Lojban - User contributions [en]

Word resolution algorithm

2016-12-27T15:41:35Z

4D enthusiast: /* Discussion */ add counterexmple to regularity of the morphology

{{jbocre/en}}
See the [[BPFK|BPFK]]'s [http://www.lojban.org/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=72 Morphology Forum]

I think I could not spent one day more without creating a wiki page for this issue.
{{vajni|While Lojban has a very precise, strict, easy-to-parse, thus unambiguous ''grammar'', it has <u>not</u> been proved ''syntactically'' unambiguous.}}
Let me rephrase this statement.

If we consider the Lojban language in a purely formal sense, involving an '''alphabet''' composed of its ''words'', supposedly classified into ''lexemes'', then <u>any finite ''string''</u> of lojban (stream of ''words'') can be proven either grammatically correct or not in a finite amount of time using a Turing machine.

This is what the Lojban grammar is for: it defines axioms and inference rules between its words (more precisely its ''lexemes'') in a form that can be fed into a [[LALR|LALR]](1) parser. And because the [[LALR|LALR]](1) parsing algorithm can be implemented using a [[Turing Machine|Turing Machine]], and that it can tell, within a finite amount of time, whether a (finite) string of lexemes follow its grammar or not, we have the result stated above.

Now, what does that mean ?

It means that given any stream of Lojban text, if we are able to distinguish its words and categorize them into lexemes, then (roughly) we can parse the text using a computer; however it actually ''presupposes'' that we know a way to distinguish the words and categorize them.

And so ?

Two facts:
* To this day, the way to distinguish the words in a lojban stream of text is very, very poorly documented (from a computer programmer's point of view). The only rules are given in the [[refgram|refgram]], are vague, and <u>were never proven unambiguous</u>.
* The most precise lojban lexer to this day, the morph algorithm of [[jbofi'e|jbofi'e]], has not been proved complete nor unambiguous, while already beginning to be hugely complex. IIRC, the more a system is complex, the less it is credible to the human mind.

==== Discussion ====

As far as I can understand in the morphology of lojban, a complete lexer simply cannot be written using a [[LR|LR]](k) nor [[LL|LL]](k) grammar, for various reasons related to backtracking and the relation between semantics and morphology.

* What does anything have to do with semantics? brkwords.txt will correctly break up '''djan.polake'ebrIvlaboinoigIsmumu''' just as well as something grammatical.
** However, we still have a hard time with "su" and "sa", even "si" when it is used to erase a morphologically wrong piece of text. Not to mention that it is possible that the morphology in itself is possible, while altogether being unambiguous when considered together with the grammar (like an ambiguity that cannot happen because the ambiguous lexemes are not allowed in such or such place by the grammar).
* The attempt in [[jbofi'e|jbofi'e]] to solve the problem using [[NFA|NFA]]'s is interesting, but leads to a huge graph of automata, which is very difficult to prove right.
* Elrond:
*: While continuing to search for an elegant algorithmic solution to this issue, I nonetheless believe that real parsing of Lojban using computers (one which involves a real lexer) is a very difficult task unlikely to be done right soon.
* One should see the file [http://www.lojban.org/files/software/BRKWORDS.TXT BRKWORDS.TXT] for the official LLG morphology algorithm.
** Definitely not official!
*** It is what the official LLG parser uses, isn't it?
**** No. As noted elsewhere, the official parser can only segment compound cmavo, and otherwise relies on spaces/dots (which it considers the same).
** It seems to work quite well, but it could probably be polished up a little on type 4 fu'ivla.
* [[Jay Kominek|Jay]]:
*: At one point I put some thought into trying to write a [[context free grammars|context free grammar]] describing the morphology. (Not a context-free one, however. I was intending to use the grammar in conjunction with a generalized parser, like [[General Parsing|Tomita]]'s or [[General Parsing|Early]]'s). Didn't get anywhere. I think that if an [[NFA|NFA]] can parse it, there should definitely be a [[CFG|CFG]] which can describe it, however. ([[CFG|(CFG]]s being more powerful language-recognition mechanisms than automata.)
** [[Jay Kominek|Jay Kominek]]:
**: Btw, parsing, even with an [[NFA|NFA]] is Really Really fast. So even if the process is ugly, then just as long as it works unambiguously, you're all set.
** [[User:4D enthusiast|4D enthusiast]] ([[User talk:4D enthusiast|talk]]) 07:41, 27 December 2016 (PST)
**: An NFA won't work e.g. zoi.{ab}^n.q.{ab}^m.la.{ab}^p is valid for some p iff n ≠ m, so it's not regular. A slightly more complicated example would show that it's not even context-free.
* Okay. I read thoroughly the brkwords.txt file. The algorithm described there can be coded with a "classic" programming language, which means (according to Church's law) that a Turing machine, or a possibly infinite-state automaton, can morphologically parse (using this algorithm) any lojban text.
** However, there still remain two problems:
** First, we are still not sure that brkwords.txt describes the reverse of the word formation rules described in the refgram. In other words, it is not sure that is is exactly the reverse of the WordFormationAlgorithm. If it is, all is well (we have an algorithm which given a finite-sized word can classify it into a unique lexeme). If it is not (proving it or not), it won't mean anything, because it is not yet proven impossible to invert the formation algorithm by some other way.
** In the case where brkwords.txt describes the opposite of the formation algorithm (which I doubt, but...), it is very unsatisfying. In particular, running this algorithm requires parsing the text in both directions from any "important" point. More practically, it requires the reader (be it computer or human) to memorize the whole of the text (when it is not cmavo-prefixed) upto the first pause (which may occur at an arbitrary point of time) before starting to parse. Although this is allowable for computers, I find this constraint very cumbersome as a human listener.
** At any rate, I would far prefer to invert the word formation algorithm.
*** All very well, except that there is no WFA for [[type 4 fu'ivla]].
**** Well, we have a general rule to recognize brivla, and morphology rules for every other type of brivla. Therefore a parser which can recognize a brivla will recognize type 4 fu'ivla using its "default" brivla rule.
* [[Jay Kominek]]:
*: It does not mean that a listener has to remember the string all the way up until the first pause. Humans are capable of performing lexical, syntactic and semantic processing of language simultaneously. As the lexical part of your mind tries to split up words, the syntactic part is looking to see if the series of words is valid, while the semantic part is looking to see if it makes sense. You'll discard parses which aren't syntactically or semantically valid. Further, there are parsing algorithms which won't be tripped up by bidirectionality of processing, so a computer isn't going to have a very big problem with it, <u>just as long as it isn't ambiguous</u>.

Phrasebook

2016-12-26T18:09:00Z

4D enthusiast: /* Common Phrases */ correct several errors, partially fill in and remove some rows

=Greetings=

Hello, I'm ... ''coi mi'e ...''

I come from ... ''mi se krasi ...''

I live in ... ''mi xabju ...''

America ''la mergug / le mergu'e''

France ''la fasygug / le fasygu'e / la frans''

Germany ''la dotygug / le dotygu'e'''

Goodbye ''co'o''

What's your base? ''dofoxo kancu'' or (in [[La Xagvar|La Xagvar]]) ''zo'eco'eno'oju'uxo'' '''where does ''zo'eco'eno'oju'uxo'' come from?'''('One does the usual {count} to the typical number in what base?')'''And isn't the obvious answer that it is belong to us? ''(ro ledo zbepi cu tutra mi'a?)'''''

I count by tens ''mi foli pano kancu''/''zo'eco'eno'oju'ulipano''

...twelves ''li'o li gai''

...sixteens ''li'o li paxa'' (or, if you are a chauvinistic

[[lesi'o foli paxa kancu|hexadecimalist]], ''li'o li rau'')

(How about ''li'o li su'ovai''?)

...sixties ''li'o li xano''

...twos ''li'o li vei pasu'ipa''

No matter what the time of day, in Lojban the word for "hello" is ''coi'' and the word for "goodbye" is ''co'o''.

=Simple phrases=

;Yes.:''.i go'i''

;I agree.:''mi tugni''

;No.:''.i na go'i''

;I do not agree.:''mi na tugni''

;Please.:''pe'u''

;I request.:''mi cpedu''

;Thanks.:''ki'e''

;Thank you.:''ki'e do''

;Thank you very much.:''ki'e sai do''

;That's all right/You're welcome:''je'e do''

;I love you.:''mi prami do'' (or) ''.iu sai''

;What you just said about yourself is true for me too.:''go'ira'o""

In other words, if someone says "I love you" and you want to reply "I love you too", say "go'ira'o".

=== Languages ===

;Do you speak ...:''.i xu do se bangu ...''

;Lojban:''la lojban. ''

(In some places you may also hear "le jbobau")

;English:''le glibau''

;French:''le fasybau''

;German:''le dotybau''

;Spanish:''le sanbau''

;Italian:''le bangrtalia''

;Chinese:''le jugbau''

;Japanese:''le ponbau''

;Hindi:''le xinbau''

;Russian:''le rukybau''

;Arabic:''le rabybau''

;I don't speak Lojban:''.i mi na se bangu la lojban.''

;Where is the phrase in this book?:''.i ma jufra gi'e se vanbi le vi cukta''

;Just a minute. I'll see if I can find it in this book.:''i .e'o ko denpa .i mi troci co tolcri fi le vi cukta''

;I understand.:''je'e / .i mi jimpe''

;I don't understand:''je'enai / .i mi na jimpe''

;Could you talk more slowly please?:''.i .e'o ko skusno''

;Do you understand me?:''je'epei / xu do jimpe fi mi'' - xu do jimpe fi '''tu'a''' mi (??) ...fi le se cusku be mi

;I am hungry:''mi xagji''

;I am thirsty:''mi taske''

;Where is the bathroom?:''ma stuzi le djacu kumfa''

;Where is the toilet?:''ma stuzi le vimku'a''

=== Some common words ===

;big:''barda'' small ''cmalu''

;quick:''sutra'' slow ''masno''

;early:''clira'' late ''lerci''

;cheap:''tolkargu'' expensive ''kargu''

;near:''jibni'' far ''darno''

;hot:''glare'' cold ''lenku''

;full:''culno'' empty ''kunti''

;easy:''frili'' difficult ''nandu''

;heavy:''tilji'' light ''linto''

;open:''kalri'' shut ''ganlo''

;right (of a person):''tolsre'' wrong ''srera''

;right (of a fact, etc.):''drani'' wrong ''jitfa''

;old:''slabu'' new ''cnino''

;old:''tolci'o'' young ''citno''

;beautiful:''melbi'' ugly ''tolmle''

;good:''xamgu'' bad ''xlali''

;better:''xagmau'' worse ''xlamau''

;a lot:''mutce'' a little ''milxe''

;sufficient:''banzu'' insufficient ''tolbanzu''

=== Presenting yourself and some others... ===

Before reading what follows, please take note that talking about the age of someone in lojban is essentially discussing birth dates.

==== Yourself ====

;I am ...-years-old (bad translation):''.i tu'a mi nanca li ...''

;(duration of life):''.i mi renvi fi li ...''

;I was born in ... (date):''mi jbena fi li ...''

;I was born in ... (place):''mi jbena fo ...''

;I am ... tall (speaking about your height, unit unspecified):''li ... cu ni mi clani''

;I am ... meters tall:''mi mitre li ... le ni clani''

;I speak english.:''mi se bangu le glibau''

;I can speak french.:''mi ka'e se bangu le fasybau''

;I would like to visit ...:''mi djica le nu mi vitke fi ...''

;I work as ...:''mi se jibri ...''

;My mother is called ...:''zo ... cu cmene le mamta be mi''

;Alice is my mother.:''la alis mi mamta''

;My favorite color is ...:''mi zmanei le ka ...'' (insert color verb)

;I prefer the blue one over the red one.:''mi zmanei le blanu le xunre''

;What's happening?:''.i mo''

;I'm lost:''mi djuno noda le se zvati be mi''

;I practice sport:''mi xadgu'a''

==== Nationality ====

;I'm ...:''mi ...''

;Spanish:''spano''

;Hispanic:''xispo''

;French:''fraso''

;Chilean:''tci'ile''

;Czech:''tce'exo''

;Breton:''bre'one''

;Hungarian:''magjaro''

;Basque:''skalduna''

;Russian:''rusko''

If you want to say "I'm French by birth but German by nationality", you can say "''mi fraso le ka jbena gi'e dotco le ka se natmi''".

;I'm French by ...:''mi fraso le ka ...''

;birth:''jbena''

;nationality:''se natmi''

;citizenship:''selgugycmi''

;ancestry:''se dzena''

;language:''se bangu''

=== Colors ===

Beware, the following words are verbs. For example, "this is orange" is "ti narju" - no "is" required. The word "cu" (which does not mean "is" but is a predicate marker, like "i" in tok Pisin) may be used before the verb.

;xekri:''black''

;blanu:''blue''

;bunre:''brown''

;cicna:''cyan''

;manku:''dark''

;kandi:''dim''

;grusi:''grey''

;crino:''green''

;nukni:''magenta''

;narju:''orange''

;zirpu:''purple''

;xunre:''red''

;labyxu'e:''rose''

;xunblabi:''pink''

;blabi:''white''

;pelxu:''yellow''

=== Asking others about themselves and you ===

;When are you born ?:''.i do jbena fi ma''

;What is your size ?:''.i ma ni do clani''

;Where do you live ?:''.i do xabju ma''

;What are you doing ?:''.i do mo''

;Where do you work ?:''.i do se briju fi ma''

;Can you speak language ... ?:''.i xu do ka'e tavla bau ...''

;What is your father's name ?:''.i ma cmene le patfu be do''

;Have you already been to place ... ?:''.i xu do pu zvati ...''

;How much do you earn ?:''.i do jerna li xo''

;Where are you going to ?:''.i do klama ma''

;Where do you come from ?:''.i do klama fi ma''

;Did you know that ... ?:''.i xu do pu djuno fi le du'u ...''

;What do you want me to do ?:''.i do djica le nu mi mo''

;Can you help me ?:''pei sidju mi''

;Do you find me pretty ?:''xu mi do melbi''

;Do you live with someone ?:''xu do da kansa le ka xabju''

;Are you married ?:''xu do speni''

;Do you have (a) lover(s) ?:''xu do prami selpe'o''

;Have you caught that Unicorn yet?:''pavyseljirna kavbu ba'oxuku''

=Food=

Where is a ... restaurant? ''lo gusta be le ... cu zvati ma''

Chinese ''jungo''

Japanese ''ponjo''

kosher ''broselcru/cidjrkacera''

halal ''musyselcru/cidjrxalalu''

American ''merko''

vegetarian ''stagi/recycau''

I'd like ... ''mi djica tu'a ...'' (probably ''ko fimi dunda'' is better.) ''Or, best of all: ".au"''

beef ''lo bakyrectu''

pork ''lo xajrectu''

lamb ''lo lanrectu''

rabbit ''lo ractyrectu''

mouse ''lo smacyrectu''

dog ''lo geryrectu''

peas ''lo boldembi''

beans ''lo dembi''

peanuts ''lo derdembi''

eggs ''lo sovda''

cabbage ''lo kobli''

broccoli ''lo kobli rulstani''

cauliflower ''lo kobli xrula''

lettuce ''lo laktuka''

tomato ''lo tamca''

salad ''lo salta''

pepper (black/white) ''lo tsaprpiperi''

pepper (green/red/bell/hot) ''lo kapsiku''

bread ''lo nanba''

eggplant ''lo mlongena''

orange ''najnimre''

lemon ''pelnimre''

grapefruit/pomelo/shaddock ''branimre''

lime ''ri'ornimre''

cantaloupe ''lo najyzme''

kimchee ''gugrtcosanykobli''

=Getting Around=
;Where is...
:''ma stuzi ...''

;How do I get to...
:''mi klama ... fo ma/ma pluta ...''

;the train station
:''le renytcana''

;the bus station
:''le sorprekarcytcana''

;the airport
:''le vijytcana''

;the post office
:''le mritcana''

;the library
:''le ckudi'u''

;the used bookstore
:''le tatpi cukta barja''

;a restaurant
:''lo gusta''

;I'd like a ticket to ...
:''.i .au pikta co klama ...''

;One way or round trip?
:''klama je'i xruti''

;One way
:''jenai/klama po'o''

;Round trip
:''je/klama je xruti''

;Do I have to change trains?
:''.i eipei le trene cu se basti''

;What platform does the train leave from?
:''.i le trene cu klama fi ma poi tsina''

;When is the first bus to ...?
:''.i ca ma cliva fa le pamoi sormemkarce poi klama ...''

;the next bus
:''le bavla'i sormemkarce''

;the last bus
:''le romoi sormemkarce''

;Please let me off at the next stop.
:''.i .e'o ko livycru mi bu'u le bavla'i ke nunde'a tcana''

=Dates and Times=
The Gregorian calendar is used in Lojbangug. There are two systems of naming months of the year, one based on numbers and one on signs of the zodiac, and two systems of naming days of the week, one based on numbers and one translated from Japanese or Korean. Some of the names have variants.

January ''pavma'i'' ''kanbyma'i''

February ''relma'i'' ''jaurbeima'i''

March ''cibma'i'' ''fipma'i''

April ''vonma'i'' ''lanma'i''

May ''mumyma'i'' ''bakma'i''

June ''xavma'i'' ''matsi'uma'i''

July ''zelma'i'' ''jukma'i, mlajukma'i''

August ''bivma'i'' ''cinfyma'i''

September ''sozma'i'' ''xlima'i''

October ''pavnonma'i'' ''ci'urma'i, laxma'i''

November ''pavypavma'i'' ''jukrskorpio masti, rebjukma'i''

December ''pavrelma'i'' ''celma'i''

The days of the week are most often numbered. There are at least two systems in use for the days of the week. One starts from Sunday and one from Monday. Since this situation causes great confusion, the Lojbanistanis are working hard to rectify it.

Sunday ''nondei,zeldei'' ''soldei pamoi djedi''

Monday ''pavdei'' ''lurdei remoi djedi''

Tuesday ''reldei'' ''fagdei cimoi djedi''

Wednesday ''cibdei'' ''jaurdei vomoi djedi''

Thursday ''vondei'' ''mudydei mumoi djedi''

Friday ''mumdei'' ''jimdei xamoi djedi''

Saturday ''xavdei'' ''tedydei zemoi djedi''

The place structure is:

* x1 is January autc. of year x2
* x1 is Sunday autc. of week x2

The format of a fully spelled-out date is:

* ''le djedi xamoi be le mlajukma'i be le panonomoi nanca be'o be'o noi jimdei''

=Health=
;Where is a doctor?:''le mikce cu zvati ma'' (seems kind of formal. Maybe for quick questions, just ''mikce vi ma?'' and so on for others here)

;Where is a hospital?:''le spita cu zvati ma''

;Where is a nearby pharmacy?:''le vi zarci be le velmicyxu'i cu zvati ma''

;It hurts here:''cortu ti''

;My head is too hot.:''le stedu be mi cu kelvo du'eda''

;I am sick:''mi bilma''

;I have a stomach ache:''mi cortu le betfu''

;Do I need doctor's permission to use this medicine?:''xu mi nitcu le nu le mikce ku curmi kei le nu mi pilno le velmicyxu'i''

;I have a cold.:''mi vaxybi'a''

;Take this three times a day for the next two weeks.:''ko cimoi citka/pinxa/je'erse'a ti di'i lo djedi ca'o lo ze'aba jeftu be li re''

==== Medicines and Nutrients ====

;aspirin:''slamrsalike''

;antibiotic:''(ledyselkra) jumcatra''

;herb:''velmicyspa''

;pau d'arco / lapacho / taheebo (the inner barks of various trees):''ricrtabebu'i''

;protein:''lanbi''

;carbohydrate:''satleixu'i''

;starch:''jalna''

;fat:''grasu''

;unsaturated fatty acid:''dronalclu rasyslami''

;saturated fatty acid:''droclu rasyslami''

;vitamin A:''abumoi mivytcuxu'i''

;vitamin B3:''by.cimoi mivytcuxu'i / xumrniacine''

;vitamin C:''cy.moi mivytcuxu'i / slamrskorbuti''

=Money=

The unit of money in Lojbangug is the '''rupnu''', which is divided into 100 '''fepni'''. The exchange rate is currently about 15 Lojbo rupnu to the American dollar. ''How come ? Who decided this ?''

Lojbo have the odd habit of referring to everyone else's monetary units as ''rupnu'' too. To distinguish them, one can say ''merko rupnu'' or ''meryru'u'' for the American dollar, ''ponjo rupnu'' or ''ponru'u'' for the Japanese yen, etc. (''ropno rupnu'' sounds especially fine!). To be absolutely clear, the Lojbanic rupnu can be known as a ''jboru'u'' or ''lojru'u''.

The coins are:

fepni 1 fepni

mumfei / zinsi'i 5 fepni

dekfei / decru'u 10 fepni

niksi'i 20 fepni

xabru'u 50 fepni

rupnu 1 rupnu

cibru'u 3 rupnu

dekru'u 10 rupnu

''(Boring. How about coins in powers of 2 fepni? Then you can always make change, never needing more than one coin of any denomination. '''What a great idea!''' Or for real laughs, have the denominations in Fibonacci sequence, which would also require at most one per denomination for any number, just a lot harder to work out.'') The sequence 1 2 3 5 10 20 30 50... also works this way, and would be much easier to work out.

(let me know if anyone misses the confused, pointless discussion that was here, most of which was my fault -- [[rab.spir|rab.spir]])

''Incidentally, if the exchange rate really is 15 ''rupnu'' to 1 ''meryru'u'', anything less than a ''rupnu'' would be an amount of money most people wouldn't even bother picking up off the street - less than a nickel. Not exactly worth making coins for it. Given that the phrasebook describes fepni coins, was it perhaps supposed to be the other way around?''

;What's the price of this?:''ma jdima ti / ti rupnu li xo''

;That costs 13:''rupnu ta rupnu li paci''

;Where should I pay?:''.ei mi pleji vi ma''

;I'm looking for something less expensive:''mi sisku lo'e kargu mleca''

;I would like to buy ...:''mi djica le nu te vecnu ...''

;Where is the nearest bank?:''le jbirai banxa cu zvati ma''

;I would like to exchange American dollars for rupnu.:''mi djica lenu canja lo meryru'u lo jborupnu''

;What is the exchange rate of the euro against the rupnu?:''ma canja parbi lo ronru'u lo jborupnu''

-> [[Phrases that differ only in stress|Phrases that differ only in stress]]

==== Asking for things / marketing ====

Unlike many other languages, it is not necessary in lojban to turn orders into polite questions ; politeness words are completely optional, and it is not rude to omit them.

Can you give me that ? ''ko ti mi dunda''

(same as I'd like you to give me that.)

I want to buy that. ''ko ti mi vecnu''

(same as Please sell me that.)

How much does this cost ? ''ti se jdima ma / ti se vecnu fo ma''

How much do you want to sell this ? ''ma ti fo do jdima''

Who sells this ? ''ma vecnu ti''

It is too expensive. ''li du'e cu jdima''

I offer ... (amount of money) for this. ''mi te vecnu ti fo ...''

