du'au: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
mNo edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
This page is for errata in [[jbocre: 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 [[jbocre: 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 [[jbocre: PEG|PEG]] grammar); PEG grammar errata should go to [[jbocre: CLL PEG Errata|CLL PEG Errata]].


An online version of the CLL incorporating the changes on this page [http://dag.github.com/cll/ s available].
From jboske xelmri:


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


The "''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''" tag means that http://dag.github.com/cll/ includes this fix, which also means it'll probably be in the next CLL version.
> And Rosta scripsit:


== Chapter 1 ==
>
* 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"? [[jbocre: 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 ==
> > What is the difference between an incomplete proposition like
* 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.  [[jbocre: 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~[[jbocre: 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.  [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Example 17.9 in dag-cll as of 2012-05-05 is "le vi tavla ~np~[[jbocre: 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~[[jbocre: ku|ku]] [[jbocre: cu|cu]]~/np~ ba klama".


==  Chapter 3 ==
> > "'''_ klama" or "'''_1 klama '''_2" and a property or relation like


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.
> > "ce'u klama" and "ce'u klama ce'u"? I don't know. I don't know
* Section 2, page 30: in the table the description of "apostrophe" should read "an unvoiced glottal spirant", not "a unvoiced".
** [[jbocre: 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


|-
> > whether there is a difference.
|| '
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/h h]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/h h]
|| an unvoiced glottal spirant


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


|-
> If you mean "proposition" strictly, there isn't any. If you are using it
|| .
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/ʔ ʔ]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/CLL,+aka+Reference+Grammar,+Errata? ?]
|| a glottal stop or a pause


|-
> as a synonym for "sentence", then it is the difference between a sentence
|| 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


|-
> expressing a relation and the relation itself. The latter is an abstract
|| b
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/b b]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/b b]
|| a voiced bilabial stop


|-
> object, the former is a syntactic form.
|| 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


|-
Ergo, since I mean "proposition" strictly (I think), the interrogativoid,
|| d
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/d d]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/d d]
|| a voiced dental/alveolar stop


|-
qkau, variety of du'u abstraction -- call it du'u1 -- should be
|| 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


|-
expressible on the basis of the variety of du'u -- du'u2 -- that
|| 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


|-
expresses properties/relations/incomplete propositions.
|| g
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/ɡ ɡ]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/g g]
|| a voiced velar stop


|-
1  {du'u2 ce'u broda} = x1 is the property of being broda
|| i
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/i i]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/i i]
|| a front close vowel


|-
2  {du'u2 ce'u broda ce'u} = x1 is the broda relation
|| 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


|-
3  {du'u1 ce'u broda} = {du'u ma kau broda}
|| k
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/k k]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/k k]
|| an unvoiced velar stop


|-
= x1 is a (true) completion to {du'u2 ce'u broda}
|| 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)


|-
I conclude that {du'u1} and {du'u2} should be expressible by different
|| 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)


|-
cmavo. {du'u1} is the one that deviates from current Lojban, so
|| 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)


|-
would call for an experimental cmavo ({du'au}, say), if only in order
|| 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


|-
to allow for a lexicosyntactic form that is closer to logical form.
|| p
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/p p]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/p p]
|| an unvoiced bilabial stop


|-
So how about when ce'u and qkau combine? E.g.
|| 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


|-
4  mi se cfila loi du'u ce'u prami ma kau
|| s
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/s s]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/s s]
|| an unvoiced alveolar sibilant


|-
"Who I love is a flaw in me"
|| t
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/t t]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/t t]
|| an unvoiced dental/alveolar stop


|-
5  {mi se cfila loi du'au ce'u goi ko'a zo'u jetnu
|| u
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/u u]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/u u]
|| a back close vowel


|-
fa lo'e du'u ce'u prami ko'a}
|| 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


|-
{du'au} has to be in NU because it must have its own prenex; a lujvo
|| x
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/x x]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/x x]
|| an unvoiced velar fricative


|-
wouldn't suffice.
|| y
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/ə ə]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/@ @]
|| a central mid vowel


|-
I know I'm the only one who cares whether we can say (5), but
|| z
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/z z]
|| [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/z z]
|| a voiced alveolar sibilant


|}
setting that aside, would you agree that (5) serves to express
** Sort-of [[jbocre: 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.  [[jbocre: 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 [[jbocre: | ]], as the period is used in IPA to denote syllable breaks.  [[jbocre: 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.  [[jbocre: 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.  [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 3, third paragraph (page 31): "a unvoiced vowel glide" should be "an unvoiced vowel glide".
** [[jbocre: 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)  [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
** [[jbocre: 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.  [[jbocre: 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).  [[jbocre: 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)  [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
** [[jbocre: 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.
** [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''


== Chapter 4 ==
explicitly the logical form that (4) is shorthand for?
* 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. [[jbocre: 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.
* 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)


