Well, in analysing the jvajvo forms of these, in Lojban:lo ka telga'o cu ka ce'u poi ke'a se stela ce'u ce'u cu ganlo ce'u ce'u or
lo ka telga'o cu ka ce'u se stela ce'u ce'u gi'e ganlo ce'u ce'u
g1=s2 is locked by lock s1 using mechanism s3, preventing access to g2 from g3
The jvojva make telga'o suck. IMO, ganlo also is sufficient; adding [fi'o stela] helps in precision.
telgau:
lo ka telgau cu ka ce'u gasnu lo nu ce'u stela ce'u ce'u
g1 locks lock s1 locking s2 with locking mechanism s3 (jeez, I sound like noralujv on that one)
This one is jvojva, that makes me happy.
telcaugau:
lo ka telcaugau cu ka ce'u gasnu lo nu ce'u goi ko'a claxu lo ka ce'u stela ko'a ce'u
g1 causes c1=s2 to lack being locked by lock s1 using locking mechanism s3
i.e. x1=g1 releases lock x3=s1 on x2=c1=s2 using locking mechanism x4=s3
Also jvajvo, but less so than the next one. I personally prefer this one over the next one, as "lacking the property of being locked" is clearer than "opposite(lock)", in my opinion.
toltelgau
lo ka toltelgau cu ka ce'u gasnu lo nu ce'u to'e stela ce'u ce'u
g1 causes lock s1 to not lock s2 with locking mechanism s3
Completely jvajvo. However, the way I see it, [to'e] is much less clear than [claxu].
I think that [cirko] instead of [claxu] might be better; it creates the implication that the lock *was* locked before being unlocked, which claxu doesn't quite imply. Using claxu might just mean that the x1 is simply causing the lock to remain locked, i.e. lack the property of being locked. However, cirko really does imply that the x1 is causing the lock to lose the property of being locked and thus that it was unlocked prior to the event.
Similarly, cirko can be used for the inverse, with [to'e]: to'e stela cirko gasnu -> toltelcrigau.
Using cirko has the advantage of supplying an "under circumstances" place that can be used to specify various details pertaining to the event (maybe some locks are only lockable/unlockable at certain times or maybe some other condition needs to be met, such as [lo nu pilno lo ckiku] ;) ).
In general for asymmetrical lujvo, it is possible to "flip" the tanru elements into abstractions:
rodgau -> gasnu lo nu broda
rodclagau -> gasnu lo nu claxu lo ka broda
rodclacrigau -> gasnu lo nu cirko lo ka claxu lo ka broda
etc.
Finally, analysing the lujvo structure in Lojban is always more helpful, and usually aids in creating coherent lujvo.
mu'o mi'e la tsani
Are all these definitions in {lojbo jufsisku} right? I'm wondering specifically about "telgau" and related forms.
telga'o
lujvo g1=s2 is locked, preventing access to g2 by g3, the lock being s1 using mechanism s3. Cf. stela, ganlo, telgau, ga'orgau. |
|
telgau lujvo g1 locks lock s1 on s2 by mechanism s3. Cf. stela, gasnu, telga'o, ga'orgau. |
|
telcaugau lujvo g1 unlocks/unseals c1=s2 using lock/seal s1 with mechnism s3. Cf. stela, claxu, gasnu, toltelgau, telga'o, ga'orgau.
|
|
|
toltelgau lujvo g1 unlocks lock s1 on s2 by mechanism s3. Cf. to'e, stela, gasnu, telgau, telga'o, telcaugau, kargau.
stevo |
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.