From cowan Sat Mar 6 22:56:38 2010 Subject: RE-REPOST: JVOSTE.TXT part 2 of 2 To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List) From: cowan Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 12:53:18 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 36833 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Feb 1 12:53:18 1996 X-From-Space-Address: cowan Message-ID: There's something about this text that the listserv just doesn't like. This is my third try.... ====cut here==== 14. Causatives By looking only at the keywords in the gismu lists, Lojban users may be unaware that English often expresses two distinct concepts with the same verb, where Lojban must use two different selbri. The transitive verb "sink" that is used in 14.1) I'm sinking boats in the ocean. is the causative of the identical-looking but different intransitive verb "sink", as in 14.2) I'm sinking in the ocean. It is possible to paraphrase the causative version of "sink" in terms of the intransitive: Example 14.1 means the same as 14.3) I'm causing boats to sink in the ocean. While all languages have causatives, they use different ways to express them. English only occasionally forms the causative verb form directly from its non-causative counterpart (eg. "to sit" --- "to seat" = "to make someone sit"). The corresponding causative is usually an unrelated word, or an entire phrase (eg. "to make someone read" is the causative for "to read"). The derivation of causatives in Turkish and Esperanto, on the other hand, is quite regular. "To eat" in Esperanto is "manghi", and "to feed" is "manghigi"; "to sink (intransitive)" is "sinki", and "to sink (transitive)" is "sinkigi". In Turkish, these verbs are respectively "yemek", "yedirmek", "batmak", and "batIrmak". It is obvious why single-word causatives, like those in Turkish and Esperanto, would be useful in a language like Lojban. The alternative, using a fully expanded bridi every time the idea of "feeding" needs to be expressed, is longwinded and counterintuitive. The phrase 14.4) mi gasnu le nu do citka le zumri I act-in the event-of you eat the maize. involves nested sumti and the complexity of event abstraction; and it conceals the fact that we perceive feeding as a direct relation between three entities (the feeder, the fed, and the food). The lujvo "nunctikezgau", based on the tertanru "nu citka kei gasnu", has no such disadvantage: 14.5) mi nunctikezgau do le zumri I event-eat-act you the maize. I feed you the maize. As Example 14.5 shows, the three entities are related directly by just one selbri. Lojban gismu usually express intransitive concepts. For example, the related concept of "immersion" is expressed by: 14.6) "jinru": entity x1 is immersed in liquid x2. The related transitive concept is expressed by 14.7) da gasnu lenu de jinru di Some-X acts-in the event-of some-Y sinks-in some-Z but by using a suitably constructed lujvo these concepts may be expressed by a single selbri. Let us make a detailed analysis of the lujvo "nunctikezgau": We begin with the fully expanded sentence 14.8) mi gasnu lenu le gerku cu citka loi guzme I act so that the dog eats melons. I make the dog eat melons. giving the veljvo: 14.9) mi nu lo gerku cu citka loi guzme kei gasnu I am an (event of dog eating melons) agent. and the lujvo: 14.10) mi nunctikezgau le gerku loi guzme I feed the dog melons. How do we arrive at the place structure of "nunctikezgau"? We would like a place for the actor (g1), for the eater (c1), and for the food (c2). The veljvo of "nunctikezgau" is "nu citka kei gasnu"; since we would prefer to work with a single word for both the seltanru and the tertanru, let's rephrase this as "nuncitka gasnu". The lujvo "nuncitka" has the place structure 14.11) n1 is the event of c1 eating c2 The g2 place (what is brought about by the actor g1) obviously denotes the same thing as n1 (the event of eating). So we can eliminate g2 as redundant, leaving us with a tentative place structure of 14.12) g1 is the actor in the event n1=g2 of c1 eating c2 But it is also possible to omit the n1 place itself. The n1 place describes the event brought about; an event in Lojban is described as a bridi, by a selbri and its sumti; the selbri is already known (it's the seltanru), and the sumti are also already known (they're in the lujvo place structure. So n1 would not give us any information we didn't already know. In fact, the n1=g2 place is dependent