me lu ju'i lobypli li'u 18 moi
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Number 18 - May-June 1993 Copyright 1993, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031 USA (703)385-0273 Permission granted to copy, without charge to recipient, when for purpose of promotion of Loglan/Lojban. Logfest 93 - July 9-12 rafsi List Revised and Baselined DETAILS IN NEWS SECTION ju'i lobypli (JL) is the quarterly journal of The Logical Language Group, Inc., known in these pages as la lojbangirz. la lojbangirz. is a non-profit organization formed for the purpose of completing and spreading the logical human language "Lojban - A Realization of Loglan" (commonly called "Lojban"), and informing the community about logical languages in general. la lojbangirz. is a non-profit organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. Your donations (not contributions to your voluntary balance) are tax-deductible on U.S. and most state income taxes. Donors are notified at the end of each year of their total deductible donations. For purposes of terminology, "Lojban" refers to a specific version of a logical human language, the generic language and associated research project having been called "Loglan" since its invention by Dr. James Cooke Brown in 1954. Statements referring to "Loglan/Lojban" refer to both the generic language and to Lojban as a specific instance of that language. The Lojban version of Loglan was created as an alternative because Dr. Brown and his organization claims copyright on everything in his version, including each individual word of the vocabulary. The Lojban vocabulary and grammar and all language definition materials, by contrast, are public domain. Anyone may freely use Lojban for any purpose without permission or royalty. la lojbangirz. believes that such free usage is a necessary condition for an engineered language like Loglan/Lojban to become a true human language, and to succeed in the various goals that have been proposed for its use. Press run for this issue of ju'i lobypli: 130. We now have about 720 people receiving our publications, and 250 more awaiting textbook publication. Important Notices Important: Your mailing label indicates the last issue of your subscription. If that issue is JL18, we need to hear from you, preferably with money for another year's subscription (US$28 North America, US$35 elsewhere). 2 Note the new network address on page 2 for the Planned Languages Server if you wish to obtain electronic copies of our materials. The address published last issue turned out to be incorrect. Your Mailing Label Your mailing label reports your current mailing status, and your current voluntary balance including this issue. Please notify us of changes in your activity/interest level. Balances reflect contri- butions received thru 15 June 1993. Mailing codes (and approximate balance needs) are: Activity/Interest Level: Highest Package Received (Price Each) Other codes: B - Observer 0 - Introductory Materials ($5) JL JL Subscription ($28-$35/yr) C - Active Supporter 1 - Word Lists and Language Description ($15) (followed by expiration issue #) D - Lojban Student 2 - Language Design Information ($10) * indicates subscription prepaid E - Lojban Practitioner 3 - Draft Teaching Materials ($30) LK LK Subscription ($5-$6/- yr) R Review Copy (no charge) UP Automatic Updates (>$20 balance) Please keep us informed of changes in your mailing address, and US subscribers are asked to provide ZIP+4 codes whenever you know them. 3 Contents of This Issue The biggest news this issue is the baselining of the rafsi list, the last major piece of the language to be frozen before dictionary publication. Two articles this issue deal with the Lojban rafsi, and the latest change, and the revised list is included with the issue. As soon as this issue goes to the printers, I will be starting to work intensively on dictionary publication, with the intent to have something to show off at LogFest, our annual gathering here in July. See the news section for more on the dictionary work, and on LogFest 93. Because JL issues are taking 1-2 months to prepare, I am not going to be able to get JL on the hoped for quarterly schedule and also get the dictionary and textbook published this year. As such, I will not start work on JL19 until September, to enable me to work all summer on getting the dictionary out. I also had to cut off work on this issue rather abruptly, though hopefully without too much loss in quality. Details in the news section. This issue summarizes all grammar changes proposed for the dictionary rebaselining, and the revised E-BNF form of the grammar. Articles detail the rationale behind several of the changes, with a focus on the most significant change relating to relative clauses. A selection of articles deal with usage issues that have come up on Lojban List, and we have a couple of more philosophical discussions on the goals of the language. As is usual, material derived from the Lojban List computer, as well as from the 'conlang' mailing list, is edited, revised, and corrected from the original. There are 3 longer Lojban texts in this issue, one related to the ckafybarja project discussed in JL17. The discussions of grammar and usage issues., though have a lot of Lojban text in them, perhaps as much as in the longer pieces. I made an effort to update all lujvo in this issue to the new rafsi baseline, so that you can use the lists accompanying this issue to interpret them. However, since I did this manually, don't be surprised if I missed one or two. Table of Contents Brief Glossary of Lojban Terms ---3 News - JL Status, Subscriptions, Finances, LogFest 93 ---3 Other News: DC Weekly Group, Bradford Group, UK LogFest, Book Status ---4 Language Development Status: gismu, rafsi, Grammar ---5 Lojban Proto-Reference Book (Dictionary) - Preliminary Outline ---6 Sample English-to Lojban dictionary (intermediate step) ---8 On Lojban rafsi; Revised rafsi Assignments ---9 On lujvo, by Greg Higley; "General Purpose lujvo", by Greg Higley; Greg Proposes and Explains some lujvo ---20 le lojbo ce ciska ---21, 47, 50, 66 Grammar Changes ---22 A Change to the Relative Clause Grammar: Quantification and noi, by Greg Higley; sumti and Relative Clauses, by Colin Fine; Lojbab's Solution; Excerpts from the Original Changes 20 and 21, with Discussion ---30 Articles Related to Usage/Grammar/Word Change Proposals: New JOI, by Greg Higley; kau, by Greg Higley ---43 Empathy in Attitudinals, by John Cowan; Summary of cmavo Changes in selma'o UI; Punctuation Proposals, by Nick Nicholas ---48 More Usage Questions: Dean Gahlon asks a simple question; SVO Order in Lojban; And Rosta on "se", "te", & lujvo; On the Grammar and Range of Free Modifiers; Comments on the Tense System, by Greg Higley; ko'a stizu; Questions on Logical Connection; Causality in Lojban; On le and lo and Existence; A Heated Exchange? ---53 4 Language Goals: Lojban and Metaphydsical Bias; Sapir-Whorfian Thoughts; Metacognition-friendly Languages ---61 A Lojban-to-Prolog semantic analyzer, by Nick Nicholas ---67 Enclosures - Lojban Machine Grammar: E-BNF Version, dated 12 June 1993; 06/01/93 Lojban baseline rafsi list Computer Net Information Via Usenet/UUCP/Internet, you can send messages and text files (including things for JL publication) to la lojbangirz./Bob at: [email protected] (This supersedes the prior "snark" address.) You can also join the Lojban List mailing list (currently around 70 subscribers). Send a single line message (automatically processed) containing only: "subscribe lojban yourfirstname yourlastname" to: [email protected] If you have problems needing human intervention, send to: [email protected] Send traffic for the mailing list to: [email protected] Please keep us informed if your network mailing address changes. Compuserve subscribers can also participate. Precede any of the above addresses with INTERNET: and use your normal Compuserve mail facility. If you want to participate on Lojban List, you should be prepared to read your mail at least every couple of days; otherwise your mailbox fills up and you are dropped from the mailing-list. FIDOnet subscribers can also participate, although the connection is not especially robust. Write to us for details if you don't know how to access the Internet network. A good portion of our materials are available on-line from the Planned Languages Server (PLS). See JL16, or send the messages "help" and "send lojban readme" to the server address: [email protected] This is a new address since JL17 was published. 5 The following explicitly iden- le'avla - words borrowed from tifies people who are referred to other languages (there are people by initials in JL. 