Please, I'd like you to lend this to me. ''pe'udo'u mi jbera ti do''

How long can I borrow it ? ''ma ve jbera''

I don't have enough money. ''mi ponse le rupnu be li mo'a''

Give me some more. ''ko ti mi zmadu'a''

I would like to buy some cigarettes. ''mi na te vecnu ti poi snacukyvei .i se sraku''

=Numbers=

In general, numbers in Lojban are expressed by reading off the digits from left to right, with a few exceptions. Three zeros can be said ''ki'o'' instead of ''nonono'', and there are special words for some powers of ten, which aren't always used.

In some parts, an entirely different system based on [[lesi'o foli paxa kancu exadecimal|lesi'o foli paxa kancu exadecimal]] is used, though as a foreigner your numbers will probably be understood if you say them in decimal. ''These parts are easy to recognize--everything is much more advanced. Those using decimal are vaporized quickly and painlessly. [[tinkit|tinkit]]''

==== Small integers ====

zero ''no''

one ''pa''

two ''re''

three ''ci''

four ''vo''

five ''mu''

six ''xa''

seven ''ze''

eight ''bi''

nine ''so''

ten ''pano''

eleven ''papa''

twelve ''pare''

twenty ''reno''

thirty ''cino''

forty ''vono''

hundred ''panono''

thousand ''panonono / paki'o''

million ''paki'oki'o''

When counting, you don't say pa, re, ci, as that would be taken as the number 123 said slowly. To separate the numbers, you can say .i pa, .i re, .i ci, or li pa, li re, li ci. ''Or paboi reboi ciboi...''

==== Fractions ====

one half ''pimu / fi'ure xadba''

one third ''pira'eci / fi'uci''

two thirds ''pira'exa / refi'uci''

one fourth ''piremu / fi'uvo''

three fourths ''pizemu / cifi'uvo''

one seventh ''pira'epavorebimuze / fi'uze''

3+1/7 / 22/7 ''vei cisu'ifi'uze / cipira'epavorebimuze / rerefi'uze''

==== Some powers of 10 ====

10^-12 ''piki'oki'oki'oki'opa vei gei ni'upare picti''

10^-9 ''piki'oki'oki'opa vei gei ni'uso nanvi''

10^-6 ''piki'oki'opa vei gei ni'uxa mikri''

10^-3 ''piki'opa vei gei ni'uci milti''

.01 ''pinopa centi''

.1 ''pipa decti''

10^0 ''pa vei gei no pamei''

10 ''pano dekto''

100 ''panono xecto''

10^3 ''paki'o vei gei ci kilto''

10^6 ''paki'oki'o vei gei xa megdo''

10^9 ''paki'oki'oki'o vei gei so gigdo''

10^12 ''paki'oki'oki'oki'o vei gei pare terto''

Note that the words ''kilto'' etc. are verbs. ''kilto'' means "is a group of a thousand", as in ''mi viska lo kilto be loi manti'', I see a thousand ants.''Note also that it is not ten but the radix being used in whatever your base is, with ten the most common by far (though hex and occasionally duodecimal are used), so kilto is not one thousand but'' paki'o'', which to a hexist is over four times as many. This is why we are lucky in that some areas use hex and some decimal, but the borders are clearly defined. Only one region is in dispute, and that is the jboste, where base is a source of conflict. Elsewhere in [[jbotut|jbotut]] the bases don't mix, with [[La Xagvar ne exeption|La Xagvar ne exeption]].''

*A ki'o does not mean 3 digits in ''[[hexadecimal, which tinkit calls|hexadecimal, which tinkit calls]]'' the default base. Either 2 or 4--probably 4 (this is often defined as a "word"). Dekto, xecto, centi, and denti either need to be removed or add 2 more to fill up the extra digit. mi'e [[tinkit|tinkit]]
** It's okay when you make your misinformative statements on the list, where we are free to ignore them, but it's possible that someone new to Lojban might come across the Wiki and believe you, or worse, believe that features such as ''ki'o'' are not yet decided. Hexadecimal is supported in Lojban (as it should be, being the largest base that has some real-world usage), but it is false (contradicted by the Book itself) that it is the default. --[[rab.spir|rab.spir]]

*** The book says ki'o just means a comma. That can be interpreted as anything--including 4 digits which is what is most commonly used in the (9+7) base.
**** The book also says the default base is 10, so I hardly think you can refer to it authoritatively here. (Incidentally, I don't disagree that a comma could represent 4 places in hex - what I take issue with is your outright, false assertion that hex is the default and that as a result (since falsehood implies everything) the metric words are all of indeterminate meaning.)

=Smileys=

:-) (contempt) ''ui''

*Ahem, contempt is ga'i, you meant content, I believe ? mi'e [[.greg.|greg.]]

:-) (amusement) ''u'i''

:-D ''u'isai''

;-) ''zo'o''

:-( ''uinai''

:-o ''ue''

:-O ''uesai''

8-) (voyeurism) ''a'usairo'o / a'usairo'u''

:-* (kiss) ''iu''

:-% (puzzlement) ''oiro'e''

:-/ (embarassment) ''oiro'a''

*I use this one for disappointment or annoyance. -- mi'e [[bancus|bancus]].

:'-P (physical fatigue) ''o'u.a'ero'o''

:'-( (sadness) ''uinai.oiro'i''

:'-D (amusement to tears) ''u'icai''

>:-( (disapproval w/ complaint) ''i'enai.oi''

:-| (neutral) ''... cu'i''

What do you feel? ''pei''

What do you feel about the fact that ... ? ''pei du'u ...''

While many lojban chatters know about smileys and use them instead of the lojban words, it is good practice to write the words instead in e.g. more formal texts.

Is it smileys or ''smilies?'' --[[User:skorgu|Skorgu]]

=Common Phrases=

{| class="wikitable"
|| English
|| Esperanto
|| Lojban

|-
|| hello
|| saluton
|| coi

|-
|| good-bye
|| ĝis revido
|| co'o

|-
|| Please
|| bonvolu
|| pe'u

|-
|| thank you
|| dankon
|| ki'e

|-
|| English
|| angla
|| le glibau

|-
|| yes
|| jes
|| go'i

|-
|| no
|| ne
|| na go'i

|-
|| I am sorry
|| mi bedaŭras
|| .u'u

|-
|| I don't understand
|| mi ne komprenas
|| mi na jimpe

|-
|| Where is the toilet?
|| kie estas la necesejo?
|| vimku'a bu'u ma

|-
|| Do you speak English?
|| Ĉu vi parolas la anglan?
|| xu do se glibau

|-
|| Excuse me, I do not speak Lojban well
|| Pardonu min, mi ne bone parolas Loĵbanon
||

|-
|| I don't know
|| Mi ne scias
|| mi na djuno

|}

=On a bus stop=
==Very useful phrases==
{{gl|lo mi fulta bloti cu culno lo angila|My hovercraft is full of eels.}}

=Links=
The original of this page and those behind the links can be found at https://github.com/lojban/lojban-cvs/tree/master/lojban/phrasebook

resequencing sumti

2016-12-26T16:33:50Z

4D enthusiast: suggested "jai FA" as a replacement in certain contexts

What is good practise in sequencing sumti in a flexible yet perspicuous way?

[[And y|And y]] thoughts on the matter grappling with sumti sequencing.

Long ago in my salad days when I had not yet turned a tired and desiccated brown in judgement, I drew up for my own use a table showing how to rearrange places using SE, exactly of the sort given at [[Rearranging arguments without using FA|Rearranging arguments without using FA]]. I even used ''setese'' and its ilk. As far as I recall, nobody had the patience to work out what I was saying, and I could never be bothered to learn the table.

* ''For the record, this was done for Loglan 20 years ago or so. If we had access to those files, we would only need translation. As here, the Loglan decision was that the system was too messy to use.''

selma'o SE itself is indispensible: there is no way to say {le ve broda} without using SE (except for ''le poi'i broda fo ke'a'' -- and the price of that is you're using an experimental cmavo.
* What about ''le jai fo broda''?

But I have problems using SE. ''se'' itself is not too bad: the order 21345 feels natural to me. But I generally want 31235, 41235, 51234 much more often than the 32145, 42315, 52341 that ''te'', ''ve'', ''xe'' give you, and the SE-combos to get those orders are mindboggling -- for me, at least, they'd have to be learnt by rote as essentially noncompositional gestalts. And that's a Bad Thing.

* I decided to check how to do 51234 with SE. It turns out to be ''xe ve te se''. I had to use the Search function to find it!
* actually ''xese broda'' (51342) is shorter...In fact:

***[[Fair enough, but 51342 overtaxes my brain. I can cope with any ordering of FA-tagged sumti, but for untagged sumti I need them to occur in canonical order, except for the sumti promoted by SE.]]
** to get 31 = ''te se broda'' (312)

** to get 41 = ''ve se broda'' (4132)
** to get 51 = ''xe se broda'' (51342). Notice a pattern? I figured this all out when i first started learning Lojban, but then never used it (AFAIK) in any of my writing! (''mi'e maikl.'')

A further problem with using SE is that it fucks up the workings of FA. Suppose I want ordering 41, and for some reason or other need to get 4 first by using ''ve''. I can't remember the SE-combo for 41, so need to mark the 1 by FA. The problem is that ''fa'' is supposed to mark the x1 '''after''' SE-conversion, not before. So it's not enough that I know the place structure of the brivla. I also have to go through the computations of working out what position the ur x1 is. Yet another problem of FA/SE interactions is that without checking [[Woldy|Woldy]] I can't remember whether ''fo ko'a ko'e broda'' yields 41 or 45 and whether ''broda fo ko'a ko'e'' yields 42 or 45.

* ''For the record again, the items after the flagged sumti are in order from the flagged place: {fo ke'a ke'o} is {fo ke'a fi ke'o}''
* Do you mean ''fo ke'a '''fu''' ke'o''?

The dialect that appeals to me works thus:

* Use of SE is sparing. No more than one SE on a selbri. When SE is used, FA is used for all but the derived x1 (unless ''se'' is used, in which case FA needn't be used for the derived x2).
* ''fa, fe, fi, fo, fu'' always tag the underlying x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, in the manner of [[foi'V|foi'V]].

** '''Since {se broda} is offcially a new predicate, different from {broda}, it can be argued that there are NO underlying x1, etc. different from the surface x1. This seems like hairsplitting.'''
* the presence of FA-tagged sumti does not affect the place assigned to sumti that aren't FA-tagged, except in that places identified by FA-tagging are not available to be identified by sequence.

** ''Does this mean that {broda fo a b c d} is {broda b c a d} or {broda - b a c}?''
** I mean that the for-me most intuitive rule would be that {broda fo a b c d} identifies a b c d as x4, x2, x3, x5 respectively. {fo a b c d broda} would identify them as x4, x1, x2, x3.

--And.

How did you discover Lojban?

2016-12-24T17:52:35Z

4D enthusiast: added my entry

How did you discover Lojban?

This is an important question as it helps establish how the LLG are gaining members and can help them target new members better. It maybe a good idea to include the reasons why you choose to learn/participate-in-the-community Lojban?

Answers:
*[[Yanis Batura]]:
**I had been dreaming about a language with precise relations between words for a year. Suddenly, when browsing Wikipedia, I saw a link to Lojban version from the article about Genghis Khan. I wondered what a language Lojban could be, and that is how I am here :)
*[[User:vacmurse|Josh Wolfer]]:
**I was having a discussion with friends about what the optimal ancillary language would be for global communications. As a native speaker of English, I find it to be horribly arbitrary and overly complicated. A friend told me that it would probably be Lojban or Esperanto.
**I did some research on Lojban and was instantly fascinated. I really wanted to see how a logical and intentional language could work. The idea of someone / some people creating language from ground up, is brilliant.
*[[la gleki]]:
**I used to read popular articles on languages and got acquainted with [[Esperanto]]. I thought Esperanto was what I needed. But I wanted to look at other options and when found the description of Lojban (probably in the Wikipedia article) immediately felt that that was what I needed: logic, cultural neutrality, parseability by machines, the ability to emulate different languages like shown in the Wikipedia article, the presence of an active community. I never changed my opinion since then. Better languages might appear in future. But as of now and as of the features mentioned Lojban is the best.
**Besides ... other languages are just boring :)
*[[User:TheSupernatural|Alex Richmond (TheSupernatural)]], August 29, 2014:
**I had little interest in languages other than English until I took my first foreign language class (2008-2009, Spanish). I immediately fell in love with idea of communicating in a language other than the English I've used my whole life. As high school languages classes tend to be, the pace of the course was slow and I ended up learning ahead. Somewhere that school year, I discovered conlangs. I learned about all the big ones: Esperanto, Ido, Klingon, Interlingua, Toki Pona, and of course, our beloved Lojban. Esperanto appealed the most to me for a couple reasons: it was simple to learn and speak, and there's a very active community out there. I lost interest not long after, although I can't remember why. I've read a lot of criticisms of Esperanto and most of them are very valid, but I still think their community is what every other conlang aims to be.
**Over the course of five years, I had a mild interest in Lojban. It had a lot of appeal to me, but there's also a very steep learning curve for someone who is proficient in neither linguistics nor computer science. I finally decided to seriously learn it this year.
* [[user:mark.xafirkamp.|mark.xafirkamp.]] 2014-12-26
** I learned about Lojban about a month ago from an in-progress post-Singularity science fiction story called S.I., by someone known online as DataPacRat. However, I may have been briefly exposed to Lojban as a child. When I saw Logflash in [[Talk:Lojbanic Software]], I recalled having ran an old DOS program of that name that I found on my parents' computer when I was a kid and thinking something like "What the heck? How is this logical? It's just gibberish!". The memory is somewhat dubious; I couldn't find Logflash in my archive of old programs they had on that computer, but when I made the archive I was more interested in copying games than in random unintelligible serious stuff.
** At first, I was interested in Lojban as a language that I could finally express and organize my thoughts clearly, without having to fight with the language. After a month of thinking about it, I think that Lojban is also the best human language to teach a computer to bootstrap a human-level AI.
* [[User:4D enthusiast|4D enthusiast]] ([[User talk:4D enthusiast|talk]]) 09:52, 24 December 2016 (PST)
** I saw it mentioned on xkcd, but didn't think much about it at the time. A while later I was thinking about something I don't remember (probably to do with French lessons), and decided it would be worth looking into more.

factivity of djuno

2016-06-24T15:09:34Z

4D enthusiast: added comment on objective truth

[[User:xod|la xod]] believes that he can djuno a falsehood, and he believes that he has shown that he can, but I'm fairly sure he can't and hasn't. --[[User:xorxes|xorxes]]

* ''That's based on the fact that the le velju'o is '''a''' belief system, not necessarily Absolute Truth. Belief systems make all sorts of claims, some provably false and others unprovable at all, from the perspective of a strict, materialistic, empirical le velju'o which I (and probably you) personally subscribe to. --[[User:xod|la xod]]''
**Then the problem is that you're mixing different ''velju'o/seljitfa'' in the same sentence. You can't djuno something that is a falsehood in its own selju'o. --[[User:xorxes|xorxes]]

*** ''The le djuno is true according to its le velju'o, of course! Is that all you meant? I thought you were trying to say no djuno ka'e djuno da poi jitfa le kamfatci; not the trivial no djuno ka'e djuno da fo de va'o le du'u da jitfa de'' --[[User:xod|la xod]]
****''le kamfatci'' is of course a very tendentious description. Everybody would want to use it for their own velju'o, as you use it here to refer to yours/ours. The claim is not so trivial, it only applies to "know"/djuno, it doesn't apply to ''krici'', ''birti'', ''jinvi''... In your claim, you left both the velju'o and the seljitfa implicit. How were we supposed to understand that the velju'o and the seljitfa were not meant to be the same? --[[User:xorxes|xorxes]]

***** ''go'i ma'i ma ni'o .ianai do jinvi le du'u da ka'e krici de poi da djuno to'ebo de fo zo'e .i mi'e [[User:xod|la xod]]''
******i li'a mi na jinvi la'e di'u i roda rode zo'u le nu djuno da fo de cu se sarcu le nu da jetnu de iku'i le nu krici da na se sarcu le nu da jetnu i li'a le krici be da cu krici le du'u da jetnu i ku'i la'e di'u na nibli le du'u da jetnu

******* ''go'i le du'u da jetnu ba'e ma''
******** i ji'i no de zo'u le du'u krici da cu nibli le du'u da jetnu dei ro de zo'u le du'u djuno da fo de cu nibli le du'u da jetnu de

********* ''.iseni'ibo ka'e krici da gi'e djuno to'ebo da .i fenki''
********* I don't know what logic you're using to reach that conclusion. If you know something, you must believe it, of course. You cannot believe something and know at the same time that it is not true. Anything you know must be true (in the ontology of the knowledge), but things that you believe need not be true: you can realize later that they are false, and still admit that you used to believe them. Sorry about the switch to English but you are not understanding my Lojban. --[[User:xorxes|xorxes]]

********* ''If you believe something to be true, you "djuno" it in your "le velju'o". You can't believe in something that you '''don't think''' is true! And the concept is so silly that to defend it, I see you had to switch to the alternate case of somebody believing in something and LATER realizing that it was false. In the first state, they both krici and djuno that idea, and after the realization, they do not krici, and they djuno to'ebo da. You'll notice that I am refusing to use the word "know", which imports unlojbanic, controversial baggage. --[[User:xod|la xod]]''

''ko'a djuno ko'e fo ko'i'' requires ''ko'a krici ko'e'' and ''ko'e jetnu ko'i''.''ko'a krici ko'e'' does '''not''' require ''ko'e jetnu da''.I am lost as to what you dispute of that. --[[User:xorxes|xorxes]]

* ''It's a trivial truth that if someone believes something, it is true for them. I can only assume that you are reverting back to the notion of jetnu zi'o; truth without any le selje'u; Absoltute Truth.''

**No, I think you're obfuscating. Consider these two cases:Case 1 - John believes that Mary is home. He doesn't know that she went to the market.Case 2- John knows that Mary is home. He doesn't believe that she went to the market.The only compatible truth with case 1 is that Mary went to the market. The only compatible truth with case 2 is that she is home. This has nothing to do with any Absolute Truth.
*** ''I am afraid you are getting confused with English translations. krici doesn't import all the baggage of "believe". In English, "believe" gets used in contrast to "know" to signify belief in a falsehood. In English, the sentence "He believes the table is red, but she knows it's blue" means that according to the authority of the speaker, the table is blue. "Know" is like djuno but with djuno4 set to that of the speaker. In Lojban, krici means only the psychological state of belief, and says nothing about the truth of the belief. This is why the English sentence "He knows the table is red, but she knows it's blue" is a contradiction. Hence, with English semantics, and all its implicit implications, you are correct up above, but the Lojban translations don't carry the same meanings. --[[User:xod|la xod]]''

*''(That's why I referred to le kamfatci way back there.) Thus, apparently you are stating the trivial truth that believing something doesn't make it empirically confirmable. I am not disputing that. But believing something indicates that you think/feel/will assert/are certain that it's true.''

**Of course you will. But thinking/feeling/asserting/being certain that something is true, does not require it to be true.

*''(And the fact that such notions are subject to change over time is completely irrelevant: let's hold time constant and discuss an instant, if that's distracting you.''

**That's fine. I have no problem admiting that some belief that I have now, something I really believe to be true, may actually be false now. Time has nothing to do with it. Something that I think I know may also be false, in which case I don't really know it, even though I believe that I know it. See the difference? I can believe a falsehood, but not know one, only believe that I know it. (Same for ''krici'' and ''djuno''.)

*** ''No, not the same for krici and djuno. See my paragraph above.''

**** I saw your paragraph and I don't find anything to disagree with. ''djuno'' is intimately related to ''jetnu''. ''krici'' is an independent notion, it is not related to ''jetnu''.

***** ''Except, psychological consistency (sanity) requires that le jei da krici de kei cu pabdu'i le jei de jetnu '''tu'a ba'e da.'''''

*** ''Translate "krici" as "W has a mental state such that X is accepted to be true", and translate "djuno" as "W internally claims that X is true, as compatible with W's meme-complex Y" --[[User:xod|la xod]]''

****I don't know what a meme-complex is. We seem to have come to an agreement about ''krici'' though.

* ''Also, please don't be distracted by belief values along (0, 1) exclusive; we can deal with those trivially by upgrading all truth values in the model from binary to (0, 1) inclusive.) Therefore, ju'a le jei da krici de kei cu pabdu'i le jei de jetnu tu'a da. ''

**No! Plese don't include my mistaken beliefs in any ontology/epistemology attributed to me! I am not so conceited as to think that everything I believe is true. Notice the difference: ''ro da zo'u ganai mi krici da gi mi krici le du'u da jetnu'' For every x, if I believe x then I believe that x is true. '''But:''' ''mi '''na''' krici le du'u ro da zo'u ganai mi krici da gi da jetnu'' I '''don't''' believe that for every x, if I believe x then x is true.

*** ''If you insist that you believe things you know are false, I have no choice but to consider you mentally incompetent. ''

**** That's very kind of you. Where did I say anything like that though? Did you read what I wrote?

***** ''You left open the possibility that you might hold "mistaken" beliefs. Now, "mistaken" by whose standard? ''

****** By my standards. I am quite sure that some of my beliefs are mistaken, though I cannot tell you which ones, for if I could I would no longer hold them as beliefs.

******* ''As a mass you may suspect that some of your beliefs are incorrect, yet, if we inspected each of your beliefs individually, you would assert the truth of every one. Since there is not a single one of your beliefs you would label as false, none of them are mistaken according to you! --[[User:xod|la xod]]''

********Speak for yourself! Do you really think that none of your beliefs are mistaken? I never claimed that for my beliefs. I repeat:(1) ''ro da su'o de zo'u ganai mi krici da gi mi krici le du'u da jetnu de''(2) ''mi krici le du'u ro da su'o de zo'u ganai mi krici da gi da jetnu de''(2) does '''NOT''' follow from (1). In my case, (1) is true and (2) is false. Of course for every one of my beliefs I believe that it is true. But I don't believe that "every one of my beliefs is true". If you can't tell apart those two notions I don't know how else to explain them. You are saying that (2) follows from (1), but it doesn't.

********* ''cinri fa le terfrica be la'e lo'u le selkri le'u bei la'e lo'u lei selkri le'u ''

********* Why the error quotes? The distinction is not about masses though. If you read my Lojban, the distinction is in whether the quantification is inside or outside of the belief.

