[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Hello, I am new to this group but I have been studying lojban for a
while (actually, I've been paying most of my attention to the grammar
rather than vocabulary). I don't have any specific points of the
language that I need explained, but rather I have questions about
broad aspects of the language. Four in particular...
1. I noticed that one must not only learn the (~3,000 word?)
vocabulary of gismu, but also the several forms of rafsi for each
gismu. This seems a little unnecessary; why not have just one rafsi
for each word? Or better yet, why not use the three-letter rafsi all
the time? That would shorten text considerably and, when the words
are only one syllable long, it could reduce the need for all the word
shortcuts that may also be complicated to learn. Not only that, but
using rafsi full-time means that, in order to make lujvo, all you
must do is jam words together.
2. Speaking of lujvo, I noticed some things I don't understand. First
of all, they are put together in English-order when it makes much
more sense for them to go in the opposite order. For example,
the tanru 'cmalu prenu' means small person, but lojbanically it looks
like 'cmalu' is going in the x1 place of 'prenu'. It would make more
sense to go the other way (I know there's a way how to, but it should
be the default order).
3. Also, I thought of a way in which you could ease the ambiguity of
their meanings. Your book uses the tanru example 'klama jubme'. Does
it mean 'table which goes', 'table of a goer' ('table used by a
goer'?), or 'table when it goes'?
Couldn't the distinction be made by placing a cmavo inbetween
them? 'table when it goes' could be 'le jubme jo klama', 'table that
goes' could be 'le jubme klama' (no cmavo), and 'table of a goer'
could be ... 'le jubme pe le klama' (though that wouldn't be a
tanru...).
The problem arises with something like 'fenki litki ' (crazy liquid,
or liquid that causes you to be crazy). 'fenki' is {x1 is crazy by
standard x2}, there is no causative agent in the predicate, so this
tanru is false. If we made it a lujvo with gasnu, fekygau (or gaufek,
using my word order), it would read 'x1 causes x2 to be crazy by
standard x3', we could make the tanru 'le litki gaufek' where 'litki'
falls in the x1 place of gaufek, meaning that the liquid is what
causes the craziness (and then 'le litki fenki' would mean liquid
that is crazy). Of course, I am using the backwards word order that I
just made up when I put together these tanru.
4. Since we are on the subject of changing predicate places, there
were some discrepencies that I saw in the way they are. Your book
said there were three types of relationships; static (John is the
father of Sam), active (John hits Sam), and attributive (John is
taller than Sam).
4.1 In static relationships, there is only one argument, but in
lojban this number can vary.
It can have one...
djacu - x1 is made of/contains/is a quantity/expanse of water
It can have two...
cidja - x1 is food/feed/nutriment for x2
It can have three...
cavni - x1 is a/the god/deity of people(s)/religion x2 with
dominion over x3 [sphere]
cipra - x1 (process/event) is a test for/proof of
property/state x2 in subject x3
It can have four...
botpi - x1 is a bottle/jar/urn/flask/closable container for
x2, made of material x3 with lid x4
The x2 place is almost always the possesor (...bird of
species...cheese of source...cloud of material...deity of
religion...test of...). But what about
x1 is a cup/glass/tumbler/mug/vessel/[bowl] containing contents x2,
and of material x3
This predicate seems to jam two different words into one...'x1 is a
cup' and 'x1 contains x2'. This word seems to be an oddball and sort
of confused me when I was skimming your word lists. Another oddball
is the bottle/jar/urn example above...'x1 is a bottle' plus 'x1 is
made of x2'? And why must lid be specified in this predicate?
4.2 In active relationships, you see more variation in the number
of places.