on c1 and c2 jointly --- it does not depend on either c1 or c2 by itself. So the final place structure of "nunctikezgau" is: 14.13) g1 is the actor in the event of c1 eating c2 15. Implicit abstraction lujvo So now we have arrived at the place structure of "nunctikezgau". There is one further step that can be taken. As we have already seen with "balsoi", the interpretation of lujvo is constrained by the semantics of gismu, and of their sumti places. Now, any non-parallel lujvo with "gasnu" as its tertanru will involve an abstract event, since that is how the x2 of "gasnu" is defined. Therefore, if we assume that "nu" is the type of abstraction one would expect to be a "se gasnu", then the rafsi "nun" and "kez" in "nunctikezgau" are only telling us what we would already have guessed. If we drop them out, and use instead the shorter lujvo "ctigau", rejecting its parallel interpretation ("someone who both does and eats"; "an eating doer"), we can still work out that the seltanru refers to an event. (You can't "do an eater"/"gasnu lo citka", with the meaning of "do" as "bring about an event"; so the seltanru must refer to an event, "nu citka". The English slang meanings of "do someone" as "socialize with someone" or "have sex with someone" are not relevant to "gasnu".) So we can simply use: 15.1) "ctigau": agent x1 causes x2 to eat x3 x1 feeds x3 to x2. Here the place g2, the action performed ("se gasnu"), is equivalent to an abstraction composed of all the places of "citka". Rather than having a a single place of the seltanru that is equivalent to a place in the tertanru, we now substitute a number of seltanru places for that single tertanru place --- all the remaining places, in fact, of the seltanru. This particular interpretation, in which the seltanru describes an abstraction which is a place of the tertanru, will be called an implicit-abstraction lujvo. This lujvo interpretation and place structure turns up not only for causatives ("gasnu" tertanru), but also for many tertanru with an abstract sumti in x2 or x3. Thus for example, "limdji" would be probably interpreted as "want to swim", rather than "want a swimmer" or "both want and swim". Making a lujvo based on "gasnu" does not only do the equivalent of making an intransitive verb into a transitive one; it can also make an already transitive verb into a causative. (E.g. "basti", whose place structure is 15.2) x1 replaces x2 in circumstances x3 produces "basygau", with the place structure: 15.3) x1 (agent) replaces x2 with x3 in circumstances x4 In addition, they can affect what we would consider nouns or adjectives in English. (In Lojban, everything is a predicate, so adjectives, nouns and verbs are all treated in the same way.) This is consistent with the use of similar affixes in other languages. For example, "glare": 15.4) x1 is hot by standard x2 can give "glagau", meaning "to heat": 15.5) x1 (agent) makes x2 hot by standard x3 Again, "litki": 15.6) x1 is a liquid of composition x2 under conditions x3 can give "likygau", meaning "to liquefy": 15.7) x1 (agent) causes x2 to be a liquid of composition x3 under conditions x4. (This particular case is problematic: x2 seems redundant, and this may indicate that "gasnu" is the wrong tertanru. The tertanru "galfi" is more appropriate in some such cases.) Here is another detailed example, "posydji", meaning "to want to have something": 15.8) d1=p1 desires to possess p2 for purpose d3 The d2 place is "lenu ponse", and is thus redundant. The p3 place, the law of ownership, is an irrelevant detail in an expression of desire ("I want to have it, and I don't care about the red tape"). Also, "posydji" should express wanting something for oneself . Wanting something for someone else (namely, the p1 place being different from the d1 place)is a less frequent and more complex concept, and can be relegated to a longer expression. (This, by the way, occurs frequently with lujvo: leaving in a place makes the concept more general; while leaving out a place, whether by overlap with another place as above or otherwise, makes the concept more specific. Since we usually want to express this more specific concept, we feel it deserves its own word more than the more general concept. "To want to have something for oneself", for example, does have its own word in English: "to want" (transitive). "To want someone else to have something", on the other hand, does not get compressed in