs, adjectives, and other adverbs, so this situation is out of the ordinary. There are a couple ways I can think of to account for this. One is the "understood clause" explanation given previously. Another is that "over there," as an adverb that is often used to modify the word "to be," has begun to be used as an adjective. Yet another is that "over there" should be treated as an adverb modifying the verb of a sentence like that. Regardless, the use of "over there" in this sentence should not be considered representative of the body of adverbs in the English language, because they very rarely behave this way.

For the record, I'm a descriptive grammarian myself. But the act of description necessitates at least some level of prescription. For instance, description of the fact that in English nouns and verbs agree in number implies that when nouns and verbs do not agree in number, it is abnormal and not use of English as it is generally written and spoken.

@sparksbet

But where does the confidence come from, that while you can find both adjectives and adverbs defining nouns in probably all registers and diachronic layers of English the former ones are "standard" and the latter ones not?
That adverbs are found in this function less often doesn't really count in my opinion.

And from a syntactical point of view and averb like there and an adverbial like with the umbrella are interchangable, I could have worded my example above also with a single word, the umbrella sentence is just a textbook example.

@morfran

Sorry for my misunderstanding of your explanation, but I think the difference in usage you can find in PIV comes from the plural of the noun, not from ioma/kelka, as of course a plural in Esperanto is possible only with countable things, while iom/kelk- add only "indefinite/small quantity". Nevertheless for a learner the result remains the same.

This is a fascinating discussion folks, but I have to admit I have no idea what you are talking about.
Could someone please set out a "Linguistics for Dummies" that explains the terms you are using.
Terms such as registers,diachronic layers, syntactical, etc.
Thanks in advance.

Bemused:This is a fascinating discussion folks, but I have to admit I have no idea what you are talking about.
Could someone please set out a "Linguistics for Dummies" that explains the terms you are using.
Terms such as registers,diachronic layers, syntactical, etc.
Thanks in advance.

Maybe this might help.

But bear in mind, that when you talk to three linguisticians, you will get at least four different definitions for each technical term.