RE-REPOST: JVOSTE.TXT part 2 of 2

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.