[[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]  Refer explicitly to 6.1 and 6.2
--And.
* 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 [[jbocre: 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".  [[jbocre: 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".  [[jbocre: 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`.    [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]  Replace with a different name.
** Replacing with "John Brown" as "djanbraun". --rlpowell ''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.''
** [[jbocre: 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.)    [[jbocre: 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.  [[jbocre: 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) [[jbocre: 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.  [[jbocre: 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".  [[jbocre: 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.  [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 14, page 104 says "dadylsi" for "dadysli".
** [[jbocre: 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 [[jbocre: 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.  [[jbocre: 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 ==
xorxes:
* 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.  [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* In section 11 Example 11.2 occurs twice.
** [[jbocre: 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.


==  Chapter 7 ==
> la and cusku di'e
* 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''.  [[jbocre: 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".  [[jbocre: 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"
** [[jbocre: 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''.
**'''-->'''[[jbocre: 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.
** [[jbocre: 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
** [[jbocre: 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''.  [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 8, Example 8.6, the third line, "I runningly-go to-this [[jbocre: reciprocity|reciprocity]] [[jbocre: 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]]
* 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.  [[jbocre: 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".  [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]  Yes, "ko'a zbasu ko'e" is clearly what's meant.


== Chapter 9 ==
> >1  {du'u2 ce'u broda} = x1 is the property of being broda
* Section 6, place structure of ''pilno'' is missing "for purpose x3".  [[jbocre: 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'' [[jbocre: 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, "from source as an origin of" should be two entries; "from source" and "as an origin of" ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''


== Chapter 10 ==
> >2  {du'u2 ce'u broda ce'u} = x1 is the broda relation
* 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".
** [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* 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
> >3  {du'u1 ce'u broda} = {du'u ma kau broda}


Y TENSE le nu X
> >    = x1 is a (true) completion to {du'u2 ce'u broda}
* Section 17, example 17.12 should not have the second "bevri".
** [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* 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 "[[jbocre: uture|uture]]", not "[[jbocre: past|past]]".  [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 25, examples 25.1 and 25.2 have ''lu'a'' for ''la'u''.
** [[jbocre: 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.  [[jbocre: 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. --[[jbocre: John Cowan|John Cowan]] [[jbocre: 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.    [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 9, page 266 has "sao'rdzifa'a" instead of "sa'ordzifa'a".
** [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* The same example (9.6) also has kuctra instead of kuctai
** [[jbocre: 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".
** [[jbocre: 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.  [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]


== Chapter 12 ==
> >I conclude that {du'u1} and {du'u2} should be expressible by different
* Section 2, page 275. The paragraph under Example 2.3 refers to it as Example 2.4 (2.4 doesn't even exist).  [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 5, right after example 5.7. It says "a" instead of "an".  [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 6, page 280. Example 6.6 should have a space between "la spat." and "noi".
** [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 7, page 282. Example 7.5 has "bansoi" instead of "balsoi".
** [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 11, page 285 has "xascakcurnu" instead of "xasycakcurnu".
** [[jbocre: 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 [[jbocre: h|<nowiki/>]]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)  [[jbocre: 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".
** [[jbocre: 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]]  [[jbocre: 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.
** [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''


== Chapter 13 ==
> >cmavo. {du'u1} is the one that deviates from current Lojban, so
* Many incidents of not having periods in front of vowel-initial cmavo.
** [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* In section 2, p. 300 references to the examples for .ue and .uecu'i are flipped.  [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 3, page 303, example 3.9. "e'e" needs a period before it.
** [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 3, page 303, example 3.10. "tisna" needs to be replaced with "tisygau".
** [[jbocre: 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, &amp;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> [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
** [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 15, example 15.5 /xamgu/gleki/ ?
** [[jbocre: 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.  [[jbocre: 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
** [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 15, example 15.13. Wrong use of {selfu}. {bevri} would fit better.


== Chapter 14 ==
> >would call for an experimental cmavo ({du'au}, say), if only in order
* Section 8, right before example 8.9 is "producing example 8.10" which should in fact read "producing example 8.9".  [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 9: between example 9.10 and 9.11, "identified" should read "identical"
** [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* 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.  [[jbocre: 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".  [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 14, example 14.16 mentions "sorme", which is probably Old Loglan, and should be replaced by "mensi".
** [[jbocre: 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."
** [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 15, right after 15.9, it says "example 14.17" where it should say "example 15.9" (14.17 does not exist).  [[jbocre: 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 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.    [[jbocre: 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 ==
> >to allow for a lexicosyntactic form that is closer to logical form.
* 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".  [[jbocre: 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)".  [[jbocre: 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) [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]