that way. So in Lojban we say 15.9) ko'a posydji le solji she wants the gold [for herself] and 15.10) ko'a djica lenu ko'e ponse le solji she wants him to have the gold It is also possible for a "gasnu"-based lujvo to specify the manner of the tertanru instead. The lujvo "kalsygau", for example, may not mean "to make something chaotic, to mess something up)"; it may simply mean "to act chaotic, to do something chaotically", giving a parallel interpretation to the lujvo. In such cases, the lujvo-maker may have to augment the lujvo to disambiguate it. Remember that implicit-abstraction lujvo are really an abbreviation of more explicit lujvo containing NU rafsi. For some tertanru with abstract places, an ambiguity would result between abstract and non-abstract interpretations if eliding "nun-" were allowed. For example, the x2 of "nelci" can be either an event or a simple sumti. The lujvo "sonynei" therefore must refer to "someone who likes a soldier". To get the alternative interpretation, "someone who likes being a soldier", we must say "nunsonynei". In general, Lojbanists should be careful to use the abbreviated form only when no reasonable ambiguity will result. This is much likelier with bridi like "gasnu" and "rinka" (discussed in Section 24) than with, say, "ctuca" or "nelci". Despite these complications, implicit-abstraction lujvo are a powerful means in the language of rendering quite verbose bridi into succinct and manageable concepts, and increasing the expressive power of the language. 16. Anomalous lujvo Some lujvo do not follow the guidelines expressed above, either because the places that are equivalent in the seltanru and the tertanru are in an unusual position, or because the seltanru and tertanru are related in a complex way, or both. An example of the first kind is "jdaselsku", meaning "prayer", which was mentioned in Section 7. The gismu places are: 16.1) "lijda": l1 is a religion with believers l2 and beliefs l3 "cusku": c1 expresses text c2 to audience c3 in medium c4 and "selsku", the tertanru of "jdaselsku", has the place structure 16.2) s1 is a text expressed by s2 to audience s3 in medium s4 Now it is easy to see that the l2 and s2 places are equivalent: the believer in the religion (l2) is the one who expresses the prayer (s2). This is not one of the cases for which a rule has been given above; therefore, for lack of a better rule, we put the tertanru places first and the remaining seltanru places after them, leading to the place structure: 16.3) s1 is a prayer expressed by s2=l2 to audience s3 in medium s4 pertaining to religion l1 The l3 place (the beliefs of the religion) is dependent on the l1 place (the religion) and so is omitted. We could make this lujvo less messy by replacing it with "se seljdasku", where "seljdasku" is a normal parallel lujvo with place structure: 16.4) c1=l2 religiously expresses prayer c2 to audience c3 in medium s4 pertaining to religion l1 which, according to the rule expressed in Section 9, can be further expressed as "selseljdasku". However, there is no need for the ugly "selsel-" prefix just to get the rules right: "jdaselsku" is a reasonable, if anomalous, lujvo. However, there is a further problem with "jdaselsku", not resolved by "seljdasku". No veljvo involving just the two gismu "lijda" and "cusku" fully expresses the relationship implicit in prayer. A prayer is not just anything said by any adherent of a religion; nor is it even anything said by them as adherents of that religion. Rather, it is what they say under the authority of that religion, or using the religion as a medium, or following the rules associated with the religion. So the veljvo is somewhat elliptical. As a result, both "seljdasku" and "jdaselsku" belong to the second class of anomalous lujvo: the veljvo doesn't really supply all that the lujvo requires. For another example of this kind of anomalous lujvo, consider "xancyminde", "to command by hand, to beckon". The relation between the seltanru and tertanru is close enough for there to be an overlap: x2=m1. But interpreting "xancyminde" as a parallel lujvo with an elided "sel-" in the seltanru, as if from "se xance mindu", sort of misses the point: the real relation expressed by the lujvo is not just "one who commands and has a hand", but "to order using the hand". The concept of "using" brings in the gismu "pilno"; possible three-part lujvo are (depending on how strictly you want to constrain the veljvo) as "xancypliminde", "mindyxancypli" or "mindykemxancypli". Does this make "xancyminde" wrong? By no means. But it does mean that there is a latent component to the meaning of "xancyminde", the gismu "pilno", which is not explicit in the veljvo. And it also means that, for a place structure derivation that actually makes sense, rather than being ad-hoc, the Lojbanist should probably go through a derivation like that of "mindykemxancypli" above, even if he or she decides to stick with a shorter, more convenient form like "xancyminde". Plus, of course, the possibilities of elliptical lujvo increase their potential ambiguity exponentially --- an unavoidable fact which should be borne in mind. Note lastly that, if a Lojbanist requires a place from a lujvo not given to her by the seltanru or tertanru --- if, in other words, he or she feels tempted to add an extraneous place to the lujvo, other than those normally derived --- then the veljvo probably doesn't fully describe the relation involved, and a gismu describing the required place should be added somewhere. This is a different case from "seljdasku" or "xancyminde", where the places involved are all present, but the relation is not explicit. In the case of extraneous places, not all the places are present in the veljvo, and therefore the extraneous place will not be accessible by anyone trying to decode the lujvo without prior information. Adding to the veljvo gives the reader the ability to access that place. Consider as an example the concept "meeting, workshop", which involves, at the least, people meeting (or workshopping), and a topic for the meeting (e.g. "Workshop on lujvo place structures". The gismu "penmi" ("to meet") has three places: someone doing the meeting, someone met with, and a place at which the meeting occurs. Is "nunpenmi" a good lujvo for "meeting" as we have defined it? No: there is nothing in the place structure of "nu" or "penmi" that could give us a topic of discussion. Lacking such a place, all "nunpenmi" can properly mean is "an act of meeting someone, an encounter". For a meeting with a topic of discussion to be expressed, any veljvo must include a selbri referring to topics of discussion. Such a selbri, of course, is "casnu", "to discuss". And indeed, "snununpenmi" expresses the desired meaning much better than "nunpenmi". 17. Numeric lujvo Numeric lujvo involve rafsi for cmavo of selma'o PA, the numbers and number-like words, which are explained elsewhere. These lujvo tend to play havoc with our predictions of lujvo meaning. This is because numerals are not selbri that can enter into tanru relations with tertanru in a veljvo. Rather, they quantify their head directly. So in this case, the veljvo is not a tanru: The veljvo of "so'ipre", for example, is "so'i prenu". Even if we interpose a cmavo of selma'o MOI, making the numeral a selbri --- which seems the only intelligible way to proceed --- the choice of cmavo is ambiguous. Thus, "pavjbe", literally meaning "one-born", is ambiguous between "pavmemjbe" ("pamei jbena", meaning "only-begotten") on the one hand, and "pavmomjbe" ("pamoi jbena", "first born") on the other. Other numeric lujvo have clearer interpretations: thus 17.1) relselmla two-sided based on 17.2) se mlana lo remei having-as-sides a twosome and 17.3) so'ipre crowd based on 17.4) so'imei co prenu a manysome of-type person presume "mei", whereas 17.5) relpru is-second-from-last based on 17.6) remoi le'i purci leka jibni le se purci is-second of-the-set-of past-things with-order-property nearness to-the origin-point and 17.7) cibdei is-Wednesday based on 17.8) cimoi le'i djedi krefu is-third of-the-set-of day repititions presume the insertion of "moi". The lujvo based on "ro" in particular often display eccentric behavior. For instance "roldei", meaning "daily", properly has a place structure which has little to do with that of "djedi". Its real place structure is based on the selbri 17.9) ckaji be le ka se krefu ca ro djedi quality of being-repeated simultaneously-with each day These lujvo are considered as having the implicit tertanru of "ckaji". Numeric lujvo are being constructed to mirror natural language use of numeric prefixes (bi-, mono-, omni-, all-, etc.). They do not fit comfortably with a Lojbanic analysis: in particular, it does not seem approporiate to translate 17.10) This newspaper is a daily as 17.11) levi karni cu roldei which seems