'Athelstan' is who would like to see another that person's real name, used in term, with a better metaphor, for his public life, and is not a this concept, but "le'avla" will pseudonym. remain a valid term for the 'pc' - Dr. John Parks-Clifford, indefinite future; suggestions are Professor of Logic and Philosophy welcome); at the University of Missouri - brivla - Lojban predicate words, St. Louis and Vice-President of la consisting of gismu, lujvo, and lojbangirz.; he is usually le'avla; (a few cmavo have the addressed as 'pc' by the commu- grammar of a brivla); nity. tanru - Lojban 'binary' 'Bob', 'Lojbab' - Bob metaphors, the most productive and LeChevalier - President of la loj- creative expression form of the bangirz., and editor of ju'i language, unambiguous in lobypli and le lojbo karni. syntax/grammar, but ambiguous in 'Nora' - Nora LeChevalier - semantics/meaning; tanru Secretary/Treasurer of la lojban- generally have a modifying portion girz., Bob's wife, author of (generally on the left) that LogFlash. serves the function of an English 'JCB', 'Dr. Brown' - Dr. James adjective or adverb, and a Cooke Brown, inventor of the modified portion (on the right). language, and founder of the sumti - the arguments of a Loglan project. logical predicate; 'The Institute', 'TLI' - The selbri - Lojban predicates which Loglan Institute, Inc., JCB's indicate a relation among one or organization for spreading his more sumti. A selbri is most version of Loglan, which we call often a brivla or tanru; the 'Institute Loglan'. concept was formerly called 'Loglan' - refers to the generic "kunbri" in error in some of our language or language project, of early publications; which 'Lojban' is the most bridi - Lojban predications, the successful version, and 'Institute basic grammatical structure of the Loglan' another. 'Loglan/Lojban' language; a bridi expresses a is used in discussions about complete relationship: the selbri Lojban to make it particularly expresses the relation and the clear that the statement applies sumti express the various things to the generic language as well. being related; 'PLS' - The Planned Languages selma'o - grammatical categories Server, a no-charge computer- of Lojban words; the basis of the network-accessed distribution unambiguous formal grammar of the center for materials on Lojban language. Traditionally and (and other artificial languages). erroneously called "lexeme" in the See pg. 2 for email address. Loglan community. These categories typically have a name Brief Glossary of Lojban Terms derived from one word in that Following are definitions of grammatical category; the name is frequently used Lojban terms. all capitals, except that an Longer explanations are in the apostrophe is replaced by a small Overview of Lojban. letter 'h' (this is an artifact of cmavo - Lojban structure words the computer language "C" in which gismu - Lojban root words; the formal Lojban grammar is currently 1342; defined for the YACC processor; C rafsi - short combining-forms forbids apostrophes in 'tokens' for the gismu; representing single words. lujvo - compound words built from rafsi; 6 News publication probably in October, JL Status or perhaps even November). Hopefully the dictionary will be I remain short of my goal of done by then, and maybe (but not publishing every three months, at likely) the textbook. I'm sure least partially because getting that the decision to put book all of the mailings out the door publication higher priority than last issue took more than a month regular JL publication is one in the first place. But hopefully which the community will find 4 months is better than the delays acceptable, provided that we we had been having. maintain some minimum publication I delayed a little in hopes of frequency; 3 issues this year, seeing some more submissions for while not the desired 4, is the ckafybarja (coffeehouse) considerably better than we did writing project, especially from the last two years. those of you who first became This delay will also serve to aware of the project with the give more time for people to publication of last issue. Nick submit writings for the ckafybarja Nicholas revised one piece that project, per the above discussion, was in progress when JL17 was pub- before the next decision point. lished. Then, at the last minute, Let's see some more participation he submitted a character this time. description on behalf of a friend. As partial recompense for the But otherwise, alas, only silence. delay, this issue is larger than As a result, the period for intended. Our prices were set on submission of characters and/or an assumed average of 60-70 pages setting ideas has been extended per issue, but both of the last indefinitely, until the various two issues have been longer than people who have contributed feel that. I will wait till next issue that enough has been submitted to to decide, but if issues continue either vote, or to at least turn to run long, I may have to in- fully to the Lojban writing crease the subscription price by endeavor that is intended. about $1 per issue ($4 per 4 Unfortunately, this issue of JL issues) as of next issue. Orders has taken even longer to produce, and renewals until then (up to a almost 2 months from the day I maximum 8 issues prepaid) will be started. And I had thought that at the rate of US$28 for 4 issues the issue was partially done when (US) and US$35 overseas. I started. Family life, Because the rafsi change supporting the computer network baseline took place at a date just discussion, and administrative before publication, and because tasks have kept me from working the issue was so long already, efficiently, and the types of I've put a minimum of Lojban text materials we are publishing are in this issue. Next issue will taking longer to edit than older probably have quite a bit more issues, because of the need to text, since Nora is working on a ensure clarity and accuracy of program that will convert lujvo technical content. based on pre-baseline rafsi to the The books have been too long new baseline. delayed while I tried to get JL on a more frequent schedule. We've improved the JL frequency, though not to the quarterly level I want, or need in order to get 2nd class mailing from the Postal Service. As such, I have decided to cut off work on this JL and go directly to work on the books for the whole summer. I will not be starting JL19 until September (which means 7 Subscriptions the Lojban books reasonable, since small print-runs alone will add We are now fully on the several dollars to the price of subscription system, and for the each book, and we cannot afford a most part, people who have not larger print run. (Expected sent a request for JL are no publication costs will run around longer receiving it. We have a $10,000. Donors welcome!) slightly smaller subscriber list than last issue, but we know that LogFest 93 everyone getting the issue really wants it. The dates for LogFest 93, and I now have to get publication the annual meeting of la solidly onto the quarterly lojbangirz. has been set. The schedule, in order to get 2nd gathering will take place at class status, which means it Lojbab's house in Fairfax VA (per probably won't happen this year the la lojbangirz. address and while book publication takes phone number) the weekend of 9-12 precedence. Until then, people July 1993 (we traditionally open will get JL a little quicker, via up on Friday, but schedule few first class mail, and of course we organized activities for that day; are going to still be losing some people can feel free to arrive on money as a result. Saturday the 10th, to come for As of the publication date, we only one day, etc.). As in pre- have around 120 JL subscribers. vious years, families are welcome, For about 25 of these, JL18 is although we are requesting that listed as their last issue, but I attendees bring sleeping bags, expect at least half of these to etc. if possible. One or more renew their subscription based on tents will be set up in the yard the experience of the last 4 as applicable to ensure plenty of months. Thus, the number of (all sleeping space. paid) subscribers will drop to The invitation to families is a around 110 for JL19, and seems bit more meaningful this year, likely to stabilize at around that since we now have two kids. Child level until books are published care duties will presumably be (when it hopefully will increase). shared among the relevant adults US recipients will continue to get to maximize people's abilities to their issue by first class mail. participate in activities. Interest in participating in Finances LogFest seems a bit higher than in previous years, perhaps because We continue to expend money more people believe that they can faster than we are taking it in, do something with the language, but the rate of hemorrhage has and that books to help learn and slowed (at least until this issue use the language will shortly be goes out). We already had a coming out. Preliminary positive deficit for 1993 of a couple of responses from around 20 people thousand dollars by April, which suggest that we will set a new has been remedied by the delay in turnout record this year. publication, and significant There is no required admission donations from Jeff Prothero fee for LogFest. Our costs for (totalling $1500 so far this year, putting on LogFest have averaged or almost 1/2 of our income). We $20-$30 per attendee in previous will still need a fund raising years, and we ask attendees to drive in order to make it through donate at least enough to cover the year. I intend to ask for their share if possible. But we donations in the letter that don't want money to stand in the announces publication of the first way of your attending if you are book. Substantial donations interested in coming. and/or massive orders will also be As is typical for LogFests, we necessary to keep the price for expect that this year will consist 8 of mostly English-language (with