It can have one...
cmila - x1 laughs
It can have two...
sisti - x1 ceases/stops/halts activity/process/state x2
It can have three...
sanga - x1 sings/chants x2 [song/hymn/melody/melodic sounds]
to audience x3
klaku - x1 weeps/cries tears x2 about/for reason x3
(event/state)
It can have four...
frati - x1 reacts/responds/answers with action x2 to stimulus
x3 under conditions x4
minra - x1 reflects/mirrors/echoes x2 [object/radiation] to
observer/point x3 as x4
It can have five...
klama- x1 comes/goes to destination x2 from origin x3 via
route x4 using means/vehicle x5
fanva - x1 translates x2 to language x3 from language x4 with
translation-result x5
Here it becomes more confusing because sometimes the receiver is in
the x2 place, and sometimes in the x3 place. x2 is the receiver in
sisti, x3 is the receiver in sanga. In these cases, the extra place
is the direct object (to sing the song x2...to weep the tears x2...to
respond with action x2...to reflect the object x2...).
klaku offers a reason for the action in x3, yet I believe lojban
already has words for 'for the purpose/reason of...' so I don't see
why this is necessary.
x4 and x5 are more complicated. The 'under conditions' in frati
sounds like a connective to me (the logical connective IFF) and thus
shouldn't be in the predicate. The 'as x4' in minra refers to the
state of the direct object after the action. Similarly, the x2 in
klama refers to the state of x1 after the action (or more
specifically, the location). But in the latter case, it is not the
direct object. To explain why, lets compare it to another predicate...
x1 comes/goes to destination x2 from origin x3 via route x4 using
means/vehicle x5
x1 transfers/sends/transmits x2 to receiver x3 from
transmitter/origin x4 via means/medium x5
Both these predicates are the very same; the difference is that the
x5 in the first one is moved to x1 in the second one (the cause). So
if we changed klama to 'x1 transports x2 to x3 from x4 by means x5',
it would all work out.
minra seems to be another oddball that combines two predicates into
one, that is, 'x1 reflects x2 as x3' and 'x1 sends/transmits x2 to
x3...' and thus should be seperated. fanva is another oddball because
it has two later states; the language and the actual text
(translation-result). This could probably be altered to fit the
system as simply 'x1 translates x2 to x3'.
To sum this up, here are all the different active relationships I can
think of (there are probably more but they will just be different
combinations of direct object, audience, previous state, later state,
and means). I put brackets around the parts that don't fit my system
(><):
x1 smiles (no direct object, no audience)
x1 stops x2 (no direct object)
x1 weeps x2 [for reason x3] (no audience)
x1 reacts with action x2 to stimulus x3 [under conditions x4] (both a
direct object and audience)
x1 reflects x2 [to x3] as x4 (a direct object and a later state)
x1 expresses/says x2 for audience x3 via expressive medium x4 (direct
object, audience, means)
x1 sends x2 to x3 from x4 by means/medium x5 (direct object, previous
state, later state, and means)
4.3 Attributive relationships can have a causative agent too,
although lojban leaves it out; 'x1 is white' vs. 'x1 whitens x2'.
Again there is a differing number of places...
It can have one...
blabi - x1 is white / very light-coloured
It can have two...
badri - x1 is sad/depressed/dejected/[unhappy/feels
sorrow/grief] about x2
bebna - x1 is foolish/silly in event/action/property [folly]
x2
culno - x1 is full/completely filled with x2
It can have three...
cmalu - x1 is small in property/dimension(s) x2 as compared
with standard/norm x3
berti - x1 is to the north/northern side [right-hand-rule
pole] of x2 according to frame of reference x3
It can have four...
drani - x1 is correct/proper/right/perfect in property/aspect
x2 in situation x3 by standard x4
In order for lojban to include a causative agent, you must combine
the word with 'gasnu' (to do). This is fine, its just that some words
seem to come with it built-in, which is confusing. Take jabre:
x1 brakes/causes to slow motion/activity x2 with
device/mechanism/principle x3
Compare it to masno:
x1 is slow/sluggish at doing/being/bringing about x2
masno includes the agent and the property that is slow. jabre
includes the cause, the activity (basically the x1 and x2 of masno
combined?) and the means. jabre should be a lujvo.
To analyze similarities in the places: x2 seems to always be the
property of x1 that is attributed, and x3 seems to always be the
standard/frame of referance.
An oddball that I don't think fits is fengu (x1 is angry/mad at x2
for x3), in which the receiver of the anger (x2) and the action that
caused the anger (x3) are seperated when it should be 'x1 is
angry/mad about x2 (abstraction)'. Compare it to badri: x1 is sad
about x2 (abstraction).