== Chapter 16 ==
> >
* Section 5, example 5.5: English has "every Y" when it should read "every X"
** [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 6, example 6.6 has a missing "cu" before "viska".
** [[jbocre: 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.  [[jbocre: 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,"
** [[jbocre: 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.
** [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 14, Example 14.1 has "blaci" (glass) not "blabi" (white) as per the English.
** [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''


== Chapter 17 ==
> >So how about when ce'u and qkau combine? E.g.
* Section 5, after example 5.1, paragraph starting "However, " has incorrect font.  [[jbocre: 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)? [[jbocre: 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.  [[jbocre: 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
*** [[jbocre: 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".
*** [[jbocre: 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 ==
> >
* Section 3, ex. 3.10, should translate as ".1012001".  [[jbocre: 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'', [[jbocre: .. ..|.. ..]]" where example 4.5 is just "te'o".  [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]''
* Section 5, p437 ex5.9 gloss: our -> four [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
** ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section 6, p438: j vu'u -> vu'u  [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
** ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Start of section 11 should read there are five members of MOI (not four).  [[jbocre: 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".  [[jbocre: 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"; [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Example 14.4 needs a sub-2 after both numbers.
** [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* 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.  [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
* Section 20, p458: -established -> established  [[jbocre: 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" [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''


== Chapter 19 ==
> >4 mi se cfila loi du'u ce'u prami ma kau
* Section 4, p467 ex4.3: zu'o -> zo'u [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
** [[jbocre: 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".
** [[jbocre: 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".
** [[jbocre: 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".  [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]


== Chapter 20 ==
> >    "Who I love is a flaw in me"
* Section LE, page 498. In "le gerku klama le zdani", "cu" is missing.
** [[jbocre: 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''.
** [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|camgusmis: Approved]] ''INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL''
* Section SE, page 504: missing "cu" after "zarci".
** [[jbocre: 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.  [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]


== Chapter 21 ==
> >
* In the BNF grammar, the rule simple-tense-modal-972 is missing a "|" before the CUhE.  [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
 
* In the BNF grammar, the rule simple-tense-modal-972 has an extra newline in the space/time subphrase.
> >5  {mi se cfila loi du'au ce'u goi ko'a zo'u jetnu
* In the BNF grammar, the rule selbri-1-131 is missing a "|" before the NA. [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
 
* In the BNF grammar, the rule tanru-unit-2-152 is missing a "|" before the JAI. [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
> >    fa lo'e du'u ce'u prami ko'a}
** [[jbocre: 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 "|". [[jbocre: 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. [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
 
* In the BNF grammar, the rule operand-3-385 is missing a "|" before the NIhE.  [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
> Don't you mean:
* In the BNF grammar, in the rule time_1030, the "ZEhA <nowiki>[</nowiki>PU NAI <nowiki>]</nowiki>" should be enclosed in parentheses. [[jbocre: Approved Erratum|John Cowan: Approved]]
 
>
 
>  mi se cfila loi du'u ce'u goi ko'a zo'u jetnu
 
>  fa lo'e du'au ko'a prami ce'u
 
Maybe; my mind was boggling to a degree, & I when I wrote it I was
 
more than a little febrile with foodpoisoning from an antique carrot
 
that I foolishly ate out of an illjudged faith in the benignancy of
 
vegetables. Anyway, let me see...
 
I did mean it the way I said, but maybe your way round is better.
 
> The thing in x1 of jetnu has to be completion, not a property.
 
Hmm. A completion would be {lo'e du'u jetnu fa lo'e du'u ce'u
 
prami la djan}, which can mean in standard Lojban: "the property of
 
being such that it is true that one is broda".
 
Of course, as you noticed, in that reading, the ce'u belongs to
 
the outer bridi, not the inner. So that's a problem for my
 
version.
 
> The thing in x1 of cfila has to be a property, not a completion.
 
But the completion is a property. In standard {du'u ce'u broda makau},
 
each thing that is a du'u ce'u broda makau is of the form
 
{du'u ce'u broda la djan}.
 
> And thing in x2 of cfila has to be the one in x1 of prami, and the
 
> holder of the property in x1 of cfila.
 
Eh? Come again? Oh I see, I read that as "and the holder of the
 
property has to be in x1 of cfila", but you mean "x2 has to be the
 
holder of the property that is in x1 of cfila".
 
Okay. So the ce'u bound to x2 of cfila has to belong to the
 
outermost bridi in x1 of cfila.
 
So let's try it your way (with gadri switched).
 
mi se cfila lo'e du'u ce'u goi ko'a zo'u jetnu
 
fa loi du'au ko'a prami ce'u
 
A completion gives:
 
mi se cfila lo'e du'u ce'u goi ko'a zo'u jetnu
 
fa lo'e du'uu ko'a prami la djan
 
... which is exactly right. Fuck me. I've never known anybody
 
as on the ball as you. It's extraordinary. u'e cai. io cai.
 