a 5th planning to start activities, with an emphasis on regular particpation this month), Lojban-teaching and learning continues to meet, and do a little activities for those new or less conversation each week in Lojban. experienced in the language. We seem to have plateaued in skill There will probably be significant level, since only a couple of us discussion of the ckafybarja are spending much time on Lojban Project, which was significantly on other days of the week, and my developed at last year's activities are not the type that gathering. enhance my Lojban skills. Several Lojbanists have Bradford Group - Colin Fine's expressed serious interest in group in Bradford, UK, continues having a major emphasis on Lojban to grow and to meet regularly, and conversation at this gathering, from postings on the net, is and we believe that there are probably achieving a enough people skilled enough in sophistication in Lojban use at the language that we can do this, least comparable to us in DC. while providing mentoring/tutoring There are 3 participants at this to those who are unable to un- writing. derstand what is being said UK LogFest - Colin Fine and Iain without help. Alexander have been actively We are also trying to arrange recruiting Lojbanists in the international Lojban conversation United Kingdom, and the numbers during LogFest, most likely by are growing significantly, now live 'interaction' on the computer approximately 40. In addition, a networks with Colin Fine and other higher percentage of British British Lojbanists, and Nick Lojbanists are active students of Nicholas in Australia, using the the language, whereas many "IRC" function (see 'Other News' American Lojbanists seem to be below). Those not able to attend holding back on learning the lan- LogFest, but who have Internet guage. access may want to contact us at As a result of the increased [email protected] prior to numbers, Colin and Iain proposed LogFest, and we will try to set that a LogFest gathering be held some definite times, so that you in the UK this year, and this idea can also participate in these met with ready agreement from sessions. other Lojbanists. At publication, While the books will not be pub- it appears that the UK LogFest lished before LogFest, I will be will be held in September, making a major effort to have probably at Colin's house in copies of some or all of the Bradford. Lojbanists throughout books-in-progress available for the UK, and indeed all of Europe, people to look at, and possibly to are encouraged to attend. use during Lojban sessions. Independent of JL publication, The annual meeting will take when a date for this LogFest is place on 11 July 1993 at 10:30 AM. firmly set, we will try to send At this point, there is much less notice to all European Lojbanists on the agenda than in previous of the details for this gathering. years, and we are hoping that this Colin is also planning a means that the meeting will be gathering the weekend of the shorter than usual. (People plan- American LogFest, as a 'dry run' ning to attend who would like to for the bigger event, and see a policy topic discussed at Lojbanists are welcome to visit the meeting are welcome to suggest that weekend as well. agenda items.) For further details, please contact Colin Fine at (44) 274 Other News 733680 (home) or 274 733466 x3915 (work), or by mail at 33 Pemberton DC Weekly Group - The DC weekly Drive, Bradford, West Yorkshire group, consisting of 4 Lojbanists BD7 1RA, UK 9 CIX - A possible bolster to TLI has apparently set up a Colin's efforts to build a UK computer network mailing list, but Lojban group was the formation people who have subscribed to it within the last couple of months report no activity. of a Lojban discussion group on TLI may be nearing completion of the UK computer network 'CIX'. their own dictionary revision, This group has grown rapidly, and which will be issued in electronic is reported to have some 25 form (a price of $50 has been participants. Lojban List traffic mentioned). They are also is echoed to this group, and Colin reporting work on a substantial plans to obtain CIX access later revision on the rules of their this year to assist those language version, in order to make interested in studying Lojban in it, like Lojban, truly 'self- furthering their progress. segregating' at the word level IRC - Colin Fine, Nick Nicholas, (i.e., unambiguity demands that and Mark Shoulson started a you always be able to break a pattern of using the computer stream of Loglan/Lojban sounds network system called "Internet down into individual words Relay Chat" or IRC, in order to uniquely; the TLI language version enable 'live' Lojban conversation has been seriously defective in between Lojbanists otherwise this area). isolated. A group of Lojbanists This will be the last issue is thus now meeting irregularly on containing a regular report on the computer networks to converse TLI; we will, of course, continue in Lojban, recently including to report any real news about the David Young and Sylvia Rutiser organization that I receive either from the DC Lojban group. If you through official or unofficial are on the Internet with access to channels. But with the end of the the IRC function, and want to legal battle, there seems to be participate, contact us by e-mail little interest among the Lojban per page 2. community in hearing about TLI, so As described above, we are long as they seem to be avoiding hoping to use the IRC facility in resolution of our differences. conjunction with LogFest, to bring more people into the activities Book Status here. Legal - The trademark on Work continues on the books, but 'Loglan' has now been officially we cannot report any completion cancelled, in accordance with the dates yet. Highest priority court order following our legal remains the dictionary/reference, victory on this issue. TLI did and that occupies most of Lojbab's not include the trademark claim in time in between JL issues, along the first publication after the with the administrative tasks in- cancellation. volved in keeping the organization We have now paid off the legal running (including responding to debt, with money contributed by orders and questions from the Lojbab and Jeff Prothero. community by mail). The Loglan Institute - There is Unfortunately, these latter tasks little to report about the Loglan continue to take too much time, Institute these days; not much with the inevitable continued seems to be going on. The delays. There is some significant organization continues to exist, progress though. In this issue, and may be gaining supporters, however, are two reports on the although at considerable expense. dictionary/reference: an outline, TLI had an advertisement in the and a sample discussing our April 1993 Scientific American, approach to doing the English- although they reported in Lognet order portion of the dictionary. that they spent an amount for the As the outline shows, the ad that would take an enormous contents of the reference book response in order to break even. have swollen to the point that we 10 are strongly considering issuing dictionary reference. As soon as the reference as two books - one these issues are decided, the more of a reference per se, while gismu list will be split into two the other is a pure dictionary of forms, the current form that is English-Lojban and Lojban-English, intended for use with LogFlash, emphasizing content words. A and a version oriented towards major reason for this has been dictionary formatting. Once we Nick Nicholas's excellent and have two lists, keeping them extensive work on lujvo, which matching with each other will be a promises to give us several thou- substantial requirement. In case sand entries in each direction in of conflict, the dictionary format the dictionary if it is completed. listing will be presumed to have Nick is also writing a paper precedence. describing his treatment of place structures in lujvo-making, which rafsi will also be included in the reference book. We are baselining the rafsi John Cowan has completed a list, as changed and published in revision of the entire content of this issue, effective June 1, the draft textbook lessons, 1993. We had intended to have the reorganizing the materials and baseline effective with the book updating them to the current publication, but the books aren't language. The results will be out, and the pending change has merged with the new work that had a noticeable effect on Lojbab has done towards a people's willingness to make and textbook, and will then result in use lujvo, as well as to write in the draft textbook. Lojban in general. Since we John also has continued writing expect no changes in the few his survey papers covering the months before the book comes out, entirety of the language from the it seems logical to make the standpoint of the grammar, which change effective now. We are is- will be assembled into the Lojban suing a new list of rafsi as an Reference Grammar. This still attachment to this issue, in all will be the last of the scheduled of the various orders typically books to be completed, since John used by Lojbanists, and including has several papers left to write, the lujvo-making algorithm now ex- and all of the papers must yet be cluding le'avla lujvo, which are reviewed by several people