********** ''Now come on, Jorge! Arguing philosophy is quite enough without having to dispute who is saying what! You said " Of course for every one of my beliefs I believe that it is true.", which refers to each of your beliefs, taken individually." And you continued with "But I don't believe that "every one of my beliefs is true."", which refers to all of your beliefs taken as a mass. ''

********** No it does not. Did you read the Lojban part? It says ''mi na krici le du'u ro le mi selkri cu jetnu da''. For the nth time: if you take each of my beliefs on its own, I of course believe it. But I don't believe the general statement that "for each x which is a belief of mine, x is true". For each belief, I'm prepared to claim that it is true, but I am not prepared to claim "each of my beliefs is true". This is not about masses. I simply don't believe that each and every one of my beliefs is true. I also don't believe that any person's each and every belief is true. I don't believe in such infallibility.

********** ''I read that to mean that, taken as a mass, you claim that some of the beliefs are false, but taken individually you will assert that each one is true. I resolve the apparent contradiction in the next sentence: You realize that each of your beliefs COULD be false, while believing them all staunchly at the present moment. Your potential to renounce them in the future shouldn't be confused with weakening your present belief! ''

********** You misread it then. That's not what I meant. I did not mean to take them as a mass. Is belief in a time invariant velju'o an acceptable velju'o?

**********''As for sentence 2, I never claimed it of you. I claimed the du'u bridi there, not the main bridi.--[[User:xod|la xod]]''

**********??!! The du'u bridi is the belief which you insist on attributing to me, and I insist on refusing.

********** ''I never claimed you believed it. Why would I argue if I already believed that you agreed with me? I said that it is a fact and that sanity requires it. --[[User:xod|la xod]]''

********** Ok, I thought you believed me sane, my mistake then. --[[User:xorxes|xorxes]]

********* ''.i ku'i ja'o se'i ganai ro le mi selkri ca cu'u jetnu tu'a mi gi piro lei mi selkri ca cu'u jetnu tu'a mi .enai ju'ocu'i tu'a mi pe lo balvi''

********* i ro le mi selkri ba'e na jetnu tu'a mi i su'o sy jitfa tu'a mi i ku'i mi na djuno le du'u le mokau cu jitfa --mi'e [[User:xorxes|xorxes]]

********** ''Your first sentence is contradicted by what I just reminded you that you wrote. ro le takes them individually.''

********** No it is not. Please read it again more carefully.

********** ''Do me a favor. Explain the meaning of "For each beliefs, I'm prepared to claim that it is true, but I am not prepared to claim "each of my beliefs is true"". How are you willing to perform an operation on each one taken individually, but you won't perform the operation on them all at once? --[[User:xod|la xod]]''

********** Because the operation is not associative. ''mi krici ge le du'u broda gi le du'u brode'' does not entail ''mi krici le du'u ge broda gi brode''. For two connectands it is not so obvious, because most people will believe the conjunction if they believe each of the conjoined. Notice that the conjunction is a third belief. But for ''ro selkri'', I thought it was fairly obvious that believing each of them does not require that you also believe that they are all true. --[[User:xorxes|xorxes]]

*****''It is trivial to state that you might hold beliefs that later inspection could reveal to be empirically false! ''

******Ok, so you agree that I can have beliefs that are false, even by my own personal criteria of what is false, but which I haven't realized yet that are false.

*****''So I had to conclude, assuming your sentence had nontrivial cognitive value, that you meant that you felt the beliefs were mistaken, and yet continued to believe them. Only an insane mind can "believe" something it thinks is false. --[[User:xod|la xod]]''

******Can a sane mind believe that some of its beliefs are false, even if it doesn't know which ones they are?

***''You cannot hold a "mistaken belief"; a belief you feel is mistaken! ''

****I can't hold a belief that I feel is mistaken. I can hold a belief that is mistaken but which I feel is not mistaken. A belief can be false without my feeling that it is false, can't it?

***''A sane person's belief in X is proportional to how true they think X is. Once you discover that a certain belief is actually false, you must revise your belief-status instantly and accordingly. And your Lojban is faulty because you are, yet again, dropping le selje'u!--[[User:xod|la xod]]''

**** Please fill it with ''zo'e'' to "fix" my faulty Lojban.

***** ''zo'e isn't good enough; you need to be explicit because sometimes you use zo'e to mean the observer's le velju'o, and other times you use it to mean le kamfatci. And at least once I have guessed incorrectly. Please, save me the guesswork! --[[User:xod|la xod]]''

**** How can you discover that a certain belief is false if according to you every belief is true?

***** ''By the method of selection of le velju'o; which in English translates approximately to "epistemology", and more accurately as the bilingual term "meta-le velju'o".''

****** Is there one meta-velju'o for everyone, or does everyone have their own meta-velju'o? If everyone has their own, how does it differ from a plain velju'o?

*******''What makes one person pragmatic and skeptical, and another spiritual & superstitious, and yet another completely conformist, willing to believe whatever the majority decides? Here are three meta-le velju'o.--[[User:xod|la xod]]''

*''And to directly address the final sentence of your last response, that's a very bold claim you're making, since you didn't establish any relationship between ko'a and da. You're saying that it's possible to believe an idea that's not true in ANY le velju'o. Considering how bizarre some of the le velju'o are I've seen, it's incredible to claim there is a single belief that doesn't fit into any conceivable le velju'o. ''

**I haven't seen many velju'o around. In fact, I'm not sure I could recognize one if you put one in front of my nose. I hope you're not saying that any old set of beliefs constitutes a ''velju'o''.

*** ''Well how can you argue about le velju'o if you are unclear what it means? ''

****I argue about lots of things I'm unclear about. If I were totally clear about it what would be the point of arguing?

***''A le velju'o is like a function that accepts a statement and returns a truth value. ''

****Any such function, or only some such functions that satisfy some other requirements (like some kind of self consistency)?

***** ''Do you mean consistency over time?''

******No, I meant internal self-consistency, but that was just one possible restriction. My question stands unanswered: is a velju'o '''any''' function that accepts a statement and returns a truth value, or only some such functions? For example, is every velju'o strictly tied to a given person's beliefs?

******* ''I am not sure. Let's assume any function is applicable. Will we run into trouble this way? --[[User:xod|la xod]]''

******** Depends what you mean by run into trouble, it dilutes the notion of velju'o to near meaninglessness. There's a velju'o that returns true for every statement, another that returns false for every statement, others that return random values for every statement. Why is it interesting to have a special name for all of these functions, which have nothing to do with knowledge?

********* ''Does the fact that there are a staggering number of conflicting ideas and interpretations of philosophies somehow dilute the idea of philosophy to "near meaninglessness"? ''

********* 'A staggering number' is much much less than 'any function that accepts a statement and returns a truth value'.

*********''Many an undergrad would agree! You are free, in the interests of simplicity and analysis, to ignore minor differences between vy. and look for patterns and classes among them.''

********* Maybe velju'o are somewhat like languages. Everyone's language is in a sense unique, although for example everyone who speaks what we call 'English' share to a significant extent in the 'same' language. In a sense we can also say that all languages are really one language but each of us only knows some parts of it, and we can comunicate with those who know more or less the same parts. Something similar would happen with velju'o: two people can only understand each other if they are using the same or similar enough velju'o, otherwise the claims of one will seem like nonsense to the other. I wonder whether you and I are talking in the same velju'o, since we seem to have so much trouble making sense of what the other is saying... --[[User:xorxes|xorxes]]

********** ''Good point.''

***''"Belief system" is a subclass of vy., since they are codified and official, whereas vy. don't need to be so formalized. To be completely pedantic, everyone has a vy., only one at any given moment, and everyone's is different, although some are difficult to distinguish apart. Perhaps it's a purely Lojbanic concept, and I sense that you're hostile to anything that can't be easily described in English. ''

****So according to you a ''velju'o'' is the set of beliefs that a person holds at any given time, is that correct? Are there any other kind of velju'o, besides these personal ones? This would make meaningless the distinction between ''djuno'' and ''krici''. Is it possible for person A and person B to djuno something by the same velju'o?

***** ''The main difference between krici and djuno is emphasis, as well as the sumti places. As for identical le velju'o, we can say that the vy. on spiritual issues might be the same between co-religionists who have no open disputes about theology. But no two minds are identical, and somewhere a minute difference of interpretation could be discovered through exhaustive interrogation. But for "all intents and purposes" we can call the two vy. the same. --[[User:xod|la xod]]''

******Let's leave the hard cases out and deal with the easy ones first. If I believe Mary is home, but John believes that she went to the market, is that proof that John's velju'o is different from my own?

******* '''There, I would say that I have to contradict the above on ''the main difference between krici and djuno'' - because while it seems plausible, your example given here is something that, unless you have a really messed up velju'o, is an exemple of contradicting ''selkri'' but no ''selju'o'' at all. - mi'e. [[.kreig.daniyl.|.kreig.daniyl.]]'''

******** ''Craig, you should read carefully what I wrote above concerning the implications of "believe", when used in contrast to "know", in English. Those semantic games do not translate! Jorge, it's possible you and John have different information and the same vy. If that's the case, the ignorant one would accept correction from the knowledgeable one. But let's consider that you are a hard headed man of science, and John is a witch doctor who got his information from a burnt turtle shell. With such a differing vy. you'll give his word very little credence! --[[User:xod|la xod]]''

********* So if John and I have the same vy, one of us holds a mistaken belief, right? (Of course I will believe it is John who is mistaken and John will believe it is me, until we sort it out.)

***''vy. is not precisely "epistemology"; "epistemology" is the closest possible English word the LLG could come up with in a pinch. It's full meaning must be discerned through insight, and [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/6201 clue from Cowan] never hurt either. --[[User:xod|la xod]]''

**** The clue contradicts your suggestion that everyone has only one velju'o at any given moment. It says that someone can have two (contradictory) velju'o at the same time.

***** ''I think you should re-read the note. --[[User:xod|la xod]]''

******Ok. I quote: ''After Galileo, some people held that the heliocentric theory of the solar system was theologically false, but philosophically (i.e. scientifically) true. For Y substitute "science"; for Z substitute "theology".''I interpret that as saying that some people had two contradictory velju'o at a given moment. Am I mistaken?

******* '''This is a matter of kricing, not of djunoing. They ''held'' that it was both true and false, they didn't ''djuno'' it. You are forgetting that djuno is about certain knowledge, and cannot be used to approximate ''believe'' if the belief cannot be true under a selju'o which is similar to the velju'o. Also, the ''by epistemology x4'' would imply (to me) that the velju'o includes the criteria for generating a truth value for an input, but not any axioms that are accepted as true. These must be true under the ''selje'u'' that you are using as your ''velju'o'' or you ''krici'' the belief, you don't ''djuno'' it.'''

******** ''When you distinguish krici from djuno with such vigor, I think you are needlessly importing delicate shades of English meaning into Lojban. It seems to me you came up with a sentence that works in English (and that I agree with), substituted {"belief", "know"} with {"krici", "djuno"} and typed away. krici lacks a selje'u place because it's not central to the idea, not because it can't apply at all. Who says "djuno" is about "certain" knowledge? Did you mean "certain relative to Absolute Truth", or "certain relative to the le velju'o"? In Lojban, "jetnu" has a second place. This is important. A person can know that a certain fact is in agreement with a certain body of other facts; can they really know anything else? --[[User:xod|la xod]]''

********I agree with you. I was quoting Cowan. Neither his nor [[User:xod|la xod]]'s notion of velju'o convince me, but also they don't seem to agree with each other. --[[User:xorxes|xorxes]]

*********''I was using le velju'o subjectively; as a person's actual belief system. Cowan is using it objectively; every belief system a person is familiar with. I can accept his definition; it is symbolic and more testable, whereas actual conviction is difficult to discern except through actions. --[[User:xod|la xod]]''

*''Contradicting you, I claim ro selkri cu mapti su'o velju'o .i ju'a ro krici be da cu mapti su'o velju'o poi da jetnu ke'a. This is really not a controversial idea! --[[User:xod|la xod]]''

*******''.i vu'enaidai do du'eroi pilno lo'u jetnu zi'o le'u .i ku'i nalfatci mubydarlu .i za'a do tugni le du'u roda rode zo'u ganai da krici ja birti ja jinvi de gi de jetnu tu'a da .i mi'e [[User:xod|la xod]]''
********i mi ba'e na tugni i le du'u xukau jetnu na fancu le du'u xukau krici ja birti ja jinvi i mi'e [[User:xorxes|xorxes]]

********* ''nodida'o smuni .i le fancu cu cmene le steci velfancu''
********* I meant "Whether something is true or not is not a function of whether or not someone believes it, is sure about it, or has an opinion about it". Please suggest a better way of saying it. --[[User:xorxes|xorxes]]

********* ''fancu le jei krici da kei le jei da jetnu kei nodida'o''

I am leaving a collection of gismu on this subject [http://66.111.43.200/~jkominek/nuzban/wiki/index.php?Thinking%20about%20Thinking%20in%20Lojban here].

It seems to me ya'll are confusing ''sruma'' & ''djuno''. (''mi'e maikl.'') I think it is worth discussing whether ''sruma'' is like ''ja'acu'i jinvi'', or ''jinvi fozi'o'', or something else. My understanding of ''djuno'', however, is very far from the usage here...

----

I'm gonna take a stab at something, this is several trains of thought all derailing at once: As far as I can deduce based on this, xod is arguing that you can djuno a falsehood, and I ''tend'' to agree. I have personally had instances when I ''knew'' that I had done a task (say, fed my cat). I did not believe this, I had actually fed the cat so I had external evidence (krici doesn't apply). Unfortunately, I had fed the cat dogfood so my task was not accomplished. I ''knew'' that I had fed the cats, but because I had unintentionally done it wrong, I was caught knowing a falsehood. This isn't a perfect example, you can argue that I changed meanings of the term 'feed the cat' halfway through, and I technically did, but its the best example I can come up with off the top of my head. Think about it, you've certainly been in a similar position where you knew you had done something but in reality that thing had not been accomplished. But should I use djuno for this un-true knowledge?

Also, what about being decieved? To use a particularly bad analogy, James Bond ''knew'' that 008 was on his side (he had evidence to support it and none to contradict it) yet that knowledge was untrue.

One more: just because I have evidence that something is true doesn't make it true. I understand that krici and djuno hinge on evidence as their differentiation, if I'm mistaken in this assumption/understanding then my whole argument is bunk.

My Proposal: Perhaps there should be a more clear distinction between sruma, djuno and krici: sruma and krici should be used where we normally use "know" in english, and djuno should be reserved for things that can be/are intended to be Objective, Big-T-Truth things?

* There is '''''never''''' any such thing as objective truth, which is why I find this whole argument pointless and inane. -[[Robin Lee Powell|Robin Lee Powell]]
** In the real world, you're right but if you're arguing against objective truth, what is the difference between djuno and sruma? --[[User:skorgu|Skorgu]]

A narrator could say, for example, la .djamz bond. sruma lenu la nonobi pendo la .djamz. .ije la nonobi nalpendo la .djamz. .i mi djuno la nonobi nalpendo la .djamz. (what's the best way to express 'but' in this context? I used .ije because it emphasizes the fact that they're both true but is there a way to imply contradiction?)

or, you can't use djuno unless you're intending it to be Objectively True e.g. as a narrator in a book would know the Objective truth of a statement. I imagine it would be used in real life/conversation only as hyperbole :) Just a suggestion.

So,

English Lojban

know sruma (but no negative connotation of assume in english, just human-limited knowledge. Could be supported by evidence and still false)

assume krici (un-supported by evidence, a true assumption)

Know?? djuno (Objective Truth Only. not useful in normal conversation except as hyperbole. useful for god-narrators and omniscient characters)

--[[User:skorgu|Skorgu]]

* If you'd be willing to claim broda is true by stating ''broda'', why wouldn't you be willing to claim something which implies it: ''djuno lo du'u broda''? Practically the point in language is to make claims about the truth-values of statements, so what's so excessive about claiming the truth of propositions other than the one you're directly expressing? [[User:4D enthusiast|4D enthusiast]] ([[User talk:4D enthusiast|talk]]) 08:09, 24 June 2016 (PDT)

----

Why does this one never go away, even after 30 odd years? Well, I see that there is an intention to change the meanings again, but let me remind everyone of where this started in 1955 and what was the orthodoxy until recently.

*{krici} is just about a psychological relation between a person and a proposition (and the subject of that proposition, but that WAS a mistake -- going back to the days before subject-raising had a clear expression).
*{jinvi} is that same relation but now adding a body of evidence on the basis of which the propositions can be claimed to cohere with some "reality"

*{djuno} expands {jinvi} in two ways: 1) the evidence (which might be very slight) is now expanded to a full "epistemology" (which, btw, is about the worst possible English word for this), a set of propositions (not a function, since it can be inconsistent): more than 1 but usually less than a complete set and 2) the proposition involved has to be true in that set -- either a member or derivable from members by devices giving more than probability (and by a derivation not directly involving contradictory members -- and, I suppose, a pile of other conditions).
*{birti} is off in another direction, about degrees of confidence -- though strangely without reference of evidence sets, which seem to fit in here.

*{sruma} is the only real puzzle -- it seems to be a form of {krici}, but is not, since one can assume something one believes false (and, indeed, for the purpose of showing it false). It may share with English "assume" the opposite relation to {krici} from {jinvi}: believes without conmsulting any evidence -- or on the basis of inappropriate evidence. This needs some work.

Tengwar

2016-02-22T13:06:11Z

4D enthusiast: /* VV */

A minority of Lojbanists think using the [http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/relipper/tolkien/rootpage.html Tolkien] script [http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/4948/tengwar/index.htm Tengwar] ('''la tengvar''') for Lojban is at the least cute, and at the most [http://www.raphael.poss.name/tengwar/lojteng2 instructive]. The kind of person interested in Lojban intersects with the kind of person interested in Tolkienian linguistics. Nonetheless, the majority of Lojbanists, it is fair to say, regard the enterprise as folly. This includes [[Ivan Derzhanski|Ivan Derzhanski]], who is a Tolkienist of long standing.

*[[Jay Kominek|Jay]]:
**I doubt anyone is planning on switching the list over to Tengwar en masse once the Tengwar section of Unicode is established.... <nowiki>[Here is the proposal: http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n1641/n1641.htm]</nowiki>. However, as [[User:Nick Nicholas|la nitcion]] pointed out, it would be nice to use it on the covers of things like the lessons. I could see Tengwar being used in the way calligraphic English is used (or maybe hyper-intricate gothic fonts). Sort of the thing that classy Lojbanists would use on their wedding invitations.
*An example of a lojbanic text written in Tengwar is [[:File:Berenstain_Fight_Tengwar.zip|The Berenstain Bears Get in a Fight]].
*[[xwaver|xwaver]]:
**Actually, I already have converted the cmavo, gismu and lujvo lists to use Tengwar.

{{See_also|Why Tengwar?}}
{{See_also|Tengwar Resources}}

There are two published mappings:
* [http://www.catb.org/~esr/tengwar/lojban-tengwar.html Eric Raymond's proposed mapping]
* [http://www.raphael.poss.name/tengwar/ Elrond's revised mapping]
** Mode 1: separate vowel carriers for each vowel
** Mode 2: full vowels (Beleriand mode)
** Mode 3: full vowel + ''tehta'' for diphthongs
* [http://www.fa-kuan.muc.de/LOJBAN.RXML aulun's mapping samples mainly following elrond's proposal (Mode 1)]
** {V'V}: short vowel carrier modified for this purpose (Sindarin), modified i.e. shortened about the size of apostrophe (Gandalf)
** {V,V}: use of comma (adapted to Tengwar) '' As in Raymond's proposal.''
** (rejection of the Beleriand mode)
*[[cmeclax|cmeclax]] has [http://lexx.shinn.net/cmeclax/ also used Tengwar]

*BTW, in order to achieving a good-looking script one ought to have <u>at least</u> two kinds of different widths tehtar!
**The single-byte fonts tend to; the Unicode fonts won't, because this is properly an issue for Smart Fonts. Thankfully, Smart Fonts are now on the market, though it'll be a year or two (as of 2001) before they come into general use.

The characteristics of Elrond's Mode 1 are:
** separate vowel carriers for each vowel
** CVV: tengwa+tehta, (short) carrier+ tehta
** VV: (short) carrier+ tehta for both vowels
** special case {uu}: long carrier as abbreviature
** special case {.i}: colon as abbreviature
** 'doubling' (underlining') the first tengwa for stress (Sindarin and Gandalf)
** various final-s (joined to different tengwar)
The main technical issue with Tengwar seems to be what to do with VV and V'V.

==== VV ====

Elrond in his [http://www.raphael.poss.name/tengwar/ published proposal] advocates a mode in which VV are handled with separate vowel carriers (a la Quenya), and a mode in which VV are handled with ''tehtar'' over full vowel letters (a la Sindarin; preferred).

[[xwaver|xwaver]] uses Beleriand full vowel tengwa for the primary vowel, tethar for the trailing

*[[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]]:
**I currently vote Quenya.
*He has since come to believe that double ''tehtar'' are preferrable - though this will prove typographically unwieldy. cmeclax concurs. However, if 'typographically unwieldy' refers to font design, xuinkrbin disagrees since any font designed for such use could employee a ligature. When typing ".ia.", a ligature could be used to display a combined 'i+a' tehta above the first full-stop.
**If diphthongs are written with both tehta over the same letter, y'y could be implied whenever there's a separate carrier, so there would be no need for another character. That's the main reason I like this suggestion.[[User:4D enthusiast|4D enthusiast]] ([[User talk:4D enthusiast|talk]]) 05:06, 22 February 2016 (PST)
*[[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]]:
**But since the VV are not just double vowels, I doubt it's very Tolkienesque

==== V'V ====

Established usage (Raymond, Elrond, [[cmeclax|cmeclax]], [[xwaver|xwaver]]) is to use the ''halla''. nitcion would prefer to use the long vowel carrier, in order to deemphasise the distinction between VV and V'V.

cmeclax makes the vowel following ' a ''tehta'' to the right of the ''halla''. There is no Tolkien precedent for this, presumably because the ''halla'' is taken in the Tolkien universe to be an archaic variant of the ''hyarmen'', so it wouldn't have been used much in extant Tengwar.

[[xwaver|xwaver]] eliminates the carrier altogether, using Beleriand mode for the first vowel (ie. the explicit vowel carriers), tetha for the second.

aulun uses a shortened vowel carrier to render the aposrtrophe, and a normal short vowel carrier for the vowel after it.

*Originally misunderstood as: aulun shortens the second carrier to the size of an apostrophe.
**[[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]]:
***Do I read you correctly? Could you point me to a sample? --- the samples on your page seem to be straight Elrond mode 1.
****What I did was designing a better looking apostrophe by shortening the (short) carrier - using Fontographer - i.e. I use the apostrophe like in romanized Lojban for /h/. In the Gandalf font the modified carrier is almost the size of a normal apostrophe: will post a sample soon!
*****OK, but be aware that Unicode won't be including non-Tolkien glyphs, and this will mean problems down the road. (Or am I <u>still</u> confused, and this is indeed a Tolkienian variant attributed to Gandalf in the mythos?) Still, the fact that aulun, cmeclax and nitcion independently arrive at a different 'carrier' for the vowel after an apostrophe than the short vowel carrier is surely significant. <u>[wrong, as it turns out<font color="#777777">]</font></u>

Here's a sample for .aulun's modified apostrophe in Gandalf (being aware of the problems pointed out above, it's just for personal use within graphic format):

[[Image:apsampl.gif]]
==== r ====
*Raymond prescribes ''ore'' (untrilled r) rather than ''romen'' (trilled r)
*Elrond makes this an optional choice
*nitcion would prefer ''romen'', but ''ore'' looks less disruptive
*aulun uses ''romen''

==== Full vowels ====

*Raymond picks ''hyarmen'' for full e
*Elrond picks ''yanta'', which looks about the same but is less disruptive

==== Double vowels ====

*Elrond treats uu and ii as double vowels (''tehta'' over long vowel carrier)
*nitcion thinks this bogus.

*Elrond starts to think about using yet different ''tehta'' for diphtongs

==== Stress ====

*Raymond and [[xwaver|xwaver]] double (underbar) the consonant/carrier of any capitalised letter
*Elrond wants only the first such consonant/carrier to be doubled. This is far saner, but existing [http://user.tninet.se/~xof995c/tengscribe.htm oftware] won't deal with it well, so this requires a separate script to be written.

==== Comma ====

*Raymond and aulun incorporate the comma into Tengwar
*Elrond and [[xwaver|xwaver]] advocate a circumflex underneath, as a reused rare Tengwar
*nitcion can't find such a thing in the standard repertoire, and awaits further instruction. There are various other ''tehta'' floating around.

==== Final S ====

*xwaver uses the final s curls after consonants, considering that while they would be handy in CVS. and CVVS. circumstances, they are slightly more confusing.

==== Prenasalisation ====

Noone seems to think introducing the prenasalisation ''tehta'' into Lojban Tengwar would be a good thing.

==== Non-Lojban letters ====

To cope with cited non-Lojban text, nitcion proposes mappings for the non-Lojban letters:
*q: nwalme
*w: hwesta
*h: hyarmen

*[[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]]:
** If anything in Lojban tengwar is sacred by now, it's that k = quesse. It's inefficient, but we are keeping coronals (palatoalveolars & palatals) distinct from velars. Even if we allowed series IV stops to be (also) written as series III, I'd still rather q keep out of the way; in nwalme, it's safe. Besides, it's not canonical Lojban; why should be anywhere near the usual tengwar in a Lojban mode?
***Right, but still, nwalme has a strong nasal connotation. Why not using the additional tengwar 34 (arda ?) instead ?
*If we pick a totally arbitrary tengwar, arda's as good as any ('course, arda kinda ''looks'' like q). But it'd be nice if the glyph for q was associated with either velar or labial. How about (16) unque?
**Elrond:
***Seems nice indeed, and easy to write :-) I vote.

So:

*q: unque
*w: hwesta

*h: hyarmen

To illustrate all the foregoing, here's one construal of all this:

[[Image:tengwar.gif]]

xwaver:
[[Image:tlcursive.GIF]]

a little bit more about the Tengwar, '''bau la lojban''', [[tenguar|here]].

UserWiki:4D enthusiast

2015-08-26T17:39:33Z

4D enthusiast: import user wiki

Talk:BPFK Section: Non-logical Connectives

2015-08-26T13:14:29Z

4D enthusiast: /* jo'e & ku'a formal definitiona */ new section

<div><div><div><div><div>Posted by Anonymous on Mon 29 of Nov., 2004 04:06 GMT</div><div>
An example of {ku'a}:
la treid. ku'a la traian. midju la carlyt.

phma
--
li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du
li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci
</div></div></div><div><div>'''Score''': 0.00 '''Vote''': <div> 1 2 3 4 5 </div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?comments_parentId=3089&topics_offset=296&topics_sort_mode=lastPost_desc&forumId=1#tiki-top [[File:resultset_up.png|16px|top of page]]]</div><div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?comments_parentId=3089&topics_offset=296&topics_sort_mode=lastPost_desc&forumId=1&post_reply=1&comments_threshold=0&comments_reply_threadId=3090&comments_offset=0&thread_sort_mode=commentDate_asc&comments_per_page=2000&comments_grandParentId=3089&thread_style=commentStyle_plain#form Reply]</div></div><br></div></div><div><div><div><div><div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_threadId=3091&comments_threshold=0&comments_offset=0&thread_sort_mode=commentDate_asc&comments_per_page=2000&comments_parentId=3089&thread_style=commentStyle_plain&edit_reply=1#form [[File:page_edit.png|16px|Edit]]] [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_threshold=0&comments_threadId=3091&comments_remove=1&comments_offset=0&thread_sort_mode=commentDate_asc&comments_per_page=2000&comments_parentId=3089&thread_style=commentStyle_plain [[File:cross.png|16px|Delete]]] [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?comments_parentId=3089&topics_offset=296&topics_sort_mode=lastPost_desc&forumId=1&report=3091 [[File:delete.png|16px|Report this post]]]
</div>

<div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3091&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain BPFK Section: Non-logical Connectives]</div><br></div><div><div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/user2 [[File:avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]]Posted by [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/user2 rlpowell] on Mon 29 of Nov., 2004 08:24 GMT posts: 14214</div><div>
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 09:45:37PM -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> An example of {ku'a}:
> la treid. ku'a la traian. midju la carlyt.

Huh?

-Robin
</div></div></div><div><div>'''Score''': 0.00 '''Vote''': <div> 1 2 3 4 5 </div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?comments_parentId=3089&topics_offset=296&topics_sort_mode=lastPost_desc&forumId=1#tiki-top [[File:resultset_up.png|16px|top of page]]]</div><div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?comments_parentId=3089&topics_offset=296&topics_sort_mode=lastPost_desc&forumId=1&post_reply=1&comments_threshold=0&comments_reply_threadId=3091&comments_offset=0&thread_sort_mode=commentDate_asc&comments_per_page=2000&comments_grandParentId=3089&thread_style=commentStyle_plain#form Reply]</div></div><br></div></div><div><div><div><div><div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_threadId=3092&comments_threshold=0&comments_offset=0&thread_sort_mode=commentDate_asc&comments_per_page=2000&comments_parentId=3089&thread_style=commentStyle_plain&edit_reply=1#form [[File:page_edit.png|16px|Edit]]] [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_threshold=0&comments_threadId=3092&comments_remove=1&comments_offset=0&thread_sort_mode=commentDate_asc&comments_per_page=2000&comments_parentId=3089&thread_style=commentStyle_plain [[File:cross.png|16px|Delete]]] [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?comments_parentId=3089&topics_offset=296&topics_sort_mode=lastPost_desc&forumId=1&report=3092 [[File:delete.png|16px|Report this post]]]
</div>

<div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3092&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain BPFK Section: Non-logical Connectives]</div><br></div><div><div>Posted by [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/user6 xorxes] on Mon 29 of Nov., 2004 17:49 GMT posts: 1912</div><div>
----

> An example of {ku'a}:
> la treid. ku'a la traian. midju la carlyt.

i la carlyt cu tcadu i je xu la treid e la traian cu klaji

mu'o mi'e xorxes

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
</div></div></div><div><div>'''Score''': 0.00 '''Vote''': <div> 1 2 3 4 5 </div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?comments_parentId=3089&topics_offset=296&topics_sort_mode=lastPost_desc&forumId=1#tiki-top [[File:resultset_up.png|16px|top of page]]]</div><div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?comments_parentId=3089&topics_offset=296&topics_sort_mode=lastPost_desc&forumId=1&post_reply=1&comments_threshold=0&comments_reply_threadId=3092&comments_offset=0&thread_sort_mode=commentDate_asc&comments_per_page=2000&comments_grandParentId=3089&thread_style=commentStyle_plain#form Reply]</div></div><br></div></div><div><div><div><div><div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_threadId=3093&comments_threshold=0&comments_offset=0&thread_sort_mode=commentDate_asc&comments_per_page=2000&comments_parentId=3089&thread_style=commentStyle_plain&edit_reply=1#form [[File:page_edit.png|16px|Edit]]] [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_threshold=0&comments_threadId=3093&comments_remove=1&comments_offset=0&thread_sort_mode=commentDate_asc&comments_per_page=2000&comments_parentId=3089&thread_style=commentStyle_plain [[File:cross.png|16px|Delete]]] [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?comments_parentId=3089&topics_offset=296&topics_sort_mode=lastPost_desc&forumId=1&report=3093 [[File:delete.png|16px|Report this post]]]
</div>

<div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3093&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain BPFK Section: Non-logical Connectives]</div><br></div><div><div>Posted by [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/user11 pycyn] on Mon 29 of Nov., 2004 17:49 GMT posts: 2388</div><div>
If so, this is the wrong kind of itersection;
streets ain't sets (well, I suppose you could
....).

----

wrote:

>
> --- Pierre Abbat wrote:
>
> > An example of {ku'a}:
> > la treid. ku'a la traian. midju la carlyt.
>
> i la carlyt cu tcadu i je xu la treid e la
> traian cu klaji
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
>
>
>
>
> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__
> Do you Yahoo!?
> All your favorites on one personal page Try
> My Yahoo!
> http://my.yahoo.com
>
>
>
</div></div></div><div><div>'''Score''': 0.00 '''Vote''': <div> 1 2 3 4 5 </div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?comments_parentId=3089&topics_offset=296&topics_sort_mode=lastPost_desc&forumId=1#tiki-top [[File:resultset_up.png|16px|top of page]]]</div><div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?comments_parentId=3089&topics_offset=296&topics_sort_mode=lastPost_desc&forumId=1&post_reply=1&comments_threshold=0&comments_reply_threadId=3093&comments_offset=0&thread_sort_mode=commentDate_asc&comments_per_page=2000&comments_grandParentId=3089&thread_style=commentStyle_plain#form Reply]</div></div><br></div></div><div><div><div><div><div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_threadId=3094&comments_threshold=0&comments_offset=0&thread_sort_mode=commentDate_asc&comments_per_page=2000&comments_parentId=3089&thread_style=commentStyle_plain&edit_reply=1#form [[File:page_edit.png|16px|Edit]]] [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_threshold=0&comments_threadId=3094&comments_remove=1&comments_offset=0&thread_sort_mode=commentDate_asc&comments_per_page=2000&comments_parentId=3089&thread_style=commentStyle_plain [[File:cross.png|16px|Delete]]] [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?comments_parentId=3089&topics_offset=296&topics_sort_mode=lastPost_desc&forumId=1&report=3094 [[File:delete.png|16px|Report this post]]]
</div>

<div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3094&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain BPFK Section: Non-logical Connectives]</div><br></div><div><div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/user2 [[File:avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]]Posted by [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/user2 rlpowell] on Tue 30 of Nov., 2004 10:10 GMT posts: 14214</div><div>
Indeed.

-Robin

On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 06:44:06AM -0800, John E Clifford wrote:
> If so, this is the wrong kind of itersection;
> streets ain't sets (well, I suppose you could
> ...).
>
> --- Jorge Llamb?as
> wrote:
>
> >
> > --- Pierre Abbat wrote:
> >
> > > An example of {ku'a}:
> > > la treid. ku'a la traian. midju la carlyt.
> >
> > i la carlyt cu tcadu i je xu la treid e la
> > traian cu klaji
> >
> > mu'o mi'e xorxes
</div></div></div><div><div>'''Score''': 0.00 '''Vote''': <div> 1 2 3 4 5 </div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?comments_parentId=3089&topics_offset=296&topics_sort_mode=lastPost_desc&forumId=1#tiki-top [[File:resultset_up.png|16px|top of page]]]</div><div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?comments_parentId=3089&topics_offset=296&topics_sort_mode=lastPost_desc&forumId=1&post_reply=1&comments_threshold=0&comments_reply_threadId=3094&comments_offset=0&thread_sort_mode=commentDate_asc&comments_per_page=2000&comments_grandParentId=3089&thread_style=commentStyle_plain#form Reply]</div></div><br></div></div><div><div><div><div><div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_threadId=3095&comments_threshold=0&comments_offset=0&thread_sort_mode=commentDate_asc&comments_per_page=2000&comments_parentId=3089&thread_style=commentStyle_plain&edit_reply=1#form [[File:page_edit.png|16px|Edit]]] [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_threshold=0&comments_threadId=3095&comments_remove=1&comments_offset=0&thread_sort_mode=commentDate_asc&comments_per_page=2000&comments_parentId=3089&thread_style=commentStyle_plain [[File:cross.png|16px|Delete]]] [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?comments_parentId=3089&topics_offset=296&topics_sort_mode=lastPost_desc&forumId=1&report=3095 [[File:delete.png|16px|Report this post]]]
</div>

<div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3095&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain BPFK Section: Non-logical Connectives]</div><br></div><div><div>Posted by Anonymous on Tue 30 of Nov., 2004 10:10 GMT</div><div>
On Monday 29 November 2004 09:44, John E Clifford wrote:
> If so, this is the wrong kind of itersection;
> streets ain't sets (well, I suppose you could
> ...).

The intersection of streets is much more common in daily parlance than the
intersection of sets, so I think it should have a short word. A street can be
regarded as the set of points along it, so the intersection of two streets is
the set of points they have in common, which is what's normally meant,
barring the complication of trying to figure out whether a point in the
fillet is in the street. (I doubt that Trade and Tryon are filleted;
filleting rights-of-way wasn't done on old maps.)

OT: I was in Raleigh with my mother in a clothing store. I asked some
saleslady, "Pardon me for being from Charlotte, but where's the Tryon room?"

phma
--
li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du
li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci
</div></div></div><div><div>'''Score''': 0.00 '''Vote''': <div> 1 2 3 4 5 </div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?comments_parentId=3089&topics_offset=296&topics_sort_mode=lastPost_desc&forumId=1#tiki-top [[File:resultset_up.png|16px|top of page]]]</div><div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?comments_parentId=3089&topics_offset=296&topics_sort_mode=lastPost_desc&forumId=1&post_reply=1&comments_threshold=0&comments_reply_threadId=3095&comments_offset=0&thread_sort_mode=commentDate_asc&comments_per_page=2000&comments_grandParentId=3089&thread_style=commentStyle_plain#form Reply]</div></div><br></div></div><div><div><div><div><div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_threadId=3096&comments_threshold=0&comments_offset=0&thread_sort_mode=commentDate_asc&comments_per_page=2000&comments_parentId=3089&thread_style=commentStyle_plain&edit_reply=1#form [[File:page_edit.png|16px|Edit]]] [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_threshold=0&comments_threadId=3096&comments_remove=1&comments_offset=0&thread_sort_mode=commentDate_asc&comments_per_page=2000&comments_parentId=3089&thread_style=commentStyle_plain [[File:cross.png|16px|Delete]]] [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?comments_parentId=3089&topics_offset=296&topics_sort_mode=lastPost_desc&forumId=1&report=3096 [[File:delete.png|16px|Report this post]]]
</div>

<div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3096&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain BPFK Section: Non-logical Connectives]</div><br></div><div><div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/user2 [[File:avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]]Posted by [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/user2 rlpowell] on Tue 30 of Nov., 2004 10:10 GMT posts: 14214</div><div>
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 09:35:19PM -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> On Monday 29 November 2004 09:44, John E Clifford wrote:
> > If so, this is the wrong kind of itersection; streets ain't sets
> > (well, I suppose you could ...).
>
> The intersection of streets is much more common in daily parlance
> than the intersection of sets, so I think it should have a short
> word.

It does, "kruca".

-Robin
</div></div></div><div><div>'''Score''': 0.00 '''Vote''': <div> 1 2 3 4 5 </div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?comments_parentId=3089&topics_offset=296&topics_sort_mode=lastPost_desc&forumId=1#tiki-top [[File:resultset_up.png|16px|top of page]]]</div><div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?comments_parentId=3089&topics_offset=296&topics_sort_mode=lastPost_desc&forumId=1&post_reply=1&comments_threshold=0&comments_reply_threadId=3096&comments_offset=0&thread_sort_mode=commentDate_asc&comments_per_page=2000&comments_grandParentId=3089&thread_style=commentStyle_plain#form Reply]</div></div><br></div></div><div><div><div><div><div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_threadId=3097&comments_threshold=0&comments_offset=0&thread_sort_mode=commentDate_asc&comments_per_page=2000&comments_parentId=3089&thread_style=commentStyle_plain&edit_reply=1#form [[File:page_edit.png|16px|Edit]]] [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_threshold=0&comments_threadId=3097&comments_remove=1&comments_offset=0&thread_sort_mode=commentDate_asc&comments_per_page=2000&comments_parentId=3089&thread_style=commentStyle_plain [[File:cross.png|16px|Delete]]] [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?comments_parentId=3089&topics_offset=296&topics_sort_mode=lastPost_desc&forumId=1&report=3097 [[File:delete.png|16px|Report this post]]]
</div>

<div>[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3097&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain BPFK Section: Non-logical Connectives]</div><br></div><div><div>Posted by [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/user11 pycyn] on Tue 30 of Nov., 2004 21:30 GMT posts: 2388</div><div>
Well, the intersection is strictly {le te kruca}
and that seems to be about the right length. On
the other hand, it does seem strange to use cmavo
space for all this set notation (Cartesian
products are even rarer). I suppose the idea is
that mathematics — when someone gets around to
doing it in Lojban — will expect words to match
the notation. I am not sure why, since all
anatural languages seem to manage with it (this
goes for all of MEX as well).

----

wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 09:35:19PM -0500,
> Pierre Abbat wrote:
> > On Monday 29 November 2004 09:44, John E
> Clifford wrote:
> > > If so, this is the wrong kind of
> itersection; streets ain't sets
> > > (well, I suppose you could ...).
> >
> > The intersection of streets is much more
> common in daily parlance
> > than the intersection of sets, so I think it
> should have a short
> > word.
>
> It does, "kruca".
>
> -Robin
>
>
>
</div></div></div></div></div>

== jo'e & ku'a formal definitiona ==

The formal definitions of jo'e and ku'a given actually describes some subset of the X∪Y and X∩Y respectively. They could be better defined as {lo selcmi noi da cmima gonai ke'a gi '''X''' .a '''Y'''}, and similarly with .e for ku'a. As it has an air of official-ness about it, I wasn't sure whether to just change it on the main page. [[User:4D enthusiast|4D enthusiast]] ([[User talk:4D enthusiast|talk]]) 06:14, 26 August 2015 (PDT)

Lojban Ideography

2015-08-25T13:22:34Z

4D enthusiast:

Wouldn't it be neat if Lojban had its own ideographic system, maybe in parallel with the phonetic orthography? mi'e [[cein|cein]]

Well, [http://bicoherent.topcities.com/loj/mixed.html here] are the beginnings of a proposal of mine. -- [[User:tk1@]]

* I like it! [http://shavian.org/lojban/gismu-jap.html here]'s a list of gismu, sorted according to the [[Lojban thesaurus|Lojban thesaurus]], with proposed hanzi (well, kanji actually) for gismu. I've got nearly 900 kanji, which covers two-thirds of the 1342 gismu in that list. (I mostly went through and took the kanji used in a salient adjective or verb; since nouns often use more than one kanji, I generally picked one which I felt either conveyed the concept or which I used as abbreviation for the multi-character compound, even if it may be semantically ambiguous (for example, see ''zgike'', where the character usually means something like "enjoyable, fun", but is also the second character in ''ongaku'' "music"). --pne
**:-) Wow, that's a cool list... I'll try to incorporate as much of its contents as I can into my proposal pronto. -- [[User:tk1@]]

**:( Only, I cannot read (display) the Japanese encoding -- [[.aulun. olung|.aulun. olung]]
***Hmm... does your system do GB or Big5? If so I can try to convert them over to one of these. (Speaking of which, what encoding you are using on your home page? I tried GB, Big5, EUC-TW, SJIS, EUC-JP, UTF-8, UTF-7, even Korean, but all gave bogus results.) -- [[User:tk1@]]

*** Usually I can read BIG5, GB and UT-8. On some forums (e.g. CTB forum) I only read UT-8, and cannot write at all! Even copy-paste from my Wenlin software doesn't work there - and, obviously, here either! (My platform is MacOSX 10.2.6). -- [[.aulun. olung|.aulun. olung]]
***[http://angelfire.com/folk/sm0p/lojban-hanzi-map-data.txt here] is the list in Big5, with my own character proposals added in some places. (Now I just need to get it into GIF or PNG form to avoid this charset madness altogether...) There are 4 characters in the original list which are Japanese-specific and aren't in Big5: [http://angelfire.com/folk/sm0p/cindu-gunka-greku-rupnu.gif] ('''cindu gunka greku rupnu'''). From the list, it's apparent that some words have acquired very different semantics in Mandarin and Japanese... -- [[User:tk1@]]

***Great! Hen duoxie! May I suggest putting the encoding's mode in the header so the correct BIG5 text appears immediately without need to switching the browser? I'll try to generate a gif-file from it - which might be huge, though. -- [[.aulun. olung|.aulun. olung]]
***[http://angelfire.com/folk/sm0p/lojban-hanzi-map-data.html one] (I changed the file extension so that encoding tags can work). -- [[User:tk1@]]

***(''update'') I've started on a [http://bicoherent.topcities.com/loj/hz/ ist of gismu-hanzi proposed mappings] for my orthography proposal, based on pne's list. It's spread across a number of GIF and HTML files (they're generated automatically though, so updating them isn't too hard). I'm currently trying to determine the `best' hanzi assignments, but it seems doing a decent mapping will require huge doses of CJK-ology research... -- [[User:tk1@]]
***(''another update'') A medium-length sample of my proposed orthography is available on [[User:tk1@ y wiki page]].

The nice thing about ideographies is that they are (supposed to be) language-independent, so any existing one could be used for lojban. Of course, they are not so independent. And they need non-ideographic characters to handle grammatical devices (conversion, say): consider the Japanese use of Chinese characters. The sample seems to make some attempts in that direction, but needs discussion. pycyn

Re discussion: I'm all ears. :-) I chose Chinese ideograms because they're something I actually know (also, it seems to be the most widely used ideographic script at the moment). I find that certain words such as "gismu" have no corresponding Chinese character, even though "gismu" is a gismu (primitive concept) in Lojban; so indeed in a way ideographies aren't really that language independent. I'm in the process of writing out the details of my proposed script... but in the meantime, the sample I put up corresponds to [[pemcrxaiku|pemcrxaiku]] #5, in case it helps the discussion. -- tk1@despammed.com

(P.S. actually my main concern right now is whether there's a way to _typeset_ this sort of thing in an automatic fashion...)

* What would most help discussion -- for us non-Chinese (etc.?) readers -- would be an analysis of the meaning -- in Chinese and Lojban (and whatever else is relevant -- some of that looks Mongolian or so) of the characters.
*I don't remember exactly how it works in Chinese, but my vague memory is that Chinese has a word (hence a character?) for "predicate;" but maybe it is a phrase, "living word." And another, maybe "dead word," for grammatical tags, =? cmavo. pycyn

**There are hardly one-character words in Putonghua: "predicate" e.g. is _biao3yu3_ (˰��?�) - can you read this?, it's two characters.
*** No; I never remember to get a Chinese script decoder when the opportunity comes along. I remember something in Chao about the problems with the concept "word" for Chinese -- I suppose I meant syllable-character confluence. pc

*** I can't read it, but I presume you mean [http://shavian.org/lojban/biao3yu3.png]. --pne.
*** Yes, that's it! (Yet you'd better convert the png to gif format ;-) to shrink file size) -- [[.|.aulun.]]

**** Whatever it is, it is the first Chinese characters I could read directly. pc

BTW, don't think it a good idea to mix up Hanzi, Hiragana _and_ Manchu script! I once gave it a try with Hiragana and Hanzi, i.e. the pleasant Japanese way, yet this was just for ;-) -- [[.|.aulun.]]

*Re meaning analysis: OK, I'll field that. I'm using single Chinese characters to stand for certain gismu, glyphs modified from [http://www.omniglot.com/writing/tibetan.htm ibetan] numerals as short-hands for certain often-used Lojban words such as "le", and [[Manchu orthography anchu|Manchu orthography anchu]] phonetic script for everything else. The Tibetan characters (which I've assigned in a somewhat arbitrary fashion) correspond to "le" (twice), "sel-" and "do". The four kanji are "ye4" (night/nightly), "xi3" (happy/happiness), "kong1" (empty/emptiness) and "yuan3" (far, distant, quality of being far); their Lojban pronunciations are indicated in furigana on the right. The Manchu words are just "oisai", "ca'o" and "ije" written out phonetically.
** Why the mixture? I suspect the whole can be done in Chinese without too much violence, though a stylistic difference between brivla and cmavo would be nice. pc

***Why: well, mainly because I'm bored. I did consider the possibility of writing everything in hanzi, but that feels so... lame. -- [[User:tk1@]]
*** I like the mixture. To me, it corresponds to how Japanese is written: content words in kanji, flectional endings and particles in kana. Similarly here: gismu in hanzi, cmavo in something else (I probably wouldn't have picked Manchu, but it's an interesting idea). I think it would be interesting to extend the ''gismu = hanzi'' concept to ''brivla = hanzi'', but I'm not sure how to distinguish between tanru and lujvo (the "prefixed number-of-components" thing is an interesting idea, though it messes up audiovisual isomorphism). Also, fu'ivla (which are brivla) can't really be built on hanzi in this manner. --pne.

****I think audio-visual isomorphism is nice, but requiring different words to be used for gismu and their corresponding rafsi will be sheer madness, hence this clunky lujvo notation. And fu'ivla are tough indeed. For the name part (e.g. -'''xaiku''' in '''pemcrxaiku'''), I can simply write some random hanzi denoting its meaning, indicate its pronunciation with ruby characters, and then quote or underline (leftline?) the whole thing. But where should the type ('''pemcr'''-) go? :-( -- [[User:tk1@]]

For this haiku, there happens to be a rather good match between gismu and the (modern Chinese) meanings of single characters. From what I understand, there's no concept of "word" in Chinese: "words" are just arbitrary groups of characters which often occur together, but which can also be broken down and analyzed. A character often denotes some nebulous concept, and its exact meaning and even part of speech often depends on its position, its context and any modifier characters. [[.aulun.|.aulun.]]: Just curious, why don't you think it's a good idea? -- tk1@despammed.com

**Because hardly any language, except for Chinese, is adequately expressed in Hanzi (this IMHO also goes for Japanese - although I feel that the specific combination of Kanji and Hiragana looks really beautiful!. The best way of writing Lojban (a very straightforward conlang) up to now seems to be Latin script. Others might look more decorative (e.g. Tengwar etc.) and should at least be phonetical (like Yiddish-Hebrew). Hiragana is very nice but - still - moreorless defective. (I cannot judge Mongolian or Manchu scripts for this Lojban purpose, although I like these very much. I'd favour Mongolian language again being written in their beautiful ancient script instead of changing from Cyrillic to Latin.) BTW, I also had the idea to give gismu using single characters, yet came to the conclusion that this doesn't seem to be possible due to the fact that Chinese basic characters semantically do not match the stock of Lojban gismu. And what about all the Lojban compounds of rafsi+rafsi or rafsi+gismu called lujvo ;-) -- [[.aulun. olung|.aulun. olung]]
*** I suppose those are just the other Chinese words -- frequently occurring clustes. But then we would need a device to distinguish lujvo from tanru -- either a ligature or a separator. As for the semantic mismatch, lojban has that built in in the way it picked the Chinese contributions to the phonetics of the gismu. The connection is better than arbitrary, possibly even to the point of being confusing for a competent Chinese-reader. pc

*** For non-fitting gismu, my current idea is to `simply' fall back on writing them phonetically. -- [[User:tk1@ k1@despammed.com]]
*OK... I have fleshed out the [http://bicoherent.topcities.com/loj/mixed.html etails] of my proposal (most of it anyway). Feel free to attack! -- [[User:tk1@]]

* I guess the only problem is in calling it an ideography, since almost everything has a phonological gloss and large chunks have no ideographic component. pne seems to have pushed the ideographic side a bit further. But note that most cmavo -- BAI at least and probably some others -- are as "predicative" as brivla, only in a more indirect way. I'm not sure what to make of that, nor of the fact that Chinese also has characters that function like at least some non-predicative cmavo. It does seem something more ideographic could be created.pc
**I intended the glosses to be optional, as with again Japanese (in fact Chinese is sometimes also written with pinyin/bopomofo glosses, albeit less commonly). That aside, [http://www.ancientscripts.com/ws_types.html ncientscripts.com does mention] a fundamental problem with the term "ideography" itself, arguing that current "ideographic" scripts are better termed "logographic" scripts, and I quite agree. And ''bai'', ''bau'' etc. are driving me nuts. :-( -- [[User:tk1@]]

*** A decent point: there can't be a separate symbol for each and every idea and any attempt to build ideoglyphs up from a basic few will reveal some features of the underlying language (AN or NA, for example), while sentences will reveal even more (or fail to reveal and leave us uncertain what is meant). Unless, of course, the combinations are all symmetric (and transitive?), which is pretty unlikely (though AUI seems to think it is, to the point of not distinguishing between sentences and compounds. But then it is basically German, an I-E for which this is often almost as plausible as for Buddhist Synthetic Sanskrit). One could throw in explicit modifier markers and other devices to make the word order match at worst the underlying language of the writer but not compel any particular order otherwise, but this would quickly get impratically complicated. On the other hand, since what is wanted is a LOJBAN ideography, none of these is a problem. pc
**** The problems with a LOJBAN ideography (aside from explaining why one wants to do it) are all in dealing with the threefold role of gismu-concepts in the grammar: tanru (including monadic), lujvo, and cmavo. I see no way out short of a small (two at least, five that I can see as maybe required) markers -- and some of these will correspond to morphemes anyhow. Of course, the result will still be strictly logographic, but that is inevitable for a particular language. pc

>From what I understand, there's no concept of "word" in Chinese: "words" are just arbitrary groups of characters...

*As you know, there are precise words for these concepts: _ci2_ is "word" (i.e. a semantic unit, often composed by several characters), _zi4_ is "character", _yan2_ seem to be (spoken, uttered) "words". A _ci2_ is one or more _zi4_, whereas a _zi4_ sometimes (but not always) can be an entire _ci2_. Under an aspect of written texts you're correct, of course, that characters and words are not too easily discernible by someone unfamiliar with vocabulary and syntax, since compound _ci2_ are not written in clusters. True and most interesting also, that the semantic units (i.e. characters) usually consist of "hard kernels" and a moreorless fuzzy (nebulous) "outer seam". This is a very powerful linguistic feature of Chinese with regard to creating new vocabulary: compounded _zi4_ semantically "overlap" and thus are able to give a wide spectrum of subtle shades and colours. -- [[.aulun. olung|.aulun. olung]]
**You're right, I stand corrected. -- [[User:tk1@]]

>I cannot judge Mongolian or Manchu scripts for this Lojban purpose, although I like these very much. I'd favour Mongolian language again being written in their beautiful ancient script

*For the record, classical Mongolian is full of scripting ambiguity (a technical problem), so I can understand if some Mongols are looking to other scripts because of this. Manchu removes much of this ambiguity via diacritics. I concede though that writing Lojban in Manchu may occasionally produce rather ugly results, due to Lojban's phoneme distribution. Using other phonemic scripts is, of course, possible. -- [[User:tk1@]]

Ugh, no competing ideography proposals around? :-(

* Well, there are not many other (well-understood) ideographies available. The ones underlying Egyptian (and alphabets generally) are very restricted, similarly the various Mesopotamian forms. And Mayan may turn out not to be nearly as ideographic as folks of my generation were led to believe. I suppose there are some Conlang ideographic forms -- neo-Urqharts like AUI (of course, those are not pictographic) pc

*I've been working on something which is perhaps a bit more than a script, but is still ideographic and heavily based on Lojban. The idea is that rather than imitating a spoken language by being written as one string, the shape of the sentence mimics the grammatical structure. I've added some morphological constraints on gismu to make it (hopefully) unambiguous, but that means I've been having to make up symbols to fit (which is really time consuming, and not exactly ideal). [[User:4D enthusiast|4D enthusiast]] ([[User talk:4D enthusiast|talk]]) 06:22, 25 August 2015 (PDT)

CLL, aka Reference Grammar, Errata

2015-08-22T12:54:43Z

4D enthusiast: /* Chapter 10 */ added erratum on example 12.2

This page is for errata in [[The Complete Lojban Language|The Complete Lojban Language]], that is for mistakes such as typos, or self-contradictions, or contradictions with other baselined language definition material. This is '''not''' a page to put desiderata (suggestions for improvement); such suggestions should go to [[Suggestions for CLL, second edition|Suggestions for CLL, second edition]]. This is also not a page to put errata resulting from the 4th Baseline Grammar proposal (i.e., the [[PEG|PEG]] grammar); PEG grammar errata should go to [[CLL PEG Errata|CLL PEG Errata]].

An online version of the CLL incorporating the changes on this page [http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/cll/ is available].

See also [[What is Lojban errata|'What is Lojban?' errata]] (for the published version), Level 0 Booklet Errata [[Level 0 Booklet Errata Introduction|Level 0 Booklet Errata]] (for the pre-publication reviews; now finished), and [[Lessons Errata|Lessons Errata]] (for the beginners' course).

The "''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''" tag means that http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/cll/ includes this fix, which also means it'll probably be in the next CLL version.

== General issues / questions ==
* Even though the CLL probably shouldn't encode the "brivla-cmevla merge" proposal yet (if ever), I think it should have {cu} in {la .djan. cu klama}. This is because BCM or not, this elision of {cu} is confusing to beginners. Once they learn that brivla can be names too, they are liable to go e.g. {la zipcpi klama}; makes {la} look like it has "two grammars".

== Chapter 1 ==
* The very first picture has a pedagogical error: "coi lojban." should be "coi .lojban." (This is an error even by pre-dotside standards, as pre-dotside, only {la}/{lai}/{doi} didn't require a pause before cmevla.)
** All/most cmevla need a once-over for dotside (some pre-dotside errors too, like {.alis})
* There is a paragraph at the very beginning of CLL, on page 4, with the sentence ''"In essence, Chapter 2 gives a brief overview of the language, Chapter 21 gives the formal structure of the language, and the chapters in between put semantic bones on that formal flesh."''
** Wouldn't it make more sense to say "put semantic flesh on those formal bones"? [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 6, it says "Larry Horn's work ''The Natural History of Negation''". It would appear that everyone else calls it '''''A''' Natural History of Negation'', by '''Laurence''' (R.) Horn.
** ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL'' (zort's fork at least) but needs approval

== Chapter 2 ==
* Section 5 example 5.7 uses "ti" to point at a language, and should have its accompanying note changed to more accurately reflect that this is not how "ti" works.
* Section 6 Example 6.5 has "cu" as elidable, when in fact it is simply illegal there. Removed. ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
** uanai, I still see "cu" in DAG-CLL.
* Section 8 page 17 claims that "xu" is discussed in section 1.7, which happens to list the captions for all the chapter pictures.
** It should refer to Section 15. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
*** The link in the current DAG-CLL is pointing to "2/2/15" instead of to "2/15".
* Section 10 says that example 10.3 (mi tavla do le tavla ku) means the same as (mi tavla do le tavla ku). Example 10.3 should be "mi tavla do le tavla", as it describes how "ku" may be omitted.
** It appears that example 10.3 is incorrect only in the online version, not the published book.
* Section 17 says "Note that Example 17.3 has and requires a “cu” to prevent “bajra” and “klama” from forming a tanru, but Example 17.4 and Example 17.5 lack the unnecessary “cu”.", but example 17.3 is "la djan. ~np~[[cu|cu]]~/np~ klama le zarci".
** It appears that the offending sentence is present only in the online version, not the published book.
* Example 17.9 is "le vi tavla ku cu ba klama" in the online version, and totally broken in the published book.
** Go with the online version. [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Example 17.9 in dag-cll as of 2012-05-05 is "le vi tavla ~np~[[ku|ku]]~/np~ cu ba klama". Since the same section has explained that tense tags make "cu" unnecessary, I think the example should be "le vi tavla ~np~[[ku|ku]] [[cu|cu]]~/np~ ba klama".

== Chapter 3 ==

A lot of the IPA examples use a space to indicate a syllable break. This is not standard IPA usage; according to IPA, the period “.” should be used to indicate a syllable division.
* Section 2, page 30: in the table the description of "apostrophe" should read "an unvoiced glottal spirant", not "a unvoiced".
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 2, digital version. The IPA table got horribly mangled somewhere along the way. It should look like (SAMPA column added):
{| class="wikitable"
|| Letter
|| IPA
|| SAMPA
|| Description

|-
|| '
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/h h]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/h h]
|| an unvoiced glottal spirant

|-
|| ,
|| -
|| -
|| the syllable separator

|-
|| .
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/ʔ ʔ]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/CLL,+aka+Reference+Grammar,+Errata? ?]
|| a glottal stop or a pause

|-
|| a
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/a a], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/ɑ ɑ]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/a a], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/A A]
|| an open vowel

|-
|| b
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/b b]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/b b]
|| a voiced bilabial stop

|-
|| c
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/ʃ ʃ], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/ʂ ʂ]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/S S], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/s%60 s`]
|| an unvoiced postalveolar fricative

|-
|| d
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/d d]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/d d]
|| a voiced dental/alveolar stop

|-
|| e
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/ɛ ɛ], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/e e]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/E E], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/e e]
|| a front mid vowel

|-
|| f
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/f f], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/ɸ ɸ]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/f f], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/p/ p\]
|| an unvoiced labial fricative

|-
|| g
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/ɡ ɡ]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/g g]
|| a voiced velar stop

|-
|| i
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/i i]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/i i]
|| a front close vowel

|-
|| j
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/ʒ ʒ], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/ʐ ʐ]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Z Z], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/z%60 z`]
|| a voiced postalveolar fricative

|-
|| k
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/k k]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/k k]
|| an unvoiced velar stop

|-
|| l
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/l l], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/l̩ l̩]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/l l], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/l= l=]
|| a voiced lateral approximant (may be syllabic)

|-
|| m
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/m m], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/m̩ m̩]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/m m], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/m= m=]
|| a voiced bilabial nasal (may be syllabic)

|-
|| n
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/n n], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/n̩ n̩], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/ŋ ŋ], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/ŋ̩ ŋ̩]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/n n], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/n= n=], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/N N], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/N= N=]
|| a voiced dental or velar nasal (may be syllabic)

|-
|| o
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/o o], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/ɔ ɔ]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/o o], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/O O]
|| a back mid vowel

|-
|| p
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/p p]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/p p]
|| an unvoiced bilabial stop

|-
|| r
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/r r], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/ɹ ɹ], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/ɾ ɾ], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/ʀ ʀ], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/r̩ r̩], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/ɹ̩ ɹ̩], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/ɾ̩ ɾ̩], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/ʀ̩ ʀ̩]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/r r], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/r/ r\], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/4 4], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/R/ R\], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/r= r=], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/r/= r\=], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/4= 4=], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/R/= R\=]
|| a rhotic sound

|-
|| s
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/s s]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/s s]
|| an unvoiced alveolar sibilant

|-
|| t
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/t t]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/t t]
|| an unvoiced dental/alveolar stop

|-
|| u
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/u u]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/u u]
|| a back close vowel

|-
|| v
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/v v], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/β β]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/v v], [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/B B]
|| a voiced labial fricative

|-
|| x
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/x x]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/x x]
|| an unvoiced velar fricative

|-
|| y
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/ə ə]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/@ @]
|| a central mid vowel

|-
|| z
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/z z]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/z z]
|| a voiced alveolar sibilant

|}
** Sort-of [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]]; what I actually did is had Arnt review what someone entered in DAG-CLL, which presumably was based on the above. ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 2, page 30. for the second eng (immediately to the left of "(may be syllabic)") the syllabicity marker is concealed by the right tail.
** I can just barely see the marker under a good light. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
*** For future editions :-) , note that the IPA approves putting diacritics above rather than below the letter in cases like these. Unfortunately, the fonts hitherto available have not made this facility available, so outside the journal of the IPA itself, such over-diacritics are seldom seen. — nitcion
* In section 3.2, the comma should (probably) be represented by the IPA notation [[ , aka Reference Grammar, Errata| ]], as the period is used in IPA to denote syllable breaks. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 2, page 30. For the Lojban phoneme /r/, the IPA symbol for a dental/alveolar voiced apical tap is given with a syllabicity marker below. A tap can't be syllabic, because it is by definition instantaneous. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]] Just remove that case altogether.
* Section 2. The descriptions of ''c'' and ''j'' are listed as "coronal sibilant"s. The descriptions should read "voiceless postalveolar fricative" and "voiced postalveolar fricative", respectively. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 3, third paragraph (page 31): "a unvoiced vowel glide" should be "an unvoiced vowel glide".
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 6, page 36. IPA for the unacceptable American flap variant of intervocalic ''t'' shows the GA ''r'' sound (upside-down r) instead of the flap (like an r with no vertical bit at the top — see the list of acceptible ''r'' variants on on page 44 where it appears correctly) [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 6, page 36. (Same as previous erratum) The consonant is referred to as a flap, while it is actually a tap. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 7. In between the shaded boxes, "a pairing of voiced and unvoiced equivalent vowels" should read "a pairing of voiced and unvoiced equivalent consonants".
* Section 8, page 38. IPA for pronunciation of "xapcke" has c where it should have S (long s). [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 9, page 40. IPA for pronunciation of "dikyjvo" has j where it should have Z (that little script z thing) [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 12, page 46. What should be the Cyrillic letter ; is printed as something that looks like the Greek letter . Is this only a typographical variant of the ;, or is it a variant?
** This erratum is indecipherable and should be dropped, unless someone can reconstruct it. The Cyrillic letters look fine. --[[User:John Cowan|John Cowan]]
* Section 12, page 46. Replace the words "the hard sign" with an actual hard sign, U+044A CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER HARD SIGN.
* Section 12, page 47. "are/"esse" should probably be "are"/"esse" (the acute on the a may or may not have been left off, but the closing quote after are is definately missing.)
** My copy shows the acute.
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''

== Chapter 4 ==
* Section 4, page 54. The book states that fu'ivla with a form like ''spa'i'' are valid. They are not, they fail the slinku'i test. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 6, p 58, "-lac" in the third table in that section should be "-lac-"
* Section 6, it says "Most cmavo that have rafsi are ones used in composing tanru (for a complete list, see Chapter 12)", but there is no such list in Chapter 12, or anywhere in the book (ju'osai). Perhaps it wants to point to the list of PA rafsi in Chapter 18 section 25? Or to the lists of tanru in Chapter 5 sections 14 and 15?
** What I probably meant was that Chapter 12, taken as a whole, discusses the cmavo used in constructing tanru. I don't think any specific list ever existed. I'd just drop the parenthetical sentence.
** Related is the general problem of constructing tanru out of arbitrary cmavo, like what {lo ve lujvo be fo lu <ga'e zei lerfu> li'u} should be. {ze'oi} was invented for that purpose... probably too experimental for CLL though.
* Section 6, just after example 6.9. It says "some of the unreduced forms in the previous example", but it is not referring to the previous example: it is referring all the way back to examples 6.1 and 6.2, so it should be "some of the unreduced forms in the previous example'''s'''".
** ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL'' (zort's fork at least)

[[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]] Refer explicitly to 6.1 and 6.2
* Section 7, page 60. In example 6.16, the word "xarnykarce" is glossed as "war-car". Either the gloss should be updated to reflect the veljvo ("stubborn-car"), or the lujvo should be updated to reflect the gloss "jamkarce"
** The latter [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 7, making a type 3 fu'ivla, step 5 should read "steps 1-4", not "steps 1-5". [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 7, step 5 of the Stage 3 fu'ivla: "if the rafsi ends in ''r'' and the rest of the fu'ivla begins with ''n'' (or vice versa) use an ''l''-hyphen" should read "if the rafsi ends in ''r'' and the rest of the fu'ivla begins with ''n'', ''tc'', ''ts'', ''dz'' or ''dj'', or the rafsi ends in ''n'' and the rest of the fu'ivla begins with ''r'' use an ''l''-hyphen". [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* The end of section 7 seems to imply that cmene are exempt from the normal restrictions on consonant clusters as long as each consonant pair is valid.
* Section 8. Example 8.10 ''djandjonz'' is not valid lojban as it contains the forbidden consonant sequence `ndj`. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]] Replace with a different name.
** Replacing with "John Brown" as "djanbraun". mi'e la [[User:Robin Lee Powell|.camgusmis.]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 8, page 66. Example 8.12. Says that the gismu "solri" means "actually, 'pertaining to the sun'". This is false. According to the gismu list, it means ''is''a sun.
** Leave this one alone. As a seltau, "solri" does indeed mean "solar". --[[User:John Cowan|John Cowan]]
* Section 11, 5a) ''Examine all the C/C consonant pairs that join the CVC rafsi, and also the pair between the last CVC and the X portion, ignoring any "y"-hyphen before the X.'' should read instead: ''Examine all the C/C consonant pairs up to the first "y"-hyphen, or up to the end of the word in case there are no "y"-hyphens.''
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 12. In Examples 12.2, 12.3 and 12.4 the calculations are given as 32500 minus the score, instead of simply the score. (Probably from previous versions of the algorithm.) [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 13, page 74, third table: there is no space between "lojbaugri" and "lojbangygri", so that they are run into one word in the second column of the table. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 15 states that "dzipo" comes from "cadzu cipni" ("walking bird"). This fails to make sense either etymologically or semantically (If the name refers to penguins, there are a lot of other features of Antarctica that are more prominent and not shared by other places). I suspect that the word may actually come from "dizlo daplu" ("low island"), which is a somewhat more reasonable name.
** Not an erratum, the word really does come from "caDZu cIPni". That it fails to make sense doesn't change the fact that that is how they constructed it. The etymologies of "bemro" and "ketco" make even less sense, by the way.
*** Correct, but the etymologies are what they are. --[[User:John Cowan|John Cowan]]
* [https://groups.google.com/forum/m/?fromgroups#!topic/lojban/s9P3LoGj5TI Etymology of ''misro''] from ''Mizrahim'' seems like an unnecessary and surprising detour. Linking it to ''misr'' makes more sense. mu'o mi'e .[[User:iesk|iesk]]. 16:47, 10 avgusto 2013 (UTC)

== Chapter 5 ==
* Section 6, example 6.15: It says {xamgu jo cortu nuntavla}, and the gloss says {(good if-and-only-if short) speech}, but {cortu} means "hurt", not "short".
** ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL'' (changed to {tordu}) (in zort's fork at least) [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Example 6.16: vajni ju selpluka nuntavla , (important whether-or-not pleasing) event-of-talking
** Should be pluka, not selpluka. [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 8 says "involving selma'o VOhA and GOhI, explained in Chapter 7", but VOhA doesn't appear in Chapter 7. VOhA doesn't even seem to be a selma'o, for that matter. Also, probably GOhI should be GOhA?
* Section 8, page 96/97: Example 8.13 needs some kind of terminator (like "be'o") before the "co". [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Also, the preceding paragraph suggests that "be" is the only way to fill selbri places other than x1. This is not the case: "mi le zarci cu klama co sutra" would also work.
** I don't agree that there's any such suggestion, although adding a second possibility is fine with me. --[[User:John Cowan|John Cowan]]
* Section 9 lists "kei" as the terminator for nu, but it's not only for nu, but for all of NU. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 12 the text says examples 121 and 122 "use {ke} grouping and {bo} grouping respectively", but it isn't true. Example 121 uses only implicit tanru grouping, while 122 in fact uses {ke} grouping. Also, the text says they are equivalent in meaning, but they aren't (in the first one, {cadzu} groups with {masno}). Perhaps it's missing a {bo}? The translations of examples 121-126 are all affected by this false claim of equivalence.
* Section 12, last example says that {broda be fi ko'i ko'e} has {ko'e} in the x4 place because {be fi} moves the counter to 3. jbofi'e disagrees, but this may not be a CLL errata -- I haven't checked the linkargs section yet to see if it is consistent.
* Section 14, page 104 says "dadylsi" for "dadysli".
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 14, page 105 uses "zdani lijgri" in the example list, but the paragraph after, as well as the next list, refer to "zdani linji" and "linji zdani".
* Section 14, page 105 has the lujvo "cpumi'i" but defines it at the bottom of the set as "cpami'i".
** cuami'i s pull-machine, so using that [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 14, page 106 says "plise tapla" for "apple cake". Does Turkish really refer to a cake as a tile, or is this a misunderstanding of the definition of "tapla"?
** No, it's that {tapla} can mean both cake and tile, as the gismu list shows; it's a generic word for a flat 3-D shape, or short cylinder. Stet. --[[User:John Cowan|John Cowan]]
* Section 14, page 108 says "tumla spisa". This should probably be "tumla pagbu", since pieces of land are not actually detached.
** What makes you think that spisa have to be detached? Stet. --[[User:John Cowan|John Cowan]]
* Section 14, page 109 says "rostu mojysu'a". "rostu" is not a Lojban gismu, nor an Old Loglan primitive. It's supposed to be "mrostu".
** "Mrostu" is correct, and that's the reading of the online version. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 14, "nunkilbra" is clearly not "sharpener", and even if it was using the right rafsi for cabra, that strikes me as a pretty crappy lujvo; needs zenba or zmadu or binxo or something.
* Section 14, page 112 lists numerous tanru examples whose meanings are hypernyms of the tertau instead of hyponyms. This contradicts the primariness of the tertau as defined on page 84. The word "ja" should probably be inserted between the constituents, or the entire section should be removed.
** Stet. Lions can't be made of stone, but {rokci cinfo} is a legitimate tanru nonetheless. --[[User:John Cowan|John Cowan]]

== Chapter 6 ==
* End of section 2, it says "compound negator ``naku'' (discussed in Chapter 15)", but "naku" is never mentioned in chapter 15; indeed, the only uses of the word {ku} at all are after the words {ji'u} or {na'i}. Chapter 16 talks about {naku}.''
** ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL'' (zort's fork at least) but needs approval
* Section 12, p. 138 claims that the sumti in examples 12.2 and 12.3 operate like examples 2.5 and 3.6 respectively. "2.6 and 3.6" is almost surely what was meant. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* In section 11 Example 11.2 occurs twice.
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 2 has examples 2.3 and 2.5 to show the difference between {lo} and {le}. Example 2.5 and the subsequent text say that {lo nanmu cu ninmu} is necessarily false in lojban since {noda nanmu gi'e ninmu}. This contributes to trans-erasure, and should be revised.
* In section 5 between examples 5.2 and 5.3, it says that the typical lion best exemplifies the set of lions. This is false, it exemplifies not the set, but the members of that set.
* In section 14, example 1.93, the quote delimiter {kuot} needs a preceding pause.

== Chapter 7 ==
* Section 5. http://lojban.github.io/cll/7/6/index.html. 6.14 is usage with outer repeating. It would seem that was a mistake. Looking at that, it seems like the author expects {nei} to repeat the entire outermost bridi, and expects {no'a} to repeat the outer bridi alone, somehow without the current innermost bridi. Or something. Definitely seems mistaken to me. so with zo'e in place of the abstraction clause. In this case, maybe with {zi'o}, actually.<br />That would be useful but it would be nice if that had been explicit.
* Section 6, page 155 has a note below example 6.13 that says, in part: "The Lojban does not contain an equivalent of the "my" in colloquial English;" and then goes on to explain how example 6.13 could be modified to include the relationship between the speaker and their son and daughter. I believe you could say "le mi bersa" or "le bersa pe mi" to express the English "my," therefor removing the (presumably inaccurate) note and making the Lojban translation more accurate.
** Sure you could, but the point of the note (which is ''not'' inaccurate) is not teaching how to use relative clauses, but to clarify that the idiomatic English version contains more information than the Lojban version does. Stet.
* Section 6, page 156 has ''karca'' for ''karce''. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* After example 6.18 is a paragraph that quotes non-existent text from example 6.10. "go'e ra'o" should read "go'i ra'o" and "do go'e" should read "mi go'i"
** The correct correction is to replace "B's statement" with "A's second statement". [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
*** Not really. "go'e ra'o" in A's second statement would mean the same as "go'e", which is wrong. The original correction is valid though.
*Section 6, the exceptions to the anaphora rules are almost certainly incomplete. In particular "ma" and "ce'u" definitely warrant exceptions.
* Section 7, example 7.7 has "mi zbasu loi mudri zi'o" for "mi zbasu le dinju zi'o"
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 8, p. 158 implies that ''vo'a''-series anaphora refer to sumti of the bridi they themselves are sumti of. This contradicts the cmavo list, and is incorrect: ''vo'a''-series anaphora (according to the ma'oste) refer to sumti of the outermost bridi within the current sentence. This makes them logophors/long distance reflexives, rather than short-distance reflexives, as is normal in human language. Thus, in ''mi nelci lenu do prami vo'a'', ''vo'a''means ''mi'', not ''do''.
**'''-->'''[[Why the Book is Right and the ma'oste is Wrong|Why the Book is Right and the ma'oste is Wrong]]
***Which of the two cases is normal in human language? If you'd written it in Lojban, I'd know!
**** I'd guess that short-distance is normal, b/c otherwise it would not be worth comparing the two. But of course in lojban we wouldn't have to glork that.
***** Short-distance is indeed normal, but Lojbanists have consistently used long-distance. Nick wrote a peer-reviewed paper on this. --[[User:John Cowan|John Cowan]]
* Example 7.8.5 (p159): bajra on third line should be bajykla, like the others.
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 8, it says "Example 9.3 is a truly pregnant question..." when example 9.2 is the pregnant question, and example 9.3 is a better way of expressing "Who are you?"
* Section 15, it says "Finally, lujvo involving ``zi'o'' are also possible, and are fully discussed in Chapter 12", but nowhere does Chapter 12 mention the word {zi'o}, much less lujvo involving it. This is probably a Chapter 12 erratum.''

== Chapter 8 ==
* In Section 3 the example 3.20 should have {xance} instead of {xanci}, which is definitely a typo. --idontknw
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 8, p. 181: 8.1) ''li pai noi na'e frinu namcu''should be ''li pai noi na'e frinu cu namcu''. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 8, Example 8.6, the third line, "I runningly-go to-this [[reciprocity|reciprocity]] [[x3 of this bridi|x3 of this bridi]] from-that", is not the usual decent English one would expect in that position; replaced with "I run to this from that and vice versa." is dag-cll ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 9, example 9.2 is ''co'o xirma''. Then, ''Note that Example 9.2 says farewell to something which doesn’t really have to be a horse, something that the speaker simply thinks of as being a horse, or even might be something (a person, for example) who is named "Horse". In a sense, Example 9.2 is ambiguous between "co'o le xirma" and "co'o la xirma"''. Is this true?
** Yes, in the sense that all uses of "le" ''might'' mean "la". But it's probably more confusing than it's worth. Truncate after "thinks of as being a horse". --[[User:John Cowan|John Cowan]]
*** Not sure that is right. I think too much focus in general has been given to {le}'s "non-veridicality", when it is merely more of an outgrowth of it being a deictic/phoric descriptor. In general, {le nanmu} does refer to a {nanmu}, but sometimes it may not because the deictic/phoric needs supercede veridicality (If someone has been called "the man" but you want to assert that "he"'s actually a woman, well, you get the {le nanmu cu ninmu} example.)<br><br>My point though, is that I'm not sure one can just say "{le} might actually mean {la}". Certainly it'd be unusual to say that a speaker thinks of someone named "Horse" as being a horse. -- [[User:Spheniscine]]
* Section 9 says ''In vocative phrases which are simple names (after the vocative words), any relative clauses must come just after the names''. This isn't true. Relative clauses can go between the vocative and the cmevla. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]] Drop it; it reflects an earlier state of the language.
* Section 10, example 10.3 uses "ke'a goi ko'e zo'u ko'a zbasu ke'a" but glosses it as "(IT = it2 : it1 built it2)". The assigned "ko'e" is not used as expected or described, and should probably be "ko'a zbasu ko'e". [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]] Yes, "ko'a zbasu ko'e" is clearly what's meant. ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''

== Chapter 9 ==
* Section 6, place structure of ''pilno'' is missing "for purpose x3". [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 8, the examples 8.5 and 8.6 are supposed to mean the same thing, but do not.
** Please elaborate. --[[User:John Cowan|John Cowan]]
*** 8.5 means "I gave the book to John, because John gave the money to me" but 8.6 means "John gave the money to me because I gave the book to John."
** ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL'' [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 11, description of the meaning of ".ije seri'a tu'e" contradicts the explanation of Example 9.9, which would suggest ".ije ri'a tu'e".
* section 17, "pertained to by concerning" should be separated, with "concerning" should be in the last column of the table<br /><br />* section 17 "from source as an origin of" should be two entries; "from source" and "as an origin of" ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL???''

== Chapter 10 ==
* Sections 4, 18: missing "cu" in examples 4.8, 18.3, 18.6
* Section 4, "when both spatial and temporal tense cmavo are given in a single tense construct, the temporal tense is expressed first" disagrees with the rule simple-tense-modal-972 in the BNF grammar.
* Section 9, example 9.9 on page 227 has "cirli" for "cirla".
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 12, the explanation of the meaning of the second "pu" in example 12.2 conflicts with the rule in section 13 that tenses in subordinate bridi are relative to the tense of the main bridi.
* Section 12, example 12.6 translates morsi as "die" rather than "am dead" in the translation (as opposed to the gloss).
* Section 16, at the end, the X and Y in the 3 forms don't fit properly (the 3rd doesn't match the first two). I recommend, copying from Section 23 (where they are written again correctly):

X .i TENSE bo Y

TENSE gi X gi Y

Y TENSE le nu X
* Section 17, example 17.12 should not have the second "bevri".
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 18, examples 18.3 and 18.6 are missing a cu/ku, so the examples have no main selbri.
* Section 18, example 18.9 is supposed to show scalar negation of tenses not limited to PU and FAhA, but the example tense is ri'u (FAhA2).
* Section 19, example 19.10 should have "ba", not "pu", and "[[uture|uture]]", not "[[past|past]]". [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 21, example 21.1 doesn't seem to parallel the English gloss and translation: the Lojban version implies that "I throw the gun", and not "I fire the gun".
* Section 25, examples 25.1 and 25.2 have ''lu'a'' for ''la'u''.
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 25, this whole section is at odds with the formal grammar. It says: ''It is grammatical for a termset to be placed after a tense or modal tag rather than a sumti''. But that is in fact incorrect, it is not grammatical for a termset to be the argument of a tag.
** Unfortunately true. Termsets suck rocks, and some work will have to be done to make everything said about them consistent -- if it is even possible. Personally, I'd like to just burn them. --[[User:John Cowan|John Cowan]] '''NOFIX'''
* Section 27: MOhI see Section 28, not 27. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]

== Chapter 11 ==
* Section 4: The use of ka in Example 4.4 (page 259) is erroneous; it should be du'u. --[[John Cowan|John Cowan]] [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Last paragraph of section 7 references chapter 5 for a discussion of "lu'e". lu'e isn't mentioned in chapter 5. Probably chapter 6 is meant here.
** Yes, should be Section 5.10. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 9, page 266 has "sao'rdzifa'a" instead of "sa'ordzifa'a".
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* The same example (9.6) also has kuctra instead of kuctai
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* The book title in example 9.6 seems to be incorrect: "The Crucifixion of Jesus Considered As A Downhill Bicycle Race" is actually "[http://www.evergreenreview.com/102/fiction/duo.html he Crucifixion Considered As An Uphill Bicycle Race]."
** Unapproved
* Section 10: Paragraph above example 10.7 references "Chapter 11". That should read "Chapter 10".
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 12, page 269 has examples 13.1 and 13.2, those should be called 12.1 and 12.2. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]

== Chapter 12 ==
* Section 2, page 275. The paragraph under Example 2.3 refers to it as Example 2.4 (2.4 doesn't even exist). [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 5, right after example 5.7. It says "a" instead of "an". [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 6, page 280. Example 6.6 should have a space between "la spat." and "noi".
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 7, page 282. Example 7.5 has "bansoi" instead of "balsoi".
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 11, page 285 has "xascakcurnu" instead of "xasycakcurnu".
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 12 refers to "nunklama" as the same lujvo as "nunkla". Even if these are equivalent alternatives it would be less confusing to be consistent.
* Section 12 claims that -jax- is a rafsi for {jai}, but it isn't in http://www.lojban.org/publications/wordlists/rafsi.txt. Does {jai} have a rafsi or not?
** It should, but somehow it never got into the gismu list, and consequently not into the rafsi list either. Stet, and we'll add it to the gismu list. --[[User:John Cowan|John Cowan]]
* Section 12, right at the end, says that {fai} is explained in Chapter 11, but Chapter 11 makes no mention of {fai}. Only chapters 9 and 10 do.
** ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL'' (zort's fork at least) [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 14, example 14.2. Missing < /pre > tag, and missing < pre> tag following explanatory paragraph.
* Section 14, page 291. The paragraph under example 14.7 says "se xance mindu" instead of "se xance minde".
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 15, two paragraphs before example 15.7. It says "There are some comparative concepts which are in which the 'se zmadu' is difficult to specify." The "which are in which" seems grammatically incorrect.
** Drop "which are". --[[User:John Cowan|John Cowan]] [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 15, example 15.1, the x4 of {zmadu} and {mleca} should be "by amount" or "by quantity", not "in quantity".
* Section 15, page 294, example 15.14. "la ainctain" needs a period before it because it starts with a vowel.
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''

== Chapter 13 ==
* Many incidents of not having periods in front of vowel-initial cmavo.
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* In section 2, p. 300 references to the examples for .ue and .uecu'i are flipped. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 3, page 303, example 3.9. "e'e" needs a period before it.
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 3, page 303, example 3.10. "tisna" needs to be replaced with "tisygau".
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 4, page 305. The scale with the gismu mnemonics is misaligned with the scale with the members of selma'o CAI. "sai" should be tabbed one place left, so that it aligns with tsali, &c.
* Section 7, it says "It is not clear how much use logically connected abstractors will be: see Chapter 13." It should be "Chapter 15."
** ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL'' (zort's fork at least) but needs approval
* Section 10, page 313. There is a missing space between "continue emotion" and "end emotion".
* <nowiki>Section 15. A sample dialogue 15.4) / [Comment] Pam says, [Please] Alice, [end-of-comment] / [Comment] Pam says, [end-of-comment] [Please] Alice,/</nowiki> [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 15, example 15.5 /xamgu/gleki/ ?
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 15, example 15.10) /fi'i ro zvati ko pinxe pa ckafi/fi'i ro zvati .i ko pinxe pa ckafi/
** No, this one is perfectly fine: "fi'i ro zvati" is a vocative phrase, which is a free modifier, meaning that it can occur almost anywhere. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 15, example 15.13) /fi'o selpleji mi/fi'o pleji mi/
** And "with payer" rather than "with payment"; ey's not paying with emself! -- camgusmis
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* ".ai mi benji do le ckana" with gloss "[intent] I transfer you to-the bed". I think benji <br>              should be replaced with muvgau.
* Section 15, example 15.13. Wrong use of {selfu}. {bevri} would fit better.
* "mi facki fi lemi mapku" is used repeatedly for "I found my hat". While this is not wrong, it's bad style and makes the gloss awkward in respect to the translation. Replacing "facki" with "zvafa'i" would remove the problem and make it more precise.
== Chapter 14 ==
* Section 6, example 3: "Alices" should be "Alice" without -s.
* Section 8, right before example 8.9 is "producing example 8.10" which should in fact read "producing example 8.9". [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 9: between example 9.10 and 9.11, "identified" should read "identical"
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 11, example 4: The gloss seems to have a misplaced "[plus]".
* Section 11, right before section 12. It says "termsets...are explained in Chapter 12 and Chapter 16" but chapter 12 (which is on lujvo) makes absolutely no mention of termsets. Chapters 9 and 10 discuss termsets. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 14, example 14.15 is not grammatical (according to jbofi'e and camxes) because it says "pe'e .e" when it should say "pe'e je". [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 14, example 14.16 mentions "sorme", which is probably Old Loglan, and should be replaced by "mensi".
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 14, "the stated gloss of TFTTas “only if” works naturally only when the right-hand bridi is true; if it is false, the left-hand bridi may be either true or false." changed to "the stated gloss of TFTTas “only if” works naturally only when the right-hand bridi is false; if it is true, the left-hand bridi may be either true or false."
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 15, example 15.8 is missing a dot after "la lojban".
* Section 15, right after 15.9, it says "example 14.17" where it should say "example 15.9" (14.17 does not exist). [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 15, example 15.9 is not grammatical; it should be "la djan. fa'u la frank. cusku nu'i bau la lojban. pe'e fa'u bai la djordj.".
* Section 17, example 17.4 is wrong. The section explains that mekso operators can be logically connected using {gu'e ... gi ...}, but this example tries to connect them with {ge ... gi ...}. Replace {ge} with {gu'e} in the example to correct it.
* Section 19, example 19.4 is translated as "I opine the fact-that a-mass-of living-things is-at Jupiter or-else I opine the fact-that a-mass-of living-things isn't-at Jupiter" but really it's "I opine the fact-that a-mass-of living-things is-at Jupiter or-else I '''do-not''' opine the fact-that a-mass-of living-things '''is-at''' Jupiter". So 19.4 is actually true, not false as it is claimed to be.
** Correct, so this example will need replacing. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Also there isn't really a reason for it to say a mass of living things and not some individual living things.
** Stet. The author prefers it that way, thankyouverymuch. --[[User:John Cowan|John Cowan]].

== Chapter 15 ==
* Section 2, missing < /pre > tag after example 2.8 and < pre> tag before example 2.9.
* Section 4, example 4.12 /nake/na'eke/
* Section 9, two paragraphs above example 9.4 the word "negativ" should be "negative". [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 9: Is there supposed to be any difference between ex. 9.5 and 9.6?
** That problem is only in the online version.
* Section 10, three paragraphs after example 10.14, there's a semicolon which should be a comma after "(say, a spelling error)". [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 10, it says "'ji'una'iku' metalinguistically says that something is wrong with that assumption. (See Chapter 10.)". Shouldn't that be Chapter 9, modals?
** ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL'' (zort's fork at least) [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]\
* change "A ``na'' before the selbri is always transformed into a ``naku'' at the left-hand end of the prenex, and vice versa." to: "A ``na'' before the selbri is always transformed into a ``naku'' at the right-hand end of the prenex, and vice versa."

== Chapter 16 ==
* Section 5, example 5.5: English has "every Y" when it should read "every X"
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 6, example 6.6 has a missing "cu" before "viska".
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 8, the explanation of example 8.3 says "any entity which is one is also the other". That would be true if the example used {go}, but it uses {ganai}. 8.3 does not claim that if something walks across the field then it goes to the store. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]] Change it to use {go}. ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
** Same place: needs to bo {da go}, not {go da} And the gloss should be "For-every X: X is-a-goer-to the store if-and-only-if it is-a-walker-on the field." ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 8, example 8.3. Either the {da} should come before the {ganai} (or, by the previous ^ erratum, {go}) and the gloss should be changed to only mention "X" once, or a {da} should be inserted before {cadzu}.
** ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL'' chose first option since it's terser (zort's fork at least) but needs approval
* This: "Adjacent negation boundaries in the prenex can be dropped," reads better as "Adjacent pairs of negation boundaries in the prenex can be dropped,"
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
*** The online version says "Adjacent double negation boundaries", but I'm okay with either "double" or "pairs of". --[[User:John Cowan|John Cowan]]
* Section 10, ex. 10.5 and 10.6 have a prenex, "naku zo'u", after an ijek. This is not allowed by the grammar. It could be fixed by removing the "zo'u" and using "naku" outside the prenex, although this is only explained in the following Section 11.
** This is a big problem, and I'm not sure what should be fixed. --[[User:John Cowan|John Cowan]] '''NOFIX'''
* Section 12, ex. 12.7 and 12.9 have missing "cu"s.
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 14, Example 14.1 has "blaci" (glass) not "blabi" (white) as per the English.
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* A few missing {ku'o}: ex 1.89, ex 1.92

== Chapter 17 ==
* Section 5, after example 5.1, paragraph starting "However, " has incorrect font. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 5, in the second paragraph after example 5.1, says 'the lerfu word “ty” would represent not Latin “t” but Greek “tau”.' Shouldn't it be "ty."?
* Section 9, page 421. lerfu strings are written without pauses or spaces, even though BY words have to end with a consonant.
** Stet. BY words do not end with a consonant, and a string of them can never be ambiguous, so pauses/spaces are not required. --[[User:John Cowan|John Cowan]]
* Section 9, Example 9.4: shouldn't "symyjy" be "symydy" (lojban morphology)? [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 10. After Example 10.4.5, the reference to Example 10.4 should be instead to Example 10.4.5.
**In the current DAG-CLL, the examples numbering is sane, but after Example 10.3, the two references to Example 10.4 should be to Example 10.3.
* Right before section 12, there is a line break in the middle of the paragraph. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* In section 13, the first paragraph states "Historically, these character sets have only covered the English alphabet and a few selected punctuation marks.", which is incorrect. There have been multitudes of character sets for writing systems other than the English alphabet.
** Change to something along the line of "Historically, each of these character sets has only covered a particular writing system."
* Section 17, page 427. ".tvriydos. bu" begins with the consonant cluster, which isn't even permissible medially.
** change to tyvriydos
*** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
**** Actually, it should be "tyvrdos. bu" --[[User:John Cowan|John Cowan]]
* In the table in section 19, the lervla for over-dot (".garmoc. bu") and over-ring (".garjin. bu") should be updated to their post-Reallocation forms, ".gapmoc. bu" and ".gapyjin. bu".
*** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 19 has two columns run together in the row that says "Danish/Latin aetei .abu .ebu foi"

== Chapter 18 ==
* [https://lojban.github.io/cll/18/10/ ju'u] is in VUhU. It should be of the type PA. Notice how {pi} and {ni'u} and {ka'o} and {ci'i} and {fi'u} are all of type {pa}, so they can go in a numerical literal between digits. especially {ka'o}, which can separate the real part and imaginary part to make a complex literal, and similarly {su'o} and {su'e} can separate numbers to make intervals.
* Section 3, ex. 3.10, should translate as ".1012001". [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* In section 4 example 4.5 is linked instead of 4.7 - "Example 4.5 is not ``1 minus 2'', [[.. ..|.. ..]]" where example 4.5 is just "te'o". [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]''
* Section 5, p437 ex5.9 gloss: our -> four [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
** ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 6, p438: j vu'u -> vu'u [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
** ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Start of section 11 should read there are five members of MOI (not four). [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* In section 11, ex 11.10 on va'e "sofi'upano" in the example is glossed as "8/10" instead of "9/10". [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
** ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* In section 11, "lei ratcu poi zvati le panka cu so'umei fo lo'i ratcu", but there is no 4th place of mei.
** Remove the "fo"; [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Example 14.4 needs a sub-2 after both numbers.
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* In section 17, example 17.5, {gi} should be replaced by {gu'e}, because mekso operators are to be connected by guheks. This is essentially the same mistake as in example 14/17.4.
* In section 17, the English translation for example 17.6 has the formula rendered wrong in the HTML version. The fraction bar should be added (it is invisble currently), and the words "then x =" should be vertically aligned to the fraction bar (they are currently aligned to the numerator).
* In section 17, at the bottom of page 454, the quadratic formula should be described as a classic example of operator logical connection, not operand. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 20, p458: -established -> established [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 21 states that the rafsi of "frinu" may be used as rafsi for "fi'u"; however, "frinu" lost both of its short rafsi in the Reallocation, so this really isn't very useful. The table below lists "fi'u" as a rafsi usable for "fi'u", therefore of "frinu"; the gimste lists "fi'u" as a rafsi of "cfipu".
** This is a serious problem which needs some thought. There needs to be a rafsi for fi'u somehow. --[[User:John Cowan|John Cowan]] '''NOFIX'''
* Section 22 example 22.3, "mo'e voboi renomei su'i ze", does not parse.
** It needs "vei" in front to be a quantifier (an operand by itself is not a permitted fragment). Also, the following text mentions "te'u" but the example omits it.
*** None of those examples parse without {li}, which I have added to all. Replaced the one in question with "li mo'e voboi renomei te'u su'i ze" [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 25. The rafsi for "so'e", -sop-, is missing, the rafsi for the following four words are listed under the wrong word. That is, -sor- is actually the rafsi for "so'i", and -daz- is the rafsi for "da'a".

== Chapter 19 ==
* Section 4, p467 ex4.3: zu'o -> zo'u [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 6, page 472. Example 6.6 ends with "klama", but for the argument to make sense, it has to say "nunkla".
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 7, Example 7.1 has as the English: "I go-to (firstly) the store and (secondly) the market." "the market" should be "the house".
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Example 11.8, there's a denpabu after {za'e} and no denpabu after {albeinias}.
** ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL'' (zort's fork at least) but needs approval
* Section 11, the paragraph after example 11.8 says "ctiipyris" but it should be "ckiipyris". [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 13, "and the undefined fu'ivla “speranto”." Replace "fu'ivla" with "lujvo".

== Chapter 20 ==
* Section LE, page 498. In "le gerku klama le zdani", "cu" is missing.
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section TUhE, page 505. In "xagmau zo'u tu'e ganai cidja gi cnino .i ganai vanju gi tolci'o tu'u", "cnino" should be replaced by "citno". Also, a prenex can't have a selbri, so ''xagmau'' should be replaced by ''lo xagmau''.
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section SE, page 504: missing "cu" after "zarci".
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* In the passages on VEI and VEhO, the "bo"s should be changed to "bi'e"s. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]

== Chapter 21 ==
* In the BNF grammar, the rule simple-tense-modal-972 is missing a "|" before the CUhE. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* In the BNF grammar, the rule simple-tense-modal-972 has an extra newline in the space/time subphrase.
* In the BNF grammar, the rule selbri-1-131 is missing a "|" before the NA. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* In the BNF grammar, the rule tanru-unit-2-152 is missing a "|" before the JAI. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
** [[Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL'' ; bizarelly, the Word doc the book was printed from does not have this problem at all.
* In the BNF grammar, the rule operator-1-371 is missing two "|". [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* In the BNF grammar, the rule mex-operator-374 is missing a "|" before the MAhO and another before the VUhU. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* In the BNF grammar, the rule operand-3-385 is missing a "|" before the NIhE. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* In the BNF grammar, in the rule time_1030, the "ZEhA <nowiki>[</nowiki>PU NAI <nowiki>]</nowiki>" should be enclosed in parentheses. [[Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]

BPFK Section: gismu Issues

2015-05-03T09:53:34Z

4D enthusiast: /* Ambiguity */

== jbovlaste gismu Keywords ==

Occasionally, it becomes obvious in jbovlaste that a particular keyword is polysemous, or that a particular place deserves a keyword, or that more than one gloss words for a gismu make sense, and so on. These are all gismu changes that do not change the meaning at all, only the English language words associated with the gismu.

Since jbovlaste is intended to be the source for an eventual published dictionary, this sort of change is a bit touchy.

[[Robin Lee Powell|Robin Lee Powell]] hereby request that the BPFK give to LLG board members, and anyone they might appoint as jbovlaste admins, the power to make such changes without explicit BPFK approval, with the proviso that if anyone doesn't like such a change a vote can be called, and the BPFK's will is the deciding factor in these changes.

This request was approved as of 17 May 2004. It was informally agreed that jbovlaste should be modified to allow listing of changes made under this new rule, if possible, and that such changes should be listed somewhere as they are made. The [[Approved gismu Alterations|Approved gismu Alterations]] page was created for this purpose.

== Set Places ==

I (Robin Powell) am of the opinion that the "set" places in various gismu are un-necessary, and that the set-only restriction should be abolished for all of those places (with the obvious exception of gismu that are specifically about sets). Any specification of a group should be acceptable in these places, as that's all that's wanted. See "kampu", for example (especially since sets don't even have properties!).

== Radical gismu Change Proposals ==

* [[BPFK gismu Proposal: kanpe]]
* [[BPFK gismu Section: Problems With ka]] (which starts by talking about jarco, but also gets into the whole "old du'u/ka" thing)

* [[BPFK gismu Section: Parenthetical Remarks in Brivla Definitions]]
* [[BPFK gismu Section: Complete vs. Incomplete Specifications]]

* [[BPFK gismu Proposal: mabla and zabna]]
* [[BPFK gismu Proposal: gletu]]

== Unapproved ==

the following minor mistakes were found on the lojban dict server jbo->en (mostly concerning the see also-section): --sarefo

* sfubu: 2x farlu
* mutce: 2x traji

* milxe: 2x traji
* cliva: 2x litru

* cumki: see also cumki
* jdima: 2x pleji

* jarki: 2x cinla
* jbari: 2x grute

* jdini: 2x rupnu
* tcadu: 2x jarbu

* jalra: cockroaches are not part of orthoptera; check wikipedia
* curnu: "almost all multicellular invertebrates are indeed wormlike" - almost all invertebrates are arthropods (mostly arachnids + insects), by number of individuals + species. but i guess you *could* say that many/most(?) animal phyla are worm-like.

The following problems were found in [[Word Lists|the official gismu list]]:

* ciste: The definition does not contain a verb. I believe the words "is a" should be inserted before "system".
* jegvo: The keyword, "Jehovist," is actually a synonym for "Yahwist" and does not mean "pertaining to Judaism, Christianity, and/or Islam"; the correct term to use here is "Abrahamic."

* jukni: Crustaceans (which include crabs & lobsters) are *not* arachnids, nor are all non-insect arthropods arachnids. Additionally, the definition needs to be clearer as to whether it refers to all arachnids or just spiders (or all non-insect arthropods, if you change it appropriately); they are not the same thing.
* jurme: "a bacteria"; "bacteria" is plural, "bacterium" is singular

* kolme: The definition seems to use "bituminous" as a noun even though every dictionary I have checked says that it is an adjective.
* konju: The notes seem to imply that "ellipse" and "ellipsoid" are valid translations despite the fact that these are not compatible with the keyword "cone."

* kurfa: The notes seem to imply that "rectilinear" is a valid translation despite the fact that it does not actually mean "a right-angled shape/form."
* navni: The list of noble/inert gases omits krypton. / Inert gases are different from noble gases both in the intension and the extension. the term for "noble gas" is more useful as gismu, while "inert gas" can be expressed with lujvo {tolfragapci}. The extension of noble gas is composed of helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon and radon. The ununoctium, a member of Group 18, may not be a member of noble gas because of its chemical properties.

* skari: It is unclear what sort of thing can fill the x2 (a property, a spectrum of light, etc)
* tadji: The notes advise to see also "tai", yet "ta'i" is clearly what is meant.

* xanri: The notes should read "...note that '''x1''' is imaginary...". Also, while not exactly an error, the last statement of the notes seems to be a bit of a ''non sequitur'' with the previous statement (Should it say "they thereby do not exist"?).
* jalra: sanjalra ("spanish roach") should be sagjalra (singing roach).

* lanbi: x3 is missing.
* prenu: x2 is missing.

* bancu: The meaning of the x3 is ill-defined. Is it the thing bound?
* pensi2/djuno3: [[pensi2 and djuno3 issues|that's up with that?]]

* catlu/viska, zgana/ganse: It looks like the relationship between catlu and viska is that between "I look at the horizon" and "I see the mountain"; so approx: catlu = troci lo nu viska , zgana = troci lo nu ganse; this needs to be clarified in the definitions.
* {{jvs|finpe}}: parenthetical remark "metaphorical extension to sharks, non-fish aquatic vertebrates" implies sharks are not fish, but they are, so that word should be removed.
* {{jvs|logji}}: Add a note that it's about formal systems of manipulating symbols, and that English "logical" is often about racli instead.
* {{jvs|xagri}}: The English word for xagri is 'reed', which is amazingly dumb. It needs to be changed to 'reed instrument' or 'woodwind' or something. -[[rlpowell]]

== Other Issues ==

Issues brought up by members of the community:

===gismu that are hard to decipher===
Some '''[[gismu]]''' are hard to understand from their official definitions. Many '''gismu''' concepts (perhaps most of them) are unclear in extent. We'll have to decide by using 'em.
==== talsa ====
{{gl|talsa|x1 (person) challenges x2 at/in property x3}}
* In what sense of "challenge"? If it's some kind of contest or dispute, why is it over a quality? Does this mean a challenge to display some information? Does it mean that x1 has almost as much x3 as x2 does (then why restrict to a person)? I can't make sense of it at all! What do you think it means?
** ''I challenge you to a game of chance'' means that I think I am luckier than you, and thus challenge you in the property of luck. ''I challenge you to a duel'' means that I think I am a better fencer/fusileer/whatever than you, and intend to back it up.
==== xamgu ====
{{gl|xamgu|x1 (object/event) is good/beneficial/nice/<nowiki>[acceptable]</nowiki> for x2 by standard x3}}
* What is the selection restriction on x2? "For" is vague, it could mean a person, property, event, or almost anything. The ''[[cmavo|cmavo]]'' list gives ''seva'u'' as "with beneficiary", apparently meaning that a typical value for xamgu x2 is a person. But that doesn't make sense to me; I see "benefiting a person" is an example of raising from, say, "benefiting the goals of a person". To me ''xamgu'' only makes sense with x2=a goal (a desire, a need, that kinda thing).
** Why can it benefit a person's goals but not the person? To me, it makes more sense to benefit a person. Often, when one is benefitted, it's not a goal specifically. The only tricky part is deciding whether something is beneficial or detrimental in the end. "Even the very wise cannot see all ends." However, that does not mean that we can't claim that something benefits a person. -- mi'e [[bancus|bancus]].
*[[The Book|The Book]] says that x2 is "the person for whom it is good". See Chapter 5 section 7.

==== mifra ====
{{gl|mifra|x1 is encoded/cipher text of plain-text x2 by code/coding system x3}}
That sounds like it's written to include mainly secret codes. I'm tempted to think that any protocol for using symbols is a '''te mifra''', including languages. '''mi'e [[jezrax|jezrax]]'''
*lo'e mifra cu mipri le notci loi na'e ve notci be fo ri .i lo'e bangu cu na go'i .iku'i roda naku zo'u ledu'u da bangu cu natfe ledu'u da mifra .ibo mu'a le bangu no'u la navaxos. ca le remoi ke barda jamna cu co'e --mi'e [[.djorden.]]
==== zutse ====

{{gl|zutse|x1 sits <nowiki>[assumes sitting position]</nowiki> on surface x2}}
The phrase "assumes sitting position" seems to imply that the gismu means "sit down", which it, [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/4877 according to Lojbab], doesn't. (That would be {zutse binxo}.)

The "assumes sitting position" is silly, but it seems as though an understanding of the tense system should make it clear that the gismu wouldn't mean that.

No, the tense system doesn't help to decide. There are many gismu that refer to a transition, for example '''canci'''.

*BTW, does '''mo'u jimpe''' mean "fully understand" or "end of understanding"?
**I think it means ''finish understanding'', whatever the natural end of understanding is. ''fully understand'' should be something like '''mulno le ka jimpe''', ('''jmimu'o''').
***So after '''mi mo'u jimpe''', I no longer understand?

=== Uncategorized Other Issues ===
* '''carna''', turning, and rotation. Huge mailing list threads: [https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/lojban/i-8OXx8PVx8%5B1-25%5D]; camgusmis's solution: [https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/lojban/qTVLbtzCYsQ]
* '''detri''': The x1 is said to be in format <nowiki>[</nowiki>day,{week},{month},year<nowiki>]</nowiki>, using {} for who knows what, and canonically forcing a little-endian date (with week number!). Can we change this to big-endian, and resolve this once and for all?
* The notes for {'''djuno'''} and {'''krici'''} don't mention {'''jinvi'''} at all, and the definition for {jinvi} doesn't mention "belief" or "believe". There's far too much that makes {jinvi} look like it's only for subjective opinions, and not for objective or testable facts. And using {jinvi} with indirect questions ("I know who killed me") seems off.
* The notes of rivbi claim that '''fanta''' is agentive. Assuming rivbi's notes aren't lying, could the fact that fanta is agentive be added to fanta's definition please?
* '''kutyje'u''': It should be mentioned that ''logical'' tautology is meant, the rhetorical device does not make sense here.
* '''linsi''': The word “length” in the description is very confusing, because the measure is not meant, but a whole string.
* rlpowell: WRT '''panra''': I find "differing only in" to be colloquially confusing; "with differentiating property" would make it better for me; I'm not sure I can explain why.
* '''selci''' / '''ratni''' ?
* '''sevzi''': To all appearances, it appears to be about the mind, some sort of secular soul. But [http://nuzban.wiw.org/archive/9505/msg00068.html apparently] lojbab intended it as a translation of the prefix "self-" (please see the link, don't take it from me). But how is that any different from {mintu}? How is {mi lo sevzi be mi cu lumci} (using the intended, not apparent, definition of {sevzi}) different from {mi lo mintu be mi cu lumci}? In any case, the definition (and the cf. list!) needs to be rewritten, because it really seems right now like it's a, well, to quote its definition, ego/id/identity-image.
* '''simsa''' shouldn't have "parallel" in the definition. It should be defined as exactly opposite of panra.
* [http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/xrugau xrugau] is the only place where I see the proposed definition of '''xruti''' by xorxes: x1 returns to state x2 from state x3. I think that should also be here.
* '''zajba''': the gloss "gymnastics" has caused this gismu to be very little used, as people seem to assume that it's reserved for the particular formal sport of gymnastics, but to be gismu-useful-broad it should probably include a much wider range of physical activities, certainly circus performing or tai chi, but also it would be most useful if allowed to become broad enough to be the missing gismu for "sport" so that it could make type-3-fu'ivla for nonce words for sports (and other physical bodily games, exercises and activities).
* '''zdile''': having "amusing" as a gloss is misleading; "entertaining", as opposed to "comical", is what is really meant.
* kribacr and others on IRC are using the term ziltau to refer to what the parsers call a tanru-unit. The idea is that you cannot create tanru out of selbri per se - selbri include things like na broda and ka'e brode. Thus tanru are exclusively created out of ziltau. ziltau lack a 'tense slot' or 'negation slot' - these are things selbri own. The question arises - is this completely accurate? Can we say that na broda isn't really a selbri - but instead that broda is the selbri and na is just a negation 'tag' applied that selbri? Clear definition of what selbri are and if the term ziltau is needed would be useful.

=== Semantic Inconsistencies ===

* Can a person be drani by doing the right thing? Consensus seems to be that no, only an action/event/that sort of thing can be drani, that it's more like {mapti}. But the text is horribly unclear.
**If it's alright for someone like me to comment here, the gismu list does contain several words which all mean very similar things (drani, mapti, vrude, even xamgu, etc.) --[[User:PlasticRaven|Plastic Raven]]

* There have been many threads in the past over an issue regarding the definition of {botpi}, which now seems irrelevant as they had been arguing over an old definition that read something to the affect "x1 bottles x2 with x3". While this is completely irrelevant now, the idea behind it is still valid. Is a bottle still a bottle without contents? I'd say yes. Is a bottle still a bottle without a lid? I'd say no (at that point it's a bottle-shaped cup {lo kabri be tai lo botpi}.). However, we should make a language-wide decision. Does a dog stop being a dog after it dies? Does a bottle stop being a bottle when it's not bottling? Does a programmer cease to be a programmer when ey's not programming? --Lindar
** If it was up to me, I'd define certain places as being ka'e-able: that is, "this place is normally filled by X [where in the case of botpi X would be "what the bottle currently contains"], but even if there is no current or obvious X, the capability is sufficient for the semantics of this word; zi'o should only be used if the capability has been lost". --[[camgusmis]]
* dei preti lo vlavelcki be zo __bridi__ be'o no'u zoi gy. x_1 (text) is a predicate relationship with relation x_2 among arguments (sequence/set) x_3 .gy. %%% i zu'u ca'edai x_1 po zo bridi cu sinxa secu'u zoi gy. (text) .gy. %%% ije zu'unai ca'edai x_1 cu me la'e zoi gy. a predicate relationship .gy. lu'u noi se sinxa %%% i ganai x_1 cu sinxa gi .ei vlavelcki fa zoi gy. x_1 (text) signifies a predicate relationship .gy. %%% i ganai x_1 cu se sinxa gi .ei vlavelcki fa zoi gy. x_1 (du'u) is a predicate relationship .gy. %%% i ko ctuca fi lo du'u .ei cuxna makau -la guskant<br />** zo bridi zo'u mi jinvi lo du'u di'e mupli lo drani jufra %%% .i lo du'u mi prami do cu bridi lo ka ce'u prami ce'u kei mi ce'o do %%% .i va'i lo pa moi be lo sumti pe zo bridi cu du'u zei sucta -la selpa'i ([https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/yChr3cGT1_Q/discussion|nuncasnu])

=== Abstraction Inconsistencies ===

* Regarding '''fenki''' and other such, why are such words requiring {nu}, but '''xajmi''' and others not. [http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/browse_thread/thread/9de182fad80d38aa referenced here.]
* What can the x1 of '''sidju''' be? An event or an agent or both or something else?

* [https://groups.google.com/group/lojban/tree/browse_frm/month/2005-01/96315dc4da488dfd?rnum=41&_done=%2Fgroup%2Flojban%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fmonth%2F2005-01%3F#doc_a4761944c07b35c2 we don't have all the measurements.]
* [https://groups.google.com/group/lojban/tree/browse_frm/month/2005-02/14a92824961744de?rnum=11&_done=%2Fgroup%2Flojban%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fmonth%2F2005-02%3F#doc_7d0c998ae7e1a285 Is '''pacna''' broken?]

* [https://groups.google.com/group/lojban/tree/browse_frm/month/2005-12/c099da8a6ffb20c1?rnum=41&_done=%2Fgroup%2Flojban%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fmonth%2F2005-12%3F#doc_4e8d0617170ee533 gunma]
* Oren has expressed concern about the [http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners/browse_thread/thread/962ace956da58b6e/cfad6ee769a5e65c laces which require abstraction] and would like the definitions to be more specific. Instead of (quality/event/state) it should read (ka/nu/za'i).

=== Ambiguity ===

* What does the x2 of '''botpi''' ("container ''for'' x2") mean? It is about capability or actual contents or what? -camgusmis
* What '''carmi'''/'''mutce'''/'''tsali'''/'''vitci''' (others?) can apply to: [https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!msg/lojban/pj3pLOl8Hg8/oNXIIKYVy-MJ]

* '''cirko''': The glosses, "x1 loses person/thing x2 at/near x3" and "x1 loses property/feature x2 in conditions/situation x3" overload the loss of an object and a feature. Is this a useful compression of gismu space, or does this word have two different meanings?
** Interesting question, but does it have any pragmatic implications? Anyway, I opine that it has two different meanings. I probably feel this way because I'm so used to Lojban words eschewing this kind of overloading, compared to English. E.g. ponse/ckaji (hey, wait, aren't these the same, modulo tense, to cirko?), nitcu/sarcu, djica/seljaxseldjica.

* '''vajni''': similarly to cirko, objects and events are compressed in the x2 place. In both cases, this is not ambiguous, as the type of one sumti implies the type of other sumti. Thoughts?
* '''ctuca''': the x3 place specifies “methods” as included as possible referent set, but also requires it to be a du'u-type abstract. It is unclear how a method can also be a du'u-type abstract, and “methods” should probably be removed. On the other hand, there is no obvious way to talk about instruction in skills, as opposed to ideas.

* What does '''dukse''' mean? Can I say "lo cakla cu dukse lo ka titla"? What about {le girzu cu dukse lo tadni} for "too many students in the group"? I suspect that x1 should be object(s) (mass?) and x2 a property? -camgusmis
* '''febvi''': The gloss, "x1 boils/evaporates at temperature x2 and pressure x3." is a bit like saying "x1 is a cat/mammal of breed/species x2"." (tswett, #jbopre, 6 May 2011) Boiling is the rapid vaporization of an entire liquid, whereas evaporation is a vaporization that occurs only on the surface of the liquid. Should this gloss be corrected to always refer to vaporization?
** Consider that the layman (such as the writer of this comment!) might not know such a technical difference between "boil" and "evaporate". To such a layman, they are synonyms, and you know how the gismu list loves all synonyms equally. What remains to be argued is how common are people who know the difference; I can only proffer myself as an example of one who did not, until now, know.
*** Whether or not most people know the difference between the english words, the definition of '''fevbi''' should at least make clear which is meant (although in this case, as boiling is a sort of evaporation, it seems more likely that evaporation is meant).
* The x2 of '''klani''' is rather non-specific and [https://groups.google.com/group/lojban/tree/browse_frm/month/2008-12/3704fd6219532cda?hl=en&rnum=11&_done=%2Fgroup%2Flojban%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fmonth%2F2008-12%3Fhl%3Den%26scoring%3Dd%26&scoring=d#doc_3704fd6219532cda some really don't understand what it means]. I ( lindar ) think it's a numeric value based on how other measure-words are formed.

* '''pritu''' and '''zunle''' have a interesting ambiguity. Is the x3 the orientation of the x1 ("which faces") or a frame of reference form the speaker's point of view? Or is it, as the notes say, "the standard of orientation for x2"? Any of these could be argued, but there are cases where any is true and the others are not. See the thread [https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/lojban/59IokWZ_fpo] for more discussion here; there's a real problem, with wording if nothing else.
* It is unclear if '''farna''' is about direction or facing; see the thread [https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/lojban/iVn970_8DfA] for more discussion here. {fa'a} is discussed [[fa'a as orientation|here]].

* It is *very* unclear what the x3 of '''tubnu''' is; see [https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/lojban/31yePtXfZ3Q]
* What is going on with the x3 and x4 of '''xrani'''? How do you fill those? I certainly don't know. -camgusmis < djancak> hmmm i guess you could damage the property of social well being as opposed to physical well being < ksion> Or self-esteem. Or privacy. Etc.

=== Place inconsistencies ===

* At jbonunsla 2011, we were comparing the sumti for '''ckana''' (bed) and '''stizu''' (chair). Compared to ckana, stizu seems underspecified. It has only an x1 place. What places do the other furniture gismu have? Did we manage to encode what amounts to a sexual joke in the definition of ckana? Or should all furniture gismu be that generous?
* The word '''namcu''' [http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/browse_thread/thread/41d334a91bbc0732 doesn't include a place for the base], where logically one would assume the x2 would be "in base x2". ''doesn't namcu1 include the base? (there's a cmavo for it, in mekso) --tsani''

** It says "refers to the value and not the symbol". {li pano} is not a symbol for which you can ask what base it is in, it is just a number, a Platonic ideal if you will.
* [https://groups.google.com/group/lojban/tree/browse_frm/month/2005-08/6a2022643f959c80?rnum=11&_done=%2Fgroup%2Flojban%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fmonth%2F2005-08%3F#doc_27e47c902e118083 place structure of minli].

* '''pluja''' and '''sampu''' are antonyms, but only pluja has the x3 (by standard) place.
* There are 37 gismu that name specific plants or animals. 33 of these have the definition lo broda cu broda lo jutsi. The 4 exceptions are '''tirxu''', '''vidru''', '''lanme''', and '''civla'''. lanme has an x3 of flock. It should either be removed, or flock added to kanba and all of the species of flocking birds. As an example of a collective noun, if it is not removed, perhaps all of the species should be reviewed for whether they "flock."

* Continuing the above, '''tirxu''' has an x3 because it is overloading several feline species in a single gismu, and the x3 allows specificity. Should lujvo be created for each of these species with the coat marking, rather than having an x3 place? Conversely, should '''jalra''', '''jukni''', '''kumte''', '''mirli''', '''smani''', '''toldi''' have an x3? They're the other gismu with overloaded (i.e, multi species) animals. (note jalra is mentioned elsewhere in this document)
* There are a number of gismu for family relations which are not necessarily biological. Of them, '''dzena''', '''famti''', '''tamne''', '''tunba''', '''bruna''' and '''mensi''' have an x3 place for bond/tie, while '''rirni''', '''mamta''', '''patfu''', '''bersa''', '''tixnu''' do not. For example "this is my adopted son" may be expressed by {ti bersa mi lo nu (adopt)}, but then the meaning of the x3 place is implicit, as there's no such place in the definition.

=== Keywords ===

* Cannot find '''clika''' when searching for “moss”; “moss” should be the gloss word.
* The definition for {'''cinba'''} useth "busses". Zounds, who knoweth that word in lieu of "kiss"?

=== Lack of places ===

* '''cisma''' and '''cmila''' need more places, so I can say "what a big smile!". -[[rlpowell]]
* '''tunlo''': x2 is absent. The definition should definitely be x1 gulps/swallows x2. -- mi'e [[la gleki]]

* Shouldn't '''tunta''' (definition: x1 (object, usually pointed) pokes/jabs/stabs/prods x2 (experiencer] have an x3 place for the locus on x2 where it gets poked?

=== Lack of gismu ===

* There is a gismu for "liver", but no gismu for "stomach" or "spine"? There is a word for "chest" but no word for "back"? Really? mi'e la [[User:Robin Lee Powell|.camgusmis.]]
* We need gismu for day of the week, day of the month, and month of the year. Addresses in calendar-space, not durations. [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/lojban-beginners/0UupKOwnGhU/soesDwzSYlYJ] and [https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/0UupKOwnGhU/Xeq2PX8qm5cJ] for details.

* The difficult part is a word or phrase for "position" as in "stance", but that's the same problem we have for all such names of properties ("shape", "size", "age", "height", and so on). We have words for specific types of them, but not for the general property. ( from https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/lojban/jB9Zs2vHuKE )
* There is a general problem with having a full set of words for sensory experience; see [[BPFK Section: sensory gismu]] or http://mail.lojban.org/lists/lojban-list/msg33823.html and http://mail.lojban.org/lists/lojban-list/msg33824.html

=== [[experimental gismu|experimental gismu]] ===

=== [[Types|Types]] ===

What type is porsi2: is it a binary predicate, or is it a unary function from predicates to numbers/numberish things (the same type as zmadu3)? In either case, is it ascending or descending? To put it another way, we have 4 cases:

porsi((y1,y2,...),P,A) <-> (for all i,j) i<j <-> P(yi,yj)

porsi((y1,y2,...),P,A) <-> (for all i,j) i>j <-> P(yi,yj)

porsi((y1,y2,...),f,A) <-> (for all i,j) i>j <-> f(yi)>f(yj)

porsi((y1,y2,...),f,A) <-> (for all i,j) i<j <-> f(yi)>f(yj)

what does it mean?

2015-05-03T09:02:56Z

4D enthusiast: added an inperpretation of "zi'o crino bai mi"

{{See_also|gismu that are hard to decipher}}
Place your ideas as subelements of the text in question. Should the discussion become huge, it would of course, make sense to move it to a separate page and replace it with a link. Please, do so whenever you believe appropriate. See also the complement to this page, [[How to say it in Lojban|How to say it in Lojban]].
* Words pertaining to Lojban: [[la lojban. po'u le lojbo lojbau|la lojban. po'u le lojbo lojbau]]
* '''lo to'e me mi''' --[[Jay Kominek|Jay]]
** Someone who is the opposite of me? --mi'e [[User:tsali|tsali]]
*** What's opposite of me, though? My evil twin? --[[Jay Kominek|Jay]]
**** Hm. Being that's its polar opposite, I think it would refer to a non-person who doesn't exist (assuming that it's said by a real person... what if it was said in a book? Imagine the philosophical ramifications.), yet is the opposite sex, gender. Basically take every aspect of the speaker and reverse it. -- mi'e riz
*** Don't mean to be snide, but the opposite of oneself is a strange concept. --anon
** Is it the same as '''lo to'e du be mi'''?
*** Good question. It depends, I suppose, on the relationship between [[me|me]] and du. '''da zo'u xu lo du be da du lo me da''' --[[Jay Kominek|Jay]]
** Likewise, '''da poi to'e du mi''' (where only the '''du''' is made opposite).
* '''.i [[na nei|na nei]]'''
** '''This very sentence, sans the na, is false.''' In Lojban, if you negate a sentence with na, it remains na, and doesn't reverse into ja'a. (Perhaps someone should write up a [gotchas|gotcha]] about this...) '''See [[A double negative remains negative gotcha|A double negative remains negative gotcha]]''' --mi'e [[User:tsali|tsali]]
*** It was pointed out on the [[na nei|na nei]] page that "Sans the na, the sentence is false. Sans the na, the sentence is .i nei - referring to the WHOLE sentence, na and all!" I'm not sure I agree, but it's worth thinking about.
** Yet self-negating sentences are inherently paradoxical, yet the brochure says that "This sentence is false" is not a paradox in lojban.
** It says "doesn't <u>have</u> to be a paradox" (emphasis added). The point is that you can insert a meta-linguistic '''sei jitfa''' or just '''je'unai''' into a sentence without causing the meta-linguistic comment to apply to itself. It is the equivalent of the marginal "Wrong!" that some people write in their books.
** Probably the '''jbojbe''' will prefer to "cartouche" this thusly: '''fu'eje'ucu'i na nei fu'o''', which is a true statement in Lojban.
** '''i ge nei gi na nei''' is tougher though. I can't say whether it resolves into:
*** '''i ganai nei ginai na nei''', which is '''i naku ge nei gi na nei''', and we have a paradox (S = not (S and not S], or
*** '''i ganai nei ginai nei''' (both negations cancel out), which is '''i na ge nei gi nei''', or '''i na nei''', and we have the same case as before.
* '''.i ko mo'''
** Do something, and tell me what it is? --[[Jay Kominek|Jay]]
** What is it that I am commanding you to do? --mi'e [[User:tsali|tsali]]
** What must you do? - [[.kreig.daniyl.|.kreig.daniyl.]]
** Find out what you are doing --mi'e [[pne|pne]]
* '''.i pei xu cu'e xo ma mo'''
** That should start with '''pau''' to signal that a question is coming and thus avoid gardenpathing the reader.
*** I think that sentence will screw with one's mind no matter how well warned.
*** The very first word after the '''.i''' is a question word. What would the '''pau''' add to that?
*** People, the '''pau''' comment was meant as '''[[sarcasm|sarcasm]]'''. Of course you don't '''really''' need to warn that a question is coming when the sentence consists exclusively of question words.
** "What's going on? Furthermore, what things have to do with what's going on, what <u>do</u> they have to do with it, how many of them are there, is anything in fact happening at all, and how do you feel about it?"
*** So, basically, "Give me a brain dump of current events"?
*** ... plus what you think of them! ('''pei''')
** This should have a '''fi'a''' in it.
* This one's famous: '''ma lacpu ma xoroiku di'o lo xislu be ma mo'iru'u lo bitmu be ma'''
** aka "Who dragged whom, how many times, at the wheels of what, round the walls of where?" (Anybody care to post the answers?)
*** '''la .axiles. la xektor. li ze le .abu jamcarce la trois.'''
* based on comments from [[na nei|na nei]] discussion above: '''.i ga nei gi nei'''
** That's simply a tautology, like "This sentence is true".
*** Not so fast. "This sentence is true" can consistently be taken to be either true or false: there is no way of telling which.
* '''ru'anai de'e jinci''' (taken from the [[Lojban rock lyrics|lojban rock lyrics]].)
**"I don't suppose what's coming is going to dissect the issue"
**"By the way, in a little while I'm going to say some scissors."
* '''xelseltervelterklama'''
**x1 is a vehicle for x2 to go via x3 from x4 to x5
* '''jai jai jai na'e jai je'a klesi jai cupra''' (from random sentence generator)
** '''It was not indeed classishishishishly producingish.'''
* '''mi'o ba cinri vo'e'''
** '''mi'o ba cinri zo'e'''. The '''vo'e''', by being self-recursive, gives you no information about the x2 of the bridi that no sumti at all wouldn't.
* '''le zi'o crino'''
** see [[Silly poems|Silly poems]]
** '''zi'o''' removes a predicate's argument. Is anything left if you remove the last one?
** '''lo zi'o crino''' is semantically invalid because of the viridicality of '''lo''' (there is no x1 place, so it can't refer to anything), but '''le zi'o crino''' might be meaningful in some context.
*** But there is no viridicality left, because greenness disintegrates.
** Ah, but '''zi'o''' isn't removing any argument here. Or rather, it isn't in the place of an argument to remove it. '''le zi'o crino''' expands to '''le crino pe zi'o'''. So it's still some sort of '''le crino'''... but using '''zi'o''' as the object of '''pe''' is what's really the puzzler. A green-thing for which the concept of its being restrictively associated with '''anything''' doesn't make sense?I suppose the question's really about '''le crino befa zi'o''' or just the sentence '''zi'o crino''' and what happens when you have a bridi with '''no''' sumti ('''i.e.''', all sumti '''zi'o'''d (not '''zo'e'''d) out. Erk. Actually, '''le broda be fa X''' is generally a mess, since when you have a gadri, that means that the x1 of the selbri is being used in the larger bridi. But if you supply the x1 explicitly with '''be fa''', you're sort of doubling up on that place. Kind of like '''X broda Y fe Z''' with the x2 place doubled up. --mi'e mark
*** Excellent points. So it is '''lo crino be fa zi'o''' that is semantically invalid. The haiku uses '''le zilcrino''', yet another case.
*** The bridi '''zi'o crino''' appears to be semantically empty, since it can make no assertion '''about''' anything. But not all the meaning of a sentence depends on its truth value. To me '''zi'o crino''' vaguely suggests the Platonic Ideal of Green, which no object could actually display '''zo'o'''.
**** It seems to me that every bridi has imaginary places past the last one, whose arguments have some relation to the bridi but it is unspecified. Without the x1 of '''crino''', these are all that's left. '''zi'o crino''' perhaps explicitly observes the existence of things which relate to green in an unspecified way. --[[rab.spir|rab.spir]]
***** Cool. Then what does '''zi'o crino bai mi''' mean?
****** I cause greenishness.
****** Probably. Literally it is just '''mi bapli''', but the '''real''' pluggandisp can be [[glork|glork]]ed from context.
******* I think it's probably more like '''mi crino bapli''': I cause in a vaguely green-related way.
*** To me this is a concise sort of koan. We can dismiss the entire utterance as meaningless, or we can assume that it has meaning and try to ponder it, giving it a chance to break our heads wide open, like thinking about sqrt(-1). --xod
**** why is thinking about sqrt(-1) similar to a koan? --jay
***** Because you can feel the pressure build in your skull if you try to count to '''i'''. Or try to picture it at all. Taking an actual distance and labelling it in units of '''i''' is cheating; there are no negative distances. There are very good reasons imaginary numbers were rejected as nonsensical for centuries. --xod
***** <nowiki>> (sqrt -1)</nowiki>
*****EVAL: SQRT has reached nirvana: (SQRT -1)
*****You need to update your Lisp system, that's all: it should report #z(0 1)
* '''dzadza'''
** a thing of some type, equivalent to da - mi'e. [[.kreig.daniyl.|.kreig.daniyl.]]
** A thingamajig. Also '''daidza''', '''rodbo'e''', '''dzadai''', '''bo'erdai''', '''bo'edza'''.
* '''rolroi'''
** constantly - mi'e. [[.kreig.daniyl.|.kreig.daniyl.]]
**'''pazroi''': x1 happens once in interval x2 '''rolroi''': x1 happens every time in interval x2 '''pizrolroi''': x1 happens constantly in interval x2
***You mean '''pavroi''', right? '''pazroi''' means "as many times as you have children".
* '''mibdoi'''
** a you who is like me. makes no sense, unless of course it is preceded by '''doi mi''', which it would then reaffirm. - mi'e. [[.kreig.daniyl.|.kreig.daniyl.]]
** Those of you who are a part of, or associated with me/us - lojbab
** You who belong to me (as a king might refer to his subjects when addressing them) - nora
** Something like "You, my fellows..."
* '''ze'e le jeftu be li ci ku mi sipna noda''' (Alice 5)
** This is intended to translate "I haven't had a wink of sleep these three weeks!" What does it actually mean to put something in x2 of sipna? '''Not much. Prefer "mi na sipna", or get funky with ca'onai or such. I like your use of ze'e. Sort of works like "Over the foreverness that is these three weeks..." --xod'''
*** I think '''mi sipna noda''' works. Putting '''noda''' in a sumti place has the effect of negating the bridi. Putting it in an undefined place should still have the same effect. "I don't sleep because some metaphysical requirement for sleeping which we haven't even considered was not fulfilled."
* '''djadji'''
** Looks like a perfectly straightforward rendering of "hungry" to me.
** Or "having appetite". -[[User:tsali|tsali]]
* '''se blanu le broda''' - Is it even grammatical?
** It is grammatical (heck, even '''blanu faxi42 le broda''' is grammatical, but meaningless), and it has the same meaning as '''le broda cu blanu'''. The word order would hypothetically be drawing focus to [[The x2 place of blanu]], but since that doesn't exist, it's simply another way of phrasing '''le broda cu blanu''' for whatever reason.
* '''mi to'e mo'i ru'u cadzu'''
** I walk radially.
* '''mi no'e mo'i ne'i cadzu'''
** I walk without approaching or eloigning. I keep my distance. Pretty close to '''mi mo'iru'u cadzu'''.
* '''xunai''' and '''konai'''
** I'm not sure konai is grammatical. it is a pro--sumti. If it is grammatical, than how about minai? What would that mean?
*** the official parser doesn't grok '''konai'''
*** But it should grok '''koru'e'''!
**** ...so? '''nai''' and '''ru'e''' aren't in the same grammatical catagory.
** xunai asserts that you are asserting, not questioning, the sentence.
*** I think I've seen '''xunai''' used for '''isn't it?''', '''n'est-ce pas?''', '''nicht wahr?''', etc. Probably not a good idea.
* '''xucaidai'''
** "I bet you're really wondering if..."
*** Is the bridi still asserted to be true under this interpretation, or is it under question?
* '''doi ko'''
** Just like '''doido'u''' except it orders the listener to make what follows true.
** So once you have '''doi ko'''''''d, how do you revert to the previous meaning of '''do''?
** I think this is actually "Give me your attention", like you might say at the beginning of a speech. --[[Jay Kominek|Jay]]
*** So it commands them to be the one you are addressing? But that trick already requires that they are do, so it doesn't work.
**** No - vocatives have no truth value. It is the same as '''doi do''' except it commands the listener to make the sentence it's in true (Hey, this could work for [[someone feed the cat|someone feed the cat]]) - but if '''doi ko''' is the only thing in the sentence, it is completely devoid of meaning.
* '''ibi'ibo'''
** This appears to assert that something between the two bridi is true. For most pairs of bridi, such as '''le bakni cu se jirna .ibi'ibo mi klama le zarci''', this is nonsense.
* '''depybu'i'''
** Is this the same as '''me me'o denpa bu'''?
** The fact that there is a rafsi for '''bu''' is entirely insane. A lujvo will always be a brivla, never a lerfu.
* '''i ro klama prenu cu sisma fa le flira'''
** sisma ki'a? You're putting both {ro klama prenu} and {le flira} into x1 of {sisma}, whatever that means.
*** ro klama .e le flira cu sisma zo'e
**** That's a good guess, but I think there isn't yet a firm interpretation of what such sumti overloading means. Also, I assume "sisma" is a mistaken form of "simsa".
* '''broda ka'e le za'i brode'''
** broda can be in the state of brode?
** broda when the state of brode is possible.
** Seems like the '''ka'e''' place is the conditions for innate capability (if that even makes sense), but '''ka'eva'o''' is that also. While Lojban isn't supposed to be completely orthogonal, '''_ka'e'''_'s place seems important enough that it should have a different meaning.
*** Are you sure that '''ka'eva'o''' is grammatical?
**** jbofi'e doesn't like it, the official parser likes it just fine.
***** '''ka'eva'o''' parses as '''ka'eku va'o''', two separate tags, not one.
* '''cablamdei'''
** being a lujvo, it means whatever the dictionary says it means. however, a dictionary editor who accepted that word would need to be bludgeoned.
***No! There are acceptable readings of '''cabna lamji djedi''', the most plausible of which is "yesterday or tomorrow'' -- [[.greg.|greg.]]
* '''a'okau'''
** I think '''kau''' is not supposed to have any meaning unless attached to a question word. So how about '''peikau'''?!
*** i've seen people attaching kau to other things. some of them i can grok, but others break my mind.
** '''-> [[indirect indicators|indirect indicators]]'''
* '''broda seba'o ko'a'''
** typo? '''ba'o''' is a tense marker, so '''seba'o''' doesn't parse. Did you mean a word in BAI?
* '''cazu'''
** i take that to refer to some time, '''t''' within +-'''zu''' of the actual now.
** i love time tenses
*** Okay then, how about:
* '''co'uzu'''
** This shouldn't really be run together. It parses as '''co'u ku zu'''. Two 'tenses' in a row: the event ends a long time from now.
* '''crunchy''' Not a Lojban word, but I've come across it a couple of times. What does this refer to, in the context of discussing Lojban? '''--pne'''
** non-euphonious. Used to refer to consonant clusters, most often in discussing [[poo'ivla|poo'ivla]]
*** What's with this goofy mis-spelling of fu'ivla?
**** Some of us consider them '''to'e lobykai'''.
***** Some of you should keep your nonsense confined to one page of ranting instead of spewing it all over the wiki. And furthermore the word '''lobykai''' is redundant; look at the first place of '''lojbo''' to learn why.
****** How about using the entry [[poo'ivla|poo'ivla]] itself? In the entry on [[fu'ivla|fu'ivla]], I now changed the word into a link that can now be filled by whoever uses the word. --pne.
** A proposed definition: A crunchy consonant cluster is one that has at least three consonants, with at least one pair other than the first non-initial. Crunchy clusters occur in some type-4 fu'ivla, such as '''tarksako'''. -phma
* '''ge'e zo'e do'e co'e'''
**"what a damn stupid question" ; maybe a woman's answer to why do you want me to tell you I love you
* '''ni'ono'i''' and '''no'ini'o'''