tantamount to saying that a newspaper is a totality of days! (See the discussion in Section 10 on the elision of SE cmavo from tertanru for further arguments.) The reason such a lujvo is tolerated in Lojban is that such lujvo themselves are typically used as tertanru, since they correspond to English adjectives. Thus, "daily newspaper" may be rendered as "roldei karni"; this makes sense, because the tanru merely gives a loose relation between "newspaper" and "all days". But as explained, once the tanru is disambiguated, "roldei" doesn't correspond to "daily", a notion better characterized as "roldeikai", meaning "characterized by [appearing] every day". In a tertanru context, however, a less elaborated lujvo like "roldei" is quite sufficient. 18. Other cmavo-based lujvo For the same reason as given for NU-based lujvo, SE-based lujvo have the same function in lujvo as they do in tanru, and "selbroda" has the same place structure as "se broda". In fact, cmavo from all the following selma'o behave in lujvo just as they do in tanru, and will not be discussed any further in this chapter: BO, CAhA, CO (which merely serves to swap the seltanru and tertanru in any place structure determination), FAhA, GOhA (the cmavo "bu'a", "du" and "co'e", which behave just like any gismu in a tanru), JA, JOI, KE, KEI, KEhE, MOI, MOhI, NA, NAhE, ROI (note that "roi" at the end of a lujvo is not well defined, since PA + "roi" does not form a selbri), VA, VEhA, ZAhO, and ZEhA. There are also rafsi assigned to "le'e" and "lo'e". These are presumably intended as seltanru, and serve as a convenient shorthand for selbri corresponding to "stereotypical" and "typical". Thus, "lo lempre", would mean "a stereotypical person" --- disregarding the obvious clash between "lo" and "le'e". Finally, "bu" has also been given a rafsi --- a resource yet to be explored. 19. "zmadu"- and "mleca"-based lujvo. These lujvo also express a frequent construct in languages: comparatives. They express the concept of something exceeding something else in a way more familiar to speakers of other languages than the corresponding fully expanded bridi. Compare: 19.1) I am six years younger than you. mi citmau do lo nanca be li xa mi zmadu do leni ce'u da citno kei lo nanca be li xa The place structure for "citmau" is clearly more intuitive than the complex abstraction given by "zmadu lenu citno". (Note that, since "ce'u da" fills a slot in the abstraction, and is explicitly bound to it, it is not necessary in the lujvo --- where the abstraction does not appear as such --- and so is not included in its place structure. For more discussion on the quantifier "ce'u", see elsewhere.) These lujvo are extremely productive, "zmadu" much more so than "mleca". Because of their much simpler place structure, they are in fact used much more frequently than "zmadu" and "mleca" themselves as selbri. It is highly unlikely for such lujvo to be construed as anything other than implicit-abstraction lujvo. But there is another type of ambiguity relevant to these lujvo, and which has to do what is being compared. For example, does "nelcymau" mean "X likes Y more than she does Z", or "X likes Y more than Z does"? Does "klamau" mean: "X goes to Y more than to Z", "X goes to Y more than Z does""X goes to Y from Z more than from W" or what? We answer this by putting regularity above any considerations of concept usefulness: by convention, we consider the place being compared to be the x1 of the seltanru. In that way, each of the different possible interpretations can be expressed by SE-converting the seltanru, and making the required place the new x1. Thus, the possible interpretations in the previous paragraph can be expressed as "nelcymau", "selnelcymau", "klamau", "selklamau", and "terklamau" respectively. Thus, a "broda zei zmadu" lujvo has the place structure skeleton: 19.2) z1=b1 z2=b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 z4 and a "broda zei mleca" lujvo has the place structure skeleton: 19.3) m1=b1 m2=b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 m4 The place structure we have given is that of a regular implicit-abstraction lujvo. Unfortunately, it displaces the "ve zmadu" place, which expresses by how much one entity exceeds the other, into a place whose number is different for each lujvo. For example, while "nelcymau" has the measure of comparison as its fourth place, "klamau" has it as its sixth place. It is