before handled by inserting "zei" between they are finalized. components, with no rafsi used. The place structures are not in- cluded in the rafsi list (a full Language Development Status gismu list in both Lojban and keyword order, would be larger gismu than this issue). Included in this issue is a Last issue we noted adding of 4 discussion of why the Lojban rafsi new gismu to support the new system works the way it does, and international metric prefixes, but a report indicating why the did not list the words. They are changes were made and how we went (with the international prefix in about making the changes. Greg parentheses): Higley also discusses his ideas on gocti 10-24 (yocto-) lujvo-making, and gives some gotro 1024 (yotta-) samples of the words he has in- zepti 10-21 (zepto-) vented. (Other Lojbanists are zetro 1021 (zetta-) invited to submit lujvo that you The major work on the gismu list have coined, along with continues to be the resolution of commentary/explanations of how you a few open issues on place came to choose those words). structures. These issues will be Nora is integrating ad hoc decided as we prepare the software programs into a software 11 capability to correct and revise The summary of proposed changes, older texts written with the which may be written rather earlier rafsi list. The current technically for some readers, procedure is sufficiently shows that there continue to be complicated, and the baseline so minor changes proposed in the close to publication, that I had Lojban grammar, nearly all of to conevrt all lujvo manually this which are extensions to the time. Luckily, this issue has expressive power of the language. less text than last issue. As John Cowan continues writing the papers that will eventually Grammar comprise the Lojban 'reference grammar', minor problems may be This issue contains a complete discovered that require further summary of the changes to the changes. We are hoping that all Lojban grammar that are pending, of these will be found before the and an attachment includes the first book is published, when the revised E-BNF notation form of the official rebaselining will take Lojban grammar incorporating those effect. changes. The grammar is ef- On the other hand, these changes fectively being rebaselined with are so minor that almost none of this publication, as we are using them affect any text written thus a parser incorporating the changes far. Some changes enable new to evaluate Lojban text, and do usages where it was found that not otherwise intend to continue existing forms were leading to using the previous grammar unacceptable semantic situations baseline in any way. On the other (see the discussions below of hand, there is still the relative clauses - change 20, and possibility of minor corrections JOI - changes 30 and 31 for before the official rebaselining examples of such changes). As a in conjunction with book result of these changes, the publication. If you have any changed semantics of some of the disagreements with any of the older forms may render some older proposed changes, we need to hear texts as inaccurate, even while from you as soon as possible, but still being grammatical. we will consider any comments. This issue also contains edited The previous version of the E- discussions that led to some of BNF had typographical errors, the more significant proposals making it difficult for some to being adopted. These proposals use. Enough Lojbanists are often started as discussions of actively using the E-BNF as a tool Lojban stylistics, and of studying the language that we understanding these discussions felt that this should not wait any will help you gain a better longer for published revision. understanding of how you must Special thanks to John Cowan for think about what you are trying to devising and maintaining the E- say in order to properly phrase BNF. the Lojban. Note that many of the We are not yet publishing a new participants in these discussions version of the formal grammar are not especially advanced, or definition (the 'YACC' grammar), skilled, Lojbanists. It is worth- which will appear in the published while to plow through the reference book. Note that the E- occasional jargon-ridden passages BNF, while computer-ish in style, (there is a limit to how much this is not the formal definition that editor feels he can change what has been verified as unambiguous. people write, even for the sake of It was prepared manually from the clarity) to follow the thought formal definition, and has been processes of these new and more checked many times, but the YACC advanced Lojban students. You'll grammar takes precedence in case learn a lot about the language and of disagreement between the two how it works, and maybe a little versions. bit about how people at different 12 levels of skill approach problems However, the nature of the of expression in the language. language is such that people will want and need those separate lists fully as much as any combined Lojban Proto-Reference Book - dictionary list. When you are Preliminary Outline with estimated making new words, you need a handy page counts by section list of the gismu and their rafsi, and other data, especially The following is the outline for existing lujvo, would be a dis- the proto-reference book which traction. Similarly, people tend Lojbab is using as of publication to use lists of cmavo in selma'o time. It includes a description order as often, if not more often, of each section contemplated for than they use alphabetical lists. inclusion, and an estimated page The reference will include three count. Major tables, forming the attempts that have been made to bulk of the book, are the most devise a thesaurus-style semantic unpredictable portions in length; index for Lojban. None of the these are marked with asterisks efforts really can be considered (*). The estimated page counts in authoritative, and indeed, Lojbab the following are in most cases believes that there is a just that - estimates (a bar significant problem with the indicates a page count for several standard thesaurus technique, related sections). The text is which tends to be more not in general written in any noun/adjective-oriented than verb- final form, although almost all of oriented. In dealing with a the materials exist in some predicate language, which is preliminary form that mostly probably more like a verb- requires editing, rather than new orientation - most of the words writing. have been categorized on the basis Due to space and publication of the meaning of their x1 place, cost, some of the materials listed which is often not the only place in the outline may be left out. that is important to classify. For example, many people would not However, semantic indexing of be that interested in the gismu the gismu list seems to be list etymologies, especially since something that most people have they are in a rather preliminary some use for, given the number of form that may make them less easy people who have reported doing to use than they eventually will something of that type on their be. On the other hand, the own. Since we cannot produce a features documented in the outline definitive and verified thesaurus are those that define Lojban solution, it seems better to pre- officially, and all may be helpful sent all three efforts, and let to both language learners and to the user of the book decide which people looking over our shoulder best suits his purpose and his to examine the quality of the Loj- understanding of the Lojban vocab- ban design. ulary system. Of course, this A study of the outline shows takes more pages, but we cannot that, with the exception of the honestly say, without a lot more dictionary proper, no section of research than we are likely to the book is particularly long, have time for in the next year, such that omitting it would which effort is most accurate substantially reduce the size of and/or useful, and what entries in the books. The only real tradeoff each list are correct. Take all that might make a major difference groupings therefore, with a large would be to avoid the practice of grain of salt, recognizing that at listing most data twice - once in least one person, the compiler of the full dictionary, and once in a the particular list, saw a list specific to the type of semantic similarity between the information being presented. various gismu that are grouped together. 13 Comments on the outline, are of 1 Parser algorithm course welcomed. 