Re: ti preti lojban

[Robin Turner <robin@bilkent.edu.tr>]

la kevyn. cusku di'e

>
> I've been
> reading the first lesson of the draft textbook and parts of the
> reference grammar, and have come up with some questions.
>

I'll have a go at answering these, but as I'm not one of the elders of
Lojbanistan, take my comments with a pinch of salt.  {ba'a} more definitive
pronouncements will be forthcoming from Lojbab, Jorge, cowan et al.

>
> Is there any constistancy of sumti order for gismu?  The first place is
> seems very regular (as the-thing-which-is-to-be-related), but beyond
> that...  For example tavla and dunda.  Tavla has x2 being the recipient
> of the talking while x3 is the thing which is being talked about, while
> dunda has x3 being the recipient of the giving while x2 is the thing
> which is given.
>

AFAIK, there is no absolute order for sumti places, but there are a few
general principles, the main one being how likely you are to use a
particular sumti place.  Thus although the most common order corresponds
approximately to nominative, accusitive, dative, ablative, there are a few
exceptions, like {tavla}.  This is socially determined, I think - who you
talk to is generally regarded as as, if not more, important than what you
talk about.  Compare {tavla} with {cusku}, which has a different place
structure (and is the default for reporting communication).

>
> Also, it seems to be common to for gismu definitions to have a "made of
> material" simtu tacked on at the end, but this is not universal.  I can
> specify the material for a bottle by supplying the third sumti to botpi,
> but it seems to me such a sumti would be frequently ellipsed, thus
> making it difficult to remeber if it was defined.
>

I was originally in favour of dropping a lot of these "minor sumti", but now
I'm not so sure.  I take your point that we might forget whether something
is defined, but I think in practice it wouldn't be a problem.  Let's say
that speaker A is under the false impression that a selbri has a sumti place
for "made of material x4", and puts it in his/her sentence.  Speaker B my be
a bit puzzled by this, but would almost certainly realise that in putting
{lei tinsypelji} there, he/she was trying to say "made of cardboard".

>
> In contrast, another method is required to say "Adobe, the car that's
> made out of clay," as karce has no such material-sumti place defined.
> So I imagine there is a selbri for "x1 is constructed of material x2"...
> But I am curious, what was the rationale for occasionally defining these
> "made of" placements?
>

Convenience, I suppose.  There is a gismu

zbasu [ zba ] make
x1 makes/assembles/builds/manufactures/creates x2 out of
materials/parts/components x3

so " X is constructed of Y" could be X{se zbasu fi}Y  (X{se zbasu}Y would be
"X is made by Y).

For extra places not handled in the definition, Lojban uses "modal selbri"
(the term "modal" is a hangover from Loglan, IIRC, and has very little to do
with the normal use of this term in linguistics).  The modal for "made of"
is {ma'e} (from {marji} - "matter, material").  Thus, to translate your
example of a clay car, you could have:

la .adob. karci ma'e loi kliti

but I would probably just make a tanru and say {staku karci} - ceramic car.

>
> My bridi of the day:  I had to interrupt my afternoon's study of lojban
> to go to my psychology class, of which today's topic was language.  On
> my way there, I discovered that I did not yet have the vocabulary to say
> "the class of mind-study," but I could probably say that I was going to
> "the one who talks about small heads".  I came up with
>
> mi klama le te le stedu cpana ku tavla ku
>
> Is this correct?
>

The nested sumti look a bit dodgy to me, though normally when I say
something is bad Lojban, Jorge or Cowan point out that it's perfectly OK!  I
would say

mi klama le menske ctufau kumfau
I go the mind-science lesson room

>
> mi cikrie
>  - keven.
> (or is it geven.?)
>

Only if you've got a cold!

co'o mi'e robin.