Message-Id: <199309090406.AA00904@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1993 14:00:12 +1000
Reply-To: Nick Nicholas <nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Nick Nicholas <nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU>
Subject:      REPOST.TECH: Lujvo paper part 4 of 4
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
Status: RO

As with other gismu, this occurs as either seltanru or tertanru without
changing the meaning of the lujvo; the GDS has it as the tertanru.
The place structure of {broda zei carmi} and {carmi zei broda} is: c1=b1 b2 b3
b4 b5 c3. c2, the way in which {le broda} is intense, is considered redundant.
Thus {caicta}, "stare", has place
structure cat1=car1 cat2 car3, and GDS {da carmi leka da catlu de kei di}.
{milxe}-based lujvo are constructed similarly, but {milxe} has no observer
place. Thus the place structure of {milxe zei broda} is m1=b1 b2 b3 b4 b5.

5.11. {mabla}- and {zabna}-based lujvo.

These are among the most productive gismu in lujvo, and indeed occur almost
exclusively in lujvo. Their meaning is almost always obvious, which is why
they don't feature greatly in the jvoste; the place structure of {mabla zei
broda} is m1=b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 m3; m2 is taken as obvious (m1 is {le broda}
according to {le te mabla}, and m2 is {le broda} objectively). The structure
of {zabna zei broda} parallels this. In these lujvo, too, {mabla} and {zabna}
are "properly" the tertanru.

5.12. {sevzi}-based lujvo.

These lujvo do the work of reflexives, and indicate that the lujvo action
reflects back on the agent. In Lojbanic terms, it means that one of the
places in the veljvo (typically x2) is the same as x1, and can be omitted.
Thus the place structure of {sezlu'i}, "to wash (intr.), to wash oneself",
is: l1=l2 l3. So we can say {mi sezlu'i loi zbabu}, "I wash with soap",
as well as {mi lumci mi loi zbabu}, "I wash myself with soap".

Because English doesn't always mark its reflexives explicitly, we can find
it easy to omit a necessary {sevzi} in the veljvo. Thus {cavlu'i} doesn't
mean "to take a shower", but "to shower/sprinkle/spray someone/something".
"to take a shower" is {sezycavlu'i}.

5.13. {prenu}-based lujvo.

The place structure of these lujvo yield no surprises: their first place
refers to a person, and the remaining places are seltanru places describing
what the person does. But readers should note that often the tertanru
{prenu} is redundant, since the seltanru already indicates that we are
talking about a person. Thus, as we saw, {djabeipre} says nothing that
{djabei} doesn't already say.

5.14. {pe'a}-based lujvo.

These are discussed in detail in the attitudinal paper. We note that few
such lujvo have been coined. The only ones to have appeared in text to
date are: {pevbaknykalci}, "bullshit"; {pevjicla}, "fuss, disturbance";
{pevrisnyjelca}, "heartburn"; and {pevycuvgau}, "purge (political)". As
the attitudinal paper says, the place structure of such coinings is
entirely unpredictable; it remains to be seen whether lojbanists will
widely avail themselves of this flexibility. It is also possible (indeed,
in natural languages it happens all the time) that the figurative meaning
can take over the literal meaning. If this happens, the {-pev-} rafsi may
end up dropped.

Bob LeChevalier provides a counterargument to this:
"This latter course [SE elision] is most likely when the cmavo being deleted
so not cause
too much misleading to the listener who doesn't yet know the word (and there
is always a time when you don't know a word, if only on first hearing it).
Thus I would almost universally avoid deleting the pev- prefix, as well as the
mal- and zan- prefixes for pejorative and ameliorative interpretation, simply
because it causes confusion in a listener - which is the ultimate sin in
a language which stresses communicativeness to the end of logical evaluation.
This is to say that there may be a situation where I might approve of such
a deletion, but I can't think of one, and it would take a lot of argument to
convince me.  On the other hand, in nonce use, unmarked figuarative lujvo
may be tolerated [...] I would consider such
usage to be on the par with the use of "ain't" in a scholarly English paper,
but that doesn't make it illegal, merely unacceptable."


6. Acknowledgements.

The author (Nick Nicholas) would like to thank the following Lojbanists:
Mark Shoulson, Veijo Vilva, Colin Fine, Jorge Llambias, And Rosta, and Iain
Alexander for their suggestions and comments; John Cowan, for the example
of his trailblazing in Lojban grammar, and for solving the {xekskapi}
dilemma for me; Lojban lujvo; Bob LeChevalier, for his Olympian overview of
the issue, his encouragement, and for scouring all Lojban text his computer
has been burdened with for lujvo; Nora Tansky LeChevalier, for writing
the program converting old rafsi text to new rafsi text, and sparing me
from embarrassing errors; and Jim Carter, for his persistence in analysing
lujvo algorithmically, which inspired this research.

##############################################################################
# Der Mensch liegt in groesster Noth,      You are reading another .sig from
# Der Mensch liegt in groesster Pein;     the NICK NICHOLAS .sig Factory. Mail
# Je lieber moecht ich im Himmel sein.     [nsn@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au] for your
#    -- Des Knaben Wunderhorn, _Urlicht_   .sig suggestions. [Padding Space]