20 *YACC Grammar 8 *selma'o/YACC grammar Pages Section Description terminal index 4 Table of Contents Intro 4 About Lojban 3 About this book Lojban Orthography 1 Letters and symbols 3 | optional conventions | Cyrillic Lojban | Dates 1 | compounds | text layout Lojban Phonology 2 consonants 1 permissible initials 1 permissible medials 2 vowels, diphthongs, divowels 2 | syllables | hyphen | buffering 1 stress 1 | rhythm, phrasing | intonation Lojban Morphology 1 Summary of types and how to tell them apart 1 | cmene (names) | cmavo | V | VV | CV | CVV 1 | brivla | gismu 1 | lujvo | rafsi 4 lujvo-making algorithm /tosmabru 2 scoring/choice of form 1 | le'avla | le'avla lujvo 3 Resolver algorithm Syntax E-BNF 2 About the E-BNF 3 *E-BNF 1 *selma'o/E-BNF terminal index YACC Grammar 8 About the YACC Grammar 14 selma'o 45 *lujvo actually in use - 1 *selma'o list estimated ~1800 20 *short alphabetical 45 *proposed lujvo (possibly definition, intermingled with pre- subcategories with cmavo ceding) systematically in each subcategory created (using "se", "te", terminals "ve", "xe", "nu", "ka", 20 *YACC terminal list, "ni", "ri'a", "gau", etc. definition, examples of estimated ~3000 each type? 22 *pre Eaton/TLI lists (heavily weeded and Lexicon edited) - estimated ~1500 The formation of gismu 15 *collected old proposals 3 Lojbanizing rules used ~1000 45 *composite gismu 1 Lojbanizing of names etymologies (may be omit- 4 *some personal names ted for space) 4 *some country/language 1 *cultural gismu names 1 | *metric gismu le'avla | *internal gismu 3 types of le'avla Place structures of gismu 1 the culture word issue 30 *Lojban gismu (rafsi, 3 *cultural le'avla definition) Lojban 3 *some food items order 3 *some plants/animals 35 *gismu keywords; 3 *element words keywords/phrases for each 198 *Lojban order dictionary ??? place by gismu (composed of all preceding 35 *Lojban and English order lists) [gismu (25), cmavo (no place (20), rafsi (8), cmene structures) (names) (6), le'avla (12), cmavo lujvo(127)] 10 * cmavo in Lojban order 310 *English-order dictionary 10 * cmavo in [page counts dependent on selma'o/subtype/alp Lojban order counts: gismu habetical order (est. pg. x 5), cmavo (x 2), 2 * cmavo compounds names(x 1), le'avla(x 1), typically written as one lujvo(x 1)] word 8 * non-Lojban alphabet and Thesaurus symbol set conventions systems of categorization 1 * unassigned cmavo 4 *Roget's/Athelstan/Lojbab 2 * experimental cmavo 4 *Carter 1 Categories within pro- 4 *Cowan sumti (KOhA) 40 *gismu to category for each 3 Categories within UI type 2 | Use of BAI to add 30 *category to gismu for each places/cases type | *list of BAIs typically 10 *English-order cross-index used to add cases of categories | *list of BAIs typically used as sumti 30 Appendix - *Glossary of modifiers Lojban/Linguistic Terminol- rafsi ogy 1 Assignment of rafsi 8 *rafsi, by type, alphabetically 8 *rafsi, pure alphabetical 20 How to determine place structures of lujvo lujvo lists 15 Appendix - Correspondences drives"? Each proverb is listed, with historical TLI Loglan therefore, under all its content 2 Alternate Orthography for words. The word is rotated to the Lojban front, followed by a comma; the Lojban gismu correspondence place from which it was removed is to historical TLI Loglan marked by a "|" character (omitted gismu and lujvo at the beginning or end). 12 *Lojban gismu order John took a similar approach 8 *historical Loglan gismu here. The entire place structure order definition is processed, and the Lojban selma'o corresponding gismu is attached to correspondence to the end, set off by a "Ї" sign. historical TLI Loglan The rafsi, if any, are appended in selma'o parentheses. This version of the 3 *Lojban selma'o order program omits all words appearing 3 *historical Loglan selma'o more than 20 times in the input; order there is no point in listing words Lojban cmavo correspondence under "x4" or "event" or "the". to historical TLI Loglan An exception is made when the word cmavo is also the LogFlash keyword: 10 *Lojban cmavo order thus "zvati" appears under "at", 6 *historical Loglan cmavo but no other word does because order "at" is too frequent. Two different fonts and three sizes 8 Index are shown. We will probably use ____ trhe smallest that we think can be 502 pages reference + clearly read in reproduction. 508 pages dictionary + Comments welcome, especially from 92 pages thesaurus + those with vision problems. 82 pages appendices = ____ abdomen: x1 is a / the | / belly 1184pg / lower trunk of x2; Їbetfu (bef be'u) able: x1 is | to do / be / Sample English-to-Lojban capable of doing / being x2 dictionary (intermediate step) under conditions x3; Їkakne (kak ka'e) The following is a sample of the above: x1 is directly | / output from a KWIC (Key Word In upwards-from x2 in gravity / Context) tool that John Cowan frame of reference x4; Їgapru wrote specifically to help (gar) automate creating the English-to- abrupt: x1 is sudden / | / Lojban dictionary. This is a sharply changes at stage / point trial effort, which will almost x2 in process / property / certainly play a part in the function x3; Їsuksa (suk) creation of the English portion of absolute: x1 is a fact / reality the dictionary. There may be some / truth, in the | ; Їfatci (fac) differences in style or format. absorbs: x1 soaks up / | / sucks Comments are welcome as to how up x2 from x3 into x4; Їcokcu usable you find this style of (cok cko co'u) presentation of the vocabulary. abstracted: x1 is | / generalized This format is that used by the / idealized from x2 by rules x3; Oxford Dictionary of English Їsucta (suc) Proverbs, which has the problem of academy: x1 is a school / deciding how to alphabetize a list institute / | at x2 teaching of proverbs. Just using the first subject x3 to audience / word (or even the first content community x4 operated by x5; word) is not enough; what if you Їckule (cu'e) remember only the word "devil" accessing: x1 is a street / from "Needs must when the devil avenue / lane / drive / cul-de- 16 sac / way / alley / at x2 | x3; accruing: x1 is a profit / gain / Їklaji (laj) benefit / advantage to x2 | / accident: x1 is an | / resulting from activity / unintentional on the part of x2; process x3; Їprali (pal) x1 is an accident; Їsnuti (nut accuracy: x1 measures / evaluates nu'i) x2 as x3 units on scale x4, with accommodates: x1 contains / holds | x5; Їmerli (mel mei) / encloses / | / includes con- achieve: x1 helps / assists / tents x2 within; x1 is a vessel aids object / person x2 do / | / containing x2; Їvasru (vas vau) maintain event / activity x3; accompanies: x1 is with / | / is Їsidju (sid dju) a companion of x2, in state / achieves: x1 succeeds in / | / condition / enterprise x3; completes / accomplishes x2; Їkansa (kas) Їsnada accompaniment: x1 dances to | x2; acid: x1 is a quantity of / Їdansu contains / is made of | of accomplishes: x1 succeeds in / composition x2; x1 is acidic; achieves / completes / | x2; Їslami Їsnada acidic: x1 is a quantity of / according: x1 is a dimension of contains / is made of acid of space / object x2 | to rules / composition x2; x1 is; Їslami model x3; Їcimde acids: x1 is a quantity of according: x1 is a family / clan / protein / albumin of type x2 tribe with members x2 bonded / composed of amino; Їlanbi tied / joined | to standard x3; acquires: x1 gets / | / obtains Їlanzu (laz) x2 from source x3; Їcpacu (cpa) according: x1 is a history of x2 acrid: x1 is bitter / | / sharply | to x3 / from point-of-view x3; disagreeable to x2; Їkurki Їcitri (cir) across: x1 is a bridge over / | according: x1 is an heir to / is x2 between x3 and x4; Їcripu to inherit x2 from x3 | to rule (rip) x4; Їcerda (ced) across: x1 is located | x2 from according: x1 is polite / x3; x1 is opposite x3; Їragve courteous in matter x2 | to (rav) standard / custom x3; Їclite across: x1 ranges / extends / (lit) spans / reaches | / over inter- according: x1 is to the east / val / gap / area x2; Їkuspe (kup eastern side of x2 | to frame of ku'e) reference x3; Їstuna act: x1 is an event / state / | according: x1 is to the north / of violence; Їvlile (vil) northern side of x2 | to frame- actions: x1 is kind to x2 in | / of-reference x3; Їberti (ber) behavior x3; Їxendo (xed xe'o) according: x1 is to the south / actions: x1 tries / attempts to southern side of x2 | to frame do / attain x2 by | / method x3; of reference x3; Їsnanu Їtroci (roc ro'i) according: x1 is to the west / western side of x2 | to frame of An alternative being considered, reference x3; Їstici and shown as a second example, is according: x1 is / reflects a to repeat the English words in pattern of forms / events x2 ar- their context, marked by format to ranged | to structure x3; Їmorna make them easy to spot. Creating (mor mo'a) such an alternative format is account: x1 is an | / bill / significantly more cumbersome, and invoice for goods / services x2, obviously takes a bit more space billed to x3, billed by x4; since the words are spelled out, Їjanta (jat ja'a) but many would find it easier to accountable: x1 is responsible / read. In a dictionary, even small | for x2 to judge / authority percentage changes in definition x3; Їfuzme (fuz fu'e) length can make a difference of several pages in the result. 