important to realize that such lujvo do not presuppose their seltanru. Just as in English, saying someone is younger than someone else doesn't imply that they're young in the first place: an octogenarian, after all, is still younger than a nonagenarian. Rather, the 80-year-old has a greater "ni citno" than the 90-year-old. 20. "zenba"- and "jdika"-based lujvo. There are some comparative concepts which are in which the "se zmadu" is difficult to specify. Typically, these involve comparisons implicitly made with a former state of affairs, where stating a "se zmadu" explicitly would be problematic. Thus, we can't really translate "I'm going to 78th Street more nowadays" into something involving a "zmadu" selbri, since it is not clear what we would put in the x2 of such a selbri. The best we could do is say 20.1) mi zmadu mi pe pu ku le nu klama la 78moi klaji I exceed me of the-past in-the event-of going to 78th Street but "mi pe pu ku" is not a particularly elegant solution to the problem, and is giving an explicit argument where it is not clear that it is a necessary part of the relation described. In such cases, it is best not to use "zmadu" and leave the comparison hanging, but to use instead the gismu "zenba", meaning "increase" (and "jdika", meaning "decrease", in place of "mleca"). The gismu "zenba" was included in the language precisely in order to capture those notions of increase which "zmadu" can't quite cope with; and we don't have to waste a place in lujvo or tanru on something that we'd never fill in with a value anyway. So we can say 20.2) mi ca zenba le nu mi klama la 78moi klaji I now increase-in the event-of I go-to 78th Street. I'm going to 78th Street more nowadays. Accordingly, "klaze'a" would mean exactly the same thing. The sentence 20.3) I'm stronger now. would be translated not as 20.4) mi ca tsamau I now am-stronger. which implies that I'm stronger than somebody else, but as 20.5) mi ca tsaze'a I increase in strength. The place structure of "broda zei zenba" lujvo is: b1=z1 b2 b3 b4 b5 z3; for "broda zei jdika", it is: b1=j1 b2 b3 b4 b5 j3. The same issues concern the use of these lujvo as with "zmadu"- and "mleca"-based lujvo. 21. "traji"-based lujvo. Just as "zmadu"-based lujvo are used to build comparatives, "traji"-based lujvo are used to build superlatives. Thus "xagrai" is taken to mean "best". Since the place structure of "xagmau" is 21.1) xa1=z1 is better than z2 for xa2 by standard xa3 in amount z4 we would expect the place structure of "xagrai" to somehow mirror that, given that comparatives and superlatives are comparable concepts, resulting in: 21.2) xa1=t1 is the best of all t4 for xa2 is concerned by standard xa3. The t2 place in "traji" for property is dependent on the seltanru places, and the t3 place specifying the extremum of "traji" (whether the most, or the least, that is) is presumed by default to be "the most". But the set against which the x1 of "traji" is compared is not the t2 (which would make it parallel to "zmadu"), but the t4 of "traji". Nevertheless, by a special exception to the rules of place ordering, the t4 place of "traji"-based lujvo becomes the second place of the lujvo. Some examples: 21.3) la konan. cu tsarai ro cilcyre'a Conan is the strongest of all barbarians. 21.4) la djudis. cu citrai ro lobypli Judy is the youngest of all Lojbanists. 21.5) la ajnctain. cu balrai ro skegunka Einstein was the greatest of all scientists. 22. "simxu"-based lujvo. The gismu "simxu" occurs in the jvoste as both a seltanru and a tertanru. Both cases seem to have equivalent meaning, and correspond to a veljvo with "simxu" as the tertanru. However, "simxu" often appears first in the lujvo, because speakers of natural languages tend to think of a "mutual doing" rather than a "doing type of mutuality". Thus we think of "simcatra", meaning "kill each other", as a kind of "catra" (killing) rather than a kind of "simxu", and tend to put "simxu" first. The place structure, however, is: 22.1) s1 = c1\&c2 kill each other by method c3 Thus, 22.2) Mercutio and Tybalt kill each other with daggers. translates to 22.3) la merkucos. ce la tibalt. simcatra tu'a loi dakfu Mercutio in-set-with Tybalt mutually-kill by-an-event-with daggers. Note that the x1 of a "simxu"-based lujvo, just like the x1 of "simxu" itself, is a set. As a seltanru (or tertanru), "simxu" is handy because it can convert a 2-way relation into an arbitrary n-way relation. For