"The tomato soup tastes good."
Translation:La tomata supo bongustas.
Bona says something about a noun (or it says something is good), while bone says something about a verb (or it says something is done in a good way)
For example, if you say "a good dog is walking," that would be
bona hundo marŝas (the dog is good)
But if you say "a dog is walking well," that would be
hundo marŝas bone (the way he walks is good)
Note that because it is possible to place adjectives and adverbs both before and after the word it belongs to, you can make two sentences that are almost the same but mean something different:
La hundo bona marŝas.
La hundo bone marŝas.
I believe "la hundo bona marŝas" would generally be rarely said, but even then someone who speaks a language like Spanish or French, where the adjectives go after the noun, might say it like that every now and then.
if bone is altering the meaning of gusta, wouldn't it mean, "tastes well"? as in the soup has the ability to taste things better than normal? I got marked off for not including, "la tomata supo gustas bone" because this is the verb form of gusta doesn't it imply the soup can taste?
Interesting question. I wondered about this too, but as often is the case with seeming ambiguities in Esperanto, it’s not a problem with Esperanto, but with English.
English has two different verbs that look the same: I taste the soup. The soup tastes good. The first verb describes an action, and the second the emergence of a quality.
In Esperanto, this is done with two verbs. Gusti is used for the emerging quality, and therefore implies no active tasting on the part of the soup.
Gustumi, on the other hand, is the activity of tasting that we do when we eat, for instance.
English is also unusual in how it distinguishes noun modifiers from predicate modifiers. In many languages using the adjective in this kind of sentence construction is only done when you use either a copula (to be), or verbs that can be written together with to be. To take examples from English: seem and appear can both get an added «to be» without changing meaning.
Though I don’t know all the details yet, it has so far been my impression this is how Esperanto behaves, using adverbs unless it is a verb that is a copula or acts as a copula.
La tomata supo gustas bone - the tomato soup tastes good.
La tomata supo gustumas bone - the tomato soup tastes well.
"De" between nouns can have seven different meanings:
possession: la libro de Petro, la genio de Zamenhof
charasteristics: ĉevalo de blanka koloro, floroj de nekomparebla odoro
measurement: sumo de mil frankoj, alto de dudek metroj
part of a defined thing: peco de tiu kuko, duono de tiu kuko
acting: la amo de la gepatroj al siaj idoj
object: la preparo de la kongreso
relation: la prezo de pano
The soup would belong to number 7. There you can often find a more precise preposition, for example "supo el tomatoj", if you want to stress that the soup is made from tomatoes.
I'm asking whether there is a way to unambiguously assign POSSESSION of the soup to a tomato. IOW, to entirely avoid the implication "supo el tomato". Obviously, it would just be a grammatical construct that would never be used in real life, but Esperanto is supposed to be constructive.