17 Since the Lojban dictionary is accomplishes: x1 succeeds in / going to be expensive to produce, achieves / completes / ac- brevity could make a difference it complishes x2; Їsnada what we have to charge for the according: x1 is a dimension of result. space / object x2 according to If you have a strong preference rules / model x3; Їcimde in this utility vs. cost tradeoff, according: x1 is a family / clan / make it known to us as soon as tribe with members x2 bonded / possible. tied / joined according to standard x3; Їlanzu (laz) abdomen: x1 is a / the abdomen / according: x1 is a history of x2 belly / lower trunk of x2; according to x3 / from point-of- Їbetfu (bef be'u) view x3; Їcitri (cir) able: x1 is able to do / be / according: x1 is an heir to / is capable of doing / being x2 un- to inherit x2 from x3 according der conditions x3; Їkakne (kak to rule x4; Їcerda (ced) ka'e) according: x1 is polite / above: x1 is directly above / courteous in matter x2 according upwards-from x2 in gravity / to standard / custom x3; Їclite frame of reference x4; Їgapru (lit) (gar) according: x1 is to the east / abrupt: x1 is sudden / abrupt / eastern side of x2 according to sharply changes at stage / point frame of reference x3; Їstuna x2 in process / property / according: x1 is to the north / function x3; Їsuksa (suk) northern side of x2 according to absolute: x1 is a fact / reality frame-of-reference x3; Їberti / truth, in the absolute; Їfatci (ber) (fac) according: x1 is to the south / absorbs: x1 soaks up / absorbs / southern side of x2 according to sucks up x2 from x3 into x4; frame of reference x3; Їsnanu Їcokcu (cok cko co'u) according: x1 is to the west / abstracted: x1 is abstracted / western side of x2 according to generalized / idealized from x2 frame of reference x3; Їstici by rules x3; Їsucta (suc) according: x1 is / reflects a academy: x1 is a school / pattern of forms / events x2 ar- institute / academy at x2 ranged according to structure teaching subject x3 to audience x3; Їmorna (mor mo'a) / community x4 operated by x5; account: x1 is an account / bill Їckule (cu'e) / invoice for goods / services accessing: x1 is a street / x2, billed to x3, billed by x4; avenue / lane / drive / cul-de- Їjanta (jat ja'a) sac / way / alley / at x2 accountable: x1 is responsible / accessing x3; Їklaji (laj) accountable for x2 to judge / accident: x1 is an accident / authority x3; Їfuzme (fuz fu'e) unintentional on the part of x2; accruing: x1 is a profit / gain / x1 is an accident; Їsnuti (nut benefit / advantage to x2 ac- nu'i) cruing / resulting from activity accommodates: x1 contains / holds / process x3; Їprali (pal) / encloses / accommodates / accuracy: x1 measures / evaluates includes contents x2 within; x1 x2 as x3 units on scale x4, with is a vessel containing x2; accuracy x5; Їmerli (mel mei) Їvasru (vas vau) achieve: x1 helps / assists / accompanies: x1 is with / aids object / person x2 do / accompanies / is a companion of achieve / maintain event / x2, in state / condition / activity x3; Їsidju (sid dju) enterprise x3; Їkansa (kas) achieves: x1 succeeds in / accompaniment: x1 dances to achieves / completes / accom- accompaniment x2; Їdansu plishes x2; Їsnada acid: x1 is a quantity of / contains / is made of acid of 18 composition x2; x1 is acidic; agree that a planned language Їslami should have no allomorphs, i.e. acidic: x1 is a quantity of / each root-word should have only contains / is made of acid of one form which should not change composition x2; x1 is; Їslami due to conjugation, declension, acids: x1 is a quantity of compounding, or other gram- protein / albumin of type x2 matical processes. Allomorphs composed of amino; Їlanbi increase the difficulty of memo- acquires: x1 gets / acidic / rizing a vocabulary and give no obtains x2 from source x3; benefit in return. It appears Їcpacu (cpa) that Loglan and Lojban suffer acrid: x1 is bitter / acrid / from rampant allomorphy. Any sharply disagreeable to x2; given 5-letter predicate might Їkurki have 0, 1, 2, or 3 triliteral across: x1 is a bridge over / allomorphs to be used in across x2 between x3 and x4; compound words. Unless I am Їcripu (rip) mistaken, there's no way to across: x1 is located across x2 predict whether a given predi- from x3; x1 is opposite x3; cate has allomorphs, and if so, Їragve (rav) what those allomorphs might be; across: x1 ranges / extends / each predicate's allomorphs must spans / reaches across / over be memorized. interval / gap / area x2; Їkuspe (kup ku'e) Lojban rafsi are the word-forms act: x1 is an event / state / act used to make compound words, and of violence; Їvlile (vil) are the 'allomorphs' that Rick is actions: x1 is kind to x2 in talking about. I, of course actions / behavior x3; Їxendo disagree with Rick's statements (xed xe'o) and his conclusions. In actions: x1 tries / attempts to particular, I believe that: do / attain x2 by actions / - 'allomorphy', like many other method x3; Їtroci (roc ro'i) aspects of the design of a constructed language is a design feature that may be used as a On Lojban rafsi trade-off to prevent other by Lojbab problems or to provide other ad- vantages. In the discussion that Occasionally people new to the follows, I will present our project have criticized Lojban's rational, showing that Lojban's rafsi system, generally claiming system does both; that the system is overly complex - the need to clearly or hard to learn. I contend distinguish between a multi-word otherwise, based on personal metaphor and a single word experience and on observation of compound derived from that those who have already learned the metaphor means that some sort of system. What may appear extremely allomorphy is necessary. The only complex and rule-bound, in other alternative is to add an practice turns out to be quite extraneous particle as glue easy. The system also has the between the components of one of advantage that you need not learn these two types of concept everything at once - you can use combination (which we do in the the system while knowing only a case of le'avla lujvo, but only fraction of the rules and the because there is no other general rafsi. solution for an arbitrary word- As a sample of the criticism, form that maintains unambiguity). here is Rick Harrison, commenting In general such particle addition on the "conlang" computer mailing violates Zipf's Law when the list: compound is to be used frequently. The vast majority of Zipf's Law predicts that words constructed language enthusiasts which are frequently used will be 19 shorter than less frequent ones. one of them (which no one has), is I have considerably more faith in but a very small percentage of the this principle as a basis for total vocabulary needed for fluent constructed language design than I adult conversation, but provides do in the purported difficulties immediate benefit for even small arising from allomorphy, es- amounts of learning. pecially with a system like The first time you see a Lojban's that is carefully de- compound, you will probably take signed. it apart. Perhaps even the first (One oft-recurring suggestion few times. But you cannot become for change, generally by critics even moderately fluent in any of the language such as Rick, has language if you need to analyze been to let the short forms serve the etymology of every word you as the roots themselves. Not only want to read, speak, or are there far too few such understand. Words that occur at possible roots, but such a usage all frequently must be inter- would detract from the words nalized as a unit of meaning. If available for use as cmavo, the there are 50,000 concepts that are normal interpretation of a CVV needed for adult conversation (a form that is a separate word. In reasonable guess), then you will addition, short rafsi are far more need to memorize 50,000 words, at densely-packed among the set of one word per concept. This number possible forms than the gismu - cannot be reduced, except by nearly all such short forms are polysemy (one word representing used. This results in a multiple concepts), and I cannot significant loss of redundancy see Rick or anyone arguing that that would make the language polysemy makes learning a language harder to resolve with such con- easier. densed forms. Indeed, Lojban - there is indeed a way to allows the long-form for any predict whether a Lojban root has compound built of 5-letter rafsi, rafsi, and there are constraints to alternate for any compound that greatly limit what those built with the shorter rafsi forms rafsi might be. In addition, to be used equivalently with because the assignment of rafsi is identical meaning, to reduce noisy maximized, almost every possible environment redundancy problems. rafsi has some meaning. This has Finally, of course, if the short the result that every rafsi that forms were the roots, there would you learn to associate with its be no capability for further gismu reduces the possibilities shortening in conformance with for other words. This makes Zipf's Law, and indeed either learning the others easier, and by compounds or non-compound the time you've learned even 1/2 metaphors would have to be longer the rafsi (or maybe less if than the separate words that com- they're the right ones), you can pose them.) generally guess the rest as you - all words in a language have need them. to memorized eventually, if you Let me discuss the rationale, are to achieve fluency. first. Lojban lujvo, or compound 'allomorphy', at least as used in words, represent the myriad of Lojban, makes learning that predicate relations that are not vocabulary easier in general, and reflected in the gismu roots. As there are significant benefits in predicate words in Lojban (as addition to vocabulary learning, opposed to tanru, the phrases from in that you can create new words which lujvo are often derived), on an ad hoc basis, even when you they each have a unique meaning are still a language novice, and (and associated place structure). you can usefully analyze words you This meaning need not be memorized don't know. The added memo- by the Lojban learner - the rafsi rization implied by the rafsi, system allows you to unambiguously even if you memorize every single take the word apart to see the 20 tanru components that went