example, "penmi" is something two people do to each other: 22.4) la DRAkulys. penmi la godzilys. Dracula meets Godzilla. But what if we want to say that Dracula, Godzilla, and Frankenstein meet? The sentence 22.5) la DRAkulys. penmi la godzilys. e la FRANkenctain. Dracula meets Godzilla and Frankenstein. does not imply that Dracula meets the other two together; the sentence 22.6) la DRAkulys. penmi la godzilys. joi la FRANkenctain. Drakula meets Godzilla joined-with Frankenstein. does, but fails to imply that Godzilla and Frankenstein meet. However, since we can say 22.7) la DRAkulys. ce la godzilys. simpenmi Dracula and Godzilla reciprocally-meet. there is no reason we can't also say 22.8) la DRAkulys. ce la godzilys. ce la FRANkenctain. simpenmi Dracula, Godzilla, and Frankenstein reciprocally-meet. neatly resolving the dilemma. This method is a neat way of extending a two-way relation if the relation is reciprocal, as is the case with selbri like "pencu", "tavla", "danre", "gletu" and so forth. But if the relation is not reciprocal, "simxu" won't do. An example of this is "vlina", "logical OR": 22.9) la'elu .abu .a by. li'u vlina .abu by. 'A or B' is the disjunction of A and B" Suppose we make "OR" an operator taking not two arguments, but as many as we like; how could we describe OR(a,b,c)? The best solution seems to be to use "selkampu", meaning "things with a common property", as a tertanru, giving in this instance something along the lines of 22.10) .abu ce by. ce cy. vlinyselkampu ma'o tau .abu .abu ge'a by. cy. A, B and C (as a set) have in common the disjunction OR(a,b,c) 23. "mintu"-based lujvo. Like "simxu", "mintu" occurs as both seltanru and tertanru in lujvo with no change in meaning, and is generally interpreted as the tertanru in an implicit-abstraction lujvo. For example, the lujvo "vlami'u", "synonym", can be analysed as follows: 23.1) v1=m1 is a synonym of v1=m2 by standard m3 The m3 place is left in because two words can be "the same" in a number of ways: pronunciation, semantics (exactly or approximately so), spelling, etc. We have left out the v2 and v3 places (the meaning and language of the words) as information that properly belongs in m3. If the English words "horse" and "steed" are synonyms, part of their "te mintu" is that they mean the same thing in English. On the other hand, the English word "curve" and the Lojban word "curve" are also "vlami'u", but their "te mintu" is that they are spelled the same. It would make no sense to have a language or a meaning as part of the place structure of "vlami'u", since English "curve" and Lojban "curve" have neither in common. When constructing lujvo equivalent to expressions in English using the prefix "con-", or "fellow-", "mintu" is useful. For example: 23.2) Mahler was a contemporary of Klimt can be translated as 23.3) la maler. cedrymi'u la klimt. Mahler is-era-same-as Klimt. and 23.4) Zamenhof appealed to his coreligionists (or in more modern parlance, "fellow Jews") as 23.5) la ZAmenxof. cpedu tu'a lei seljdami'u be ri Zamenhof requested something-of the-mass-of coreligionists of-him. Incidentally, there is a contrast between "seljdami'u" and "cedrymi'u": Zamenhof was a "seljda" (person with a religion), but Mahler was not a "cedra" (era). It can be argued that "cedrymi'u" is an abbreviation for "cedrycabzasmi'u", "the same in that they existed during a given era". As discussed above, such abbreviations are very frequent in lujvo-making. We also shouldn't be surprised to see SE elision from the seltanru of such lujvo, like "jdami'u", meaning "same in religion", for "seljdami'u"; and "lazmi'u", meaning "person in the same family as, a relative of", for the more fully descriptive "selylazmi'u". Plausibility can be typically relied on in lujvo of this type to help the listener reach the desired interpretation. 24. Notes on other special lujvo types The lujvo based on "cmalu" and "barda" correspond to augmentatives and diminutives. It is important to note that, in many natural languages, diminutives and augmentatives are often used to convey some derogatory or affectionate attitude about the word. In Lojban, this function is carried out by attitudinals, and it would be confusing to allow it with these lujvo too: they should only have the literal interpretation. Thus "cmatuple" should mean only "small feet", and more specifically "feet that are small for the entity that has them"; they should not mean "dear little feet", which is conveyed by "tuple .iu". The gismu "mabla" and "zabna" are among the most productive gismu in lujvo, and indeed occur almost exclusively in lujvo. Their meaning is almost always obvious. The place structure skeleton of "mabla zei broda" lujvo is 24.1) 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" is parallel. The lujvo based on "rinka" are another kind of causative similar to those based on "gasnu" discussed in Section 14. However, "rinka" is less generally useful than "gasnu", because its r1 place is another event rather than a person: "lo rinka" is a cause, not a causer. The place structure of "rinka zei broda" lujvo is 24.2) r1 b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 r3 The lujvo based on "sevzi" 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 tertanru (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 24.3) l1=l2 washes itself clean of l3 using l4 We can explain this result using our normal rules: l1 is equivalent to s2, and omitting l2=s1 is therefore redundant. So we can say 24.4) mi sezlu'i fi loi zbabu I wash with soap as well as 24.5) mi lumci mi fi loi zbabu I wash myself with soap. Because English often conflates reflexivity with intransitivity, we can find it easy to omit a necessary "sevzi" in the tertanru. Thus "cavlu'i", literally "rain wash", doesn't mean "to take a shower", but "to shower/sprinkle/spray someone/something". The proper translation for "to take a shower" is "sezycavlu'i". The place structure of lujvo based on "prenu" yield no surprises: their first place refers to a person, and the remaining places are seltanru places describing what the person does. Note, however, that often the tertanru "prenu" is redundant, since the seltanru tends to already imply that we are talking about a person. For example, "djabeipre", meaning "food-bearer-person", says nothing much that "djabei" ("food-bearer") doesn't already say. 25. Table of rafsi cmavo, sorted by selma'o The columns are: the cmavo, the assigned rafsi, the selma'o, and a brief keyword. bo bor BO short scope link bu bus/bu'i BU word to lerfu ca'a caz CAhA actually is nu'o nu'o CAhA can but has not pu'i pus CAhA can and has co col CO tanru inversion ze'o zev/ze'o FAhA outward zo'a zon/zo'a FAhA tangential to zo'i zor/zo'i FAhA inward bu'a bul GOhA some selbri 1 co'e com/co'e GOhA unspecified bridi du dub/du'o GOhA same identity as ja jav JA tanru or je jev/jve JA tanru and jo jov JA tanru iff ju juv JA tanru whether bi'i biz JOI unordered interval ce cec JOI in a set with ce'o ce'o JOI in a sequence with jo'e jom JOI union jo'u jo'u JOI in common with joi jol/joi JOI in a mass with ku'a kuz JOI intersection pi'u piv JOI cross product ke kem KE start grouping kei kez KEI end abstraction ke'e kep/ke'e KEhE end grouping da dav/dza KOhA something 1 do don/doi KOhA you fo'a fo'a KOhA it-6 fo'e fo'e KOhA it-7 fo'i fo'i KOhA it-8 mi mib KOhA me ta taz KOhA that there ti tif KOhA this here tu tuf KOhA that yonder zi'o zil KOhA nonexistent it le'e lem LE the stereotypical lo'e lom LE the typical ce'i cez MOI percent mei mem/mei MOI cardinal selbri moi mom/moi MOI ordinal selbri mo'i mov MOhI space motion na nar NA bridi negator na'e nal NAhE scalar contrary no'e nor/no'e NAhE scalar midpoint not to'e tol/to'e NAhE polar opposite du'u dum NU bridi abstract jei jez NU truth abstract ka kam NU property abstract li'i liz NU experience abstract mu'e muf NU point-event abstract ni nil NU amount abstract nu nun NU event abstract pu'u puv NU process abstract si'o siz NU concept abstract su'u suv NU unspecified abstract za'i zaz NU state abstract zu'o zum NU activity abstract no non PA 0 pa pav PA 1 re rel PA 2 ci cib PA 3 vo von PA 4 mu mum PA 5 xa xav PA 6 ze zel PA 7 bi biv PA 8 so soz PA 9 da'a daz PA all except mo'a mob PA too few pi piz PA decimal point ro rol PA each so'a soj PA almost all so'e sop PA most so'i sor/so'i PA many so'o sos PA several so'u sot PA few su'e sup/su'e PA at most su'o suz/su'o PA at least roi rom/roi ROI quantified tense se sel SE 2nd conversion te ter SE 3rd conversion ve vel SE 4th conversion xe xel SE 5th conversion pe'a pev UI figurative va vaz VA there at vi viz VA here at vu vuz VA yonder at ve'e ve'e VEhA whole space interval co'a co'a ZAhO initiative co'u co'u ZAhO cessative za'o za'o ZAhO superfective ze'e ze'e ZEhA whole time interval -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.