--And.

Revision as of 16:48, 4 November 2013

From jboske xelmri:

John:

> And Rosta scripsit:

>

> > What is the difference between an incomplete proposition like

> > "_ klama" or "_1 klama _2" and a property or relation like

> > "ce'u klama" and "ce'u klama ce'u"? I don't know. I don't know

> > whether there is a difference.

>

> If you mean "proposition" strictly, there isn't any. If you are using it

> as a synonym for "sentence", then it is the difference between a sentence

> expressing a relation and the relation itself. The latter is an abstract

> object, the former is a syntactic form.

Ergo, since I mean "proposition" strictly (I think), the interrogativoid,

qkau, variety of du'u abstraction -- call it du'u1 -- should be

expressible on the basis of the variety of du'u -- du'u2 -- that

expresses properties/relations/incomplete propositions.

1 {du'u2 ce'u broda} = x1 is the property of being broda

2 {du'u2 ce'u broda ce'u} = x1 is the broda relation

3 {du'u1 ce'u broda} = {du'u ma kau broda}

= x1 is a (true) completion to {du'u2 ce'u broda}

I conclude that {du'u1} and {du'u2} should be expressible by different

cmavo. {du'u1} is the one that deviates from current Lojban, so

would call for an experimental cmavo ({du'au}, say), if only in order

to allow for a lexicosyntactic form that is closer to logical form.

So how about when ce'u and qkau combine? E.g.

4 mi se cfila loi du'u ce'u prami ma kau

"Who I love is a flaw in me"

5 {mi se cfila loi du'au ce'u goi ko'a zo'u jetnu

fa lo'e du'u ce'u prami ko'a}

{du'au} has to be in NU because it must have its own prenex; a lujvo

wouldn't suffice.

I know I'm the only one who cares whether we can say (5), but

setting that aside, would you agree that (5) serves to express

explicitly the logical form that (4) is shorthand for?

--And.

xorxes:

> la and cusku di'e

>

> >1 {du'u2 ce'u broda} = x1 is the property of being broda

> >2 {du'u2 ce'u broda ce'u} = x1 is the broda relation

> >

> >3 {du'u1 ce'u broda} = {du'u ma kau broda}

> > = x1 is a (true) completion to {du'u2 ce'u broda}

> >

> >I conclude that {du'u1} and {du'u2} should be expressible by different

> >cmavo. {du'u1} is the one that deviates from current Lojban, so

> >would call for an experimental cmavo ({du'au}, say), if only in order

> >to allow for a lexicosyntactic form that is closer to logical form.

> >

> >So how about when ce'u and qkau combine? E.g.

> >

> >4 mi se cfila loi du'u ce'u prami ma kau

> > "Who I love is a flaw in me"

> >

> >5 {mi se cfila loi du'au ce'u goi ko'a zo'u jetnu

> > fa lo'e du'u ce'u prami ko'a}

>

> Don't you mean:

>

> mi se cfila loi du'u ce'u goi ko'a zo'u jetnu

> fa lo'e du'au ko'a prami ce'u

Maybe; my mind was boggling to a degree, & I when I wrote it I was

more than a little febrile with foodpoisoning from an antique carrot

that I foolishly ate out of an illjudged faith in the benignancy of

vegetables. Anyway, let me see...

I did mean it the way I said, but maybe your way round is better.

> The thing in x1 of jetnu has to be completion, not a property.

Hmm. A completion would be {lo'e du'u jetnu fa lo'e du'u ce'u

prami la djan}, which can mean in standard Lojban: "the property of

being such that it is true that one is broda".

Of course, as you noticed, in that reading, the ce'u belongs to

the outer bridi, not the inner. So that's a problem for my

version.

> The thing in x1 of cfila has to be a property, not a completion.

But the completion is a property. In standard {du'u ce'u broda makau},

each thing that is a du'u ce'u broda makau is of the form

{du'u ce'u broda la djan}.

> And thing in x2 of cfila has to be the one in x1 of prami, and the

> holder of the property in x1 of cfila.

Eh? Come again? Oh I see, I read that as "and the holder of the

property has to be in x1 of cfila", but you mean "x2 has to be the

holder of the property that is in x1 of cfila".

Okay. So the ce'u bound to x2 of cfila has to belong to the

outermost bridi in x1 of cfila.

So let's try it your way (with gadri switched).

mi se cfila lo'e du'u ce'u goi ko'a zo'u jetnu

fa loi du'au ko'a prami ce'u

A completion gives:

mi se cfila lo'e du'u ce'u goi ko'a zo'u jetnu

fa lo'e du'uu ko'a prami la djan

... which is exactly right. Fuck me. I've never known anybody

as on the ball as you. It's extraordinary. u'e cai. io cai.

--And.

Retrieved from "https://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=du%27au&oldid=74752"