into specific solution embedded in building the compound. You may Lojban took 5 years to develop then assume that the compound (1978-82), with experimentation at represents the most common and/or several steps along the way most plausible interpretation of (involving many people, though that phrase, and you will rarely unfortunately almost all native be incorrect. English speakers). The design you Thus, as you come to know more see today was not adopted lightly. and more of the rafsi through Several other changes in the using the language, you become phonology and the morphology were less and less dependent on a also made at the same time, with dictionary or word list to help all designed to mutually con- you understand new words as you sistent with each other and with come across them. The ability to the goals of the language. Thus dispense with a dictionary in the system of rafsi was not a everyday Lojban use is the major patchwork ad-hoc solution that goal and benefit of the rafsi doesn't fit the rest of the system - it is virtually language - it is an integral part impossible to achieve fluency in a of the system. language until you are willing and In the old system, when able to try to use it composing a new lujvo, there were spontaneously without looking a large number of possible forms words up that you don't know. for combining the gismu The ability to do without a components, and you would have had dictionary offers a major ad- to look each of them up to make vantage in the growth of the sure that the word had not been Lojban vocabulary, a critical already created. Even if it had aspect of the language's first not been already made (and since years. Lojbanists, whether new dictionaries are inherent outdated or experienced, can create new in this respect by the time they words on an ad hoc basis while are published, you would not be speaking and writing, using the certain), you would then look up rafsi system to do so quickly and your proposed compound, to make easily. Doing so, you know that sure that it had not been already for a given concept represented by used to represent a different, a tanru, there is only one lujvo unrelated tanru. As such, structure that will represent that mastering these early versions of concept. You won't be inventing a the language effectively required word only to find out later that you to memorize words in order to someone else expressed the same learn and use them, with tanru concept in a different form, relatively minor and undependable and that their version is right clues in the word-form to aid in and your version is wrong. your recognition. The system of rafsi replaced an With the current Lojban system, earlier Loglan system (changed in the situation is reversed. You 1982) wherein compounds were only memorize those lujvo which formed by mashing parts of each you find yourself using often (in component together without a which case you memorize them system, with the result that you simply by using them often enough could only guess what components that they come to mind without went into making a lujvo. The thinking about it). You invent only requirement was that the re- new words on an ad hoc basis, sulting compound had to be 2 mod 3 knowing that someone else characters long. independently inventing a word for The learning problem proved the same concept will likely end severe when people actually tried up with the same word, but that in to both learn the existing any case, the word you invent will compounds and to make new almost certainly be correct, in compounds, after the first printed that it will not represent any dictionary came out in 1975. The 21 concept other than the one you a commonly expressed concept is have in mind. represented by a long word or Briefly reviewing the Lojban phrase, common usage turns it into rafsi system, each Lojban gismu a contraction (like "didn't", or has between 2 and 5 combining into an acronym or abbreviation. forms. Two of these are trivially Examples include "TV" for and uniquely determined. The "television", "TB" for gismu itself may be used as its "tuberculosis", "ASAP" for "as own combining form when it is in soon as possible", and "CIA" for the final position of the lujvo. "Central Intelligence Agency", In addition, there is a related 4- reducing 9 syllables to only 3). letter form, obtained by dropping It is believed by many linguists the final vowel from the gismu, that the multitude of declensions which may be used in any non-final and conjugations found in lan- position, by gluing it on to the guages today are the remnants of following component with a "y" earlier contractions. (pronounced as a schwa, the final Note that such acronyms as "TV" sound in the English word "sofa"). lose significant information about Since no two gismu concepts differ word meaning available in longer only in the final vowel, this forms. "Television", for those means that each concept has two who know the Latin roots that combining forms, which can always formed the word, reveals some be used in forming compounds that aspects of the word's meaning; can be uniquely broken down to "TV" does not. "CIA" can stand recognize the components. for a variety of longer expres- Using only these two 'long' sions, and there is no clue except rafsi forms, the 4-letter and the context to indicate that a full 5-letter gismu form, the government organization is the beginning Lojbanist can use the intended meaning. A common full expressive power of the English word that is apparently a language, while memorizing no short form, "OK", has completely rafsi. There are no exceptions to lost its origin (leaving only un- these rules, and no complications, confirmable speculations). When and the resulting word, (called that happens, these compounds the 'unreduced form') is always become like roots in themselves correct and acceptable. that must be memorized separately. The complications arise only This increases the difficulty of when you become a more advanced language learning, unacceptable in student of the language. When you a constructed language like can speak and write in a language Loglan/ Lojban. quickly, you don't want really To relieve this pressure for long words for relatively simple short forms for common words, concepts. It is fairly common to those Lojban gismu which have been devise lujvo made up of 4 (or found most useful in compounds more) components, sometime for have been assigned additional 3- concepts that are used every day. letter short rafsi. A Lojban word Most people would be unsatisfied may have up to one of each of the with a language that required them following forms: a CVC-form, a to use a 20-letter word with 8 CVV-form, and/or a CCV-form, where syllables for a very common C and V stand for consonants and concept. vowels that are found in the Indeed, an analysis of natural source word. These short-forms languages called Zipf's Law may be preferred because they indicates that the length of words combine to form shorter words, in actual use is inversely related sometimes with fewer syllables, to their frequency of use - the than the 4-letter and 5-letter most frequently used words in a rafsi. language are the shortest ones, As a result, therefore, more and long words are rarely used. than one rafsi may be used to In languages such as English, when represent a gismu/concept in 22 making a compound, since the 4- where this is true is and 5- letter forms still exist. "television", which can be seen as In addition, because these shorter a short form of the two components forms are found in other words, or "tele" and "vision". "TV", a even standing alone as words further shortening of the same (cmavo) in themselves in the case components is taken as identical of CVV forms, you need to have in meaning to "television". This rules that prevent the compounds invariance is true for all Lojban from breaking up incorrectly. compounds, even when dozens of Language design decisions force possible shortened forms are tradeoffs between the need to possible. maximize the number of words that Dozens of forms can be possible can be contracted and the when more than one short rafsi is requirement to retain the assigned to a gismu. We want to integrity of the compounds that assign multiple short forms, are formed and the ability to because the effects of sound break them down into recognizable interactions and the Lojban word- meaning components. formation rules may prevent one The nature of the sounds that particular rafsi from being used make up words, and the in some situations. Thus an imperfections in human speech and additional short rafsi increases hearing give rise to further the likelihood that some short complication in a system of word form is possible in a particular compression. Certain sounds, when difficult combination; it also may adjacent to each other may provoke mean that in other combinations mispronunciation or may be where there are no sound re- misheard by a listener. Linguists strictions, you will have a also know that certain sound multitude of choices. combinations tend to be unstable Of course, the rule that all of and to change with time. In these choices will have a single designing Lojban, we had to plan common meaning means most of them ahead to avoid combinations that will never be used. Probably only would likely lead to the Lojban of the longest form (which will be 2100 being significantly different used by language beginners) and from the Lojban of the first the shortest form will be used. dictionary. If there is more than one All of these tradeoffs have been 'shortest form', different people dealt with in the current Lojban may choose different ones are design; yet the rules for lujvo- preferable for a while, but usage making remain relatively simple. will relatively quickly tend to Some rafsi are forbidden in some settle on one of the choices. We word positions. Depending on have defined a formal scoring word-position and adjacent rafsi, rules to help people pick the form you may have to add a "hyphen" that is most likely to be settled letter to make a word pro- on, but it is not necessary to use nounceable, or to keep the sounds it - choose the form that sounds from breaking up into two words best to you and others may agree. when heard by a listener. If the rules are too difficult Let me now turn to a Lojban for your level of proficiency, you example. Following is a long always can fall back to the long compound that has appeared in form rafsi mentioned above. You Lojban text: can do so because a firm rule of the Lojban design is that, if there is more than one possible rafsi combining form, the choice of form does not affect the resulting meaning. The shortest form of a word means the same as the long form. An English example 23 nolraitruti'u (5 syllables) compound from a root from a nol-rai-tru-ti'u structure word. nobli-traji-turni-tixnu Loglan/Lojban has reached what I noble+superlative+govern+daughter believe is an optimal tradeoff (princess - specifically the between redundancy and brevity, daughter of a king/queen, as op- ease of learning and unambiguity posed to Princess Di of the UK) of the morphology. If other If there were no short forms, solutions exist, they are unlikely this word would have to be: to meet all the goals for the noblytrajyturnytixnu (8 language. syllables) Given that it is desired that Let me now turn to two hidden you expect to memorize the Lojban assumptions that Rick and others word, learning it as a unitary make when criticizing Lojban, word rather than by puzzling it assumptions I believe are together every time from its com- incorrect: ponents, it should be obvious that 1) that there is a way of reducing the shorter word "nolraitruti'u" the amount of memorization needed is better than the longer one. If to gain fluency in a conlang below you lived in a country with some arbitrary minimum, and royalty such as the UK that had 2) that memorizing allomorphs is such a princess (as Elizabeth was difficult. before she became queen) and were Assuming that the set of prone to reading, writing, and thoughts that might be expressed talking about such a princess a linguistically should be about the lot, which word would you prefer same, regardless of the language, to say or write? there are only so many options I argue that "princess" is not available for expressing those that infrequent a concept, thoughts. If there is 'one word certainly deserving of a single per concept', then a speaker must word. The British, so I under- have memorized a separate word for stand, do make distinctions each concept in order to achieve between the various types of fluency. If polysemy exists, then princess, at least in terms of how speaker has an added burden: to they are titled, so that the memorize a somewhat smaller set of distinction is socially and words, but to also memorize the linguistically important. Lojban multiple meanings of those words must have separate words if there (including meanings he may rarely are clearly two separate concepts, use) and some means of as there are in this case (the pragmatically distinguishing which 'Di' variety of princess might be meaning is intended. 5 terms: noble-superlative- There's no way around this. governor-son-spouse). Fluent speakers don't often invent The longer 8-syllable form is words or even derive new permitted as an alternative to the prefix/suffix formations when short form, and might be used conversing. Productive language either in noisy environments where formation (i.e. inventing new the longer word has all those words) takes time to think, and extra sounds as redundancy checks, taking that time in the middle of or by beginners who have not yet a conversation breaks up fluency. memorized the short rafsi or the There is some minimum amount that compound, and are creating the must be learned, even in the most compound on the fly (as this word regular of conlangs; no design has been created every time it has trick can reduce this. been used thus far since we have For a given language, for each no dictionary nor people who have concept you expect to talk or hear memorized such words). The long about in fluent speech, you must forms are of course needed when learn 1) at least one word for the the words are not compounded, or concept, 2) the association of you would not be able to tell a that word with that specific 24 concept, and not to other concepts can easily decompose - after (including false friends from the seeing these words over and over, native language), 3) any other they suddenly find that they know meanings or usages associated with both the word-formation rules, the that word, including both polysemy affixes, and the compounds. and pragmatic considerations (what Lojban in effect carries the phrases may be appended to Esperanto technique to the ul- sentences using that word, etc. timate extreme. Rather than a For example, if you stick an couple dozen short affixes, we al- object on an intransitive verb "*I low every root to have an affix, sit the store", or attach certain and then make those affixes re- prepositional phrases to a word semble the roots in very regular that doesn't expect them "*I give ways. For all Loj-ban lujvo, you from Mary across the store" you automatically know that any resem- get nonsense in any language, blances to words of other ungrammatical garbage in most of languages are accidental, since them.) It takes memorization to those lujvo are always composite turn words into sense. of simpler words in Lojban and are Thus, for people who are really not derived from any other going to use a language, the only language. thing you can do is ease the memorization process to make it As for the second assumption, I easier to do that required assert that Rick is wrong, and memorization, to get from novice that to fluency. A very regular conlang can have One way - the most frequent allomorphs that are easy to among conlang inventors - is to memorize and Lojban has such a build lots of memory hooks to some system that actually makes natural language(s). In doing so, compound words more learnable you risk semantics transfer that than they might otherwise be. might make your conlang not truly an independent language. An There are three parts to my example of this problem is the argument on this point: oft-heard debate about the Es- - the nature of 'memorizing' of a peranto prefix "mal-" which in word is non-trivial in the first that language means "opposite of", place; but in many European languages - Lojban's system is designed to means "bad". People native to provide differing aids to the those languages seem to often com- novice, the experienced learner, plain about 'derogative' and the expert Lojbanist, allowing implications of words containing the different levels of skill to "mal-", when such implications are concentrate on those aspects of not part of Esperanto in any way. word 'memorizing' that are easiest You can't avoid this kind of prob- for their skill level and most lem - all languages will have productive for them; 'false friends' that mislead you - the Lojban allomorphs, being in learning similar-appearing new made in predictable ways from the words in a new language. You can gismu are relatively easy to minimize it through other methods memorize. of aiding the learning process. One way, occurring in Esperanto, There are two phases to is the use of affixes (such as memorizing a word. In the Lojban "mal-") that modify meanings of literature, we call these phases words in certain semi-regular "recognition" and "recall". In ways. Thus, by learning a few recognition, the goal is to look words and these few productive at a word, and be able to affixes, you multiply the recognize its conceptual meaning. vocabulary that results from In recall, you must be able to go memorization. New people then from a concept in-mind, and learn from seeing words that they 25 determine the word that represents it up a couple of times. In that concept. reality, of course, context clues Recognition is by far the easier may tell you what a word must of the two skills to master, and mean, allowing you to recognize it is the most important for the the components, which contribute new Lojban learner. Such a new to that meaning, even more easily. learner will probably be reading Since the early Lojban student far more Lojban text than he/she must recognize far more words (and will write (or if learning hence rafsi) than he must recall verbally, will hear far more than or generate, this is the key skill he/she speaks). When learning to at this early stage. recognize words in a foreign At this stage, a Lojbanist language, you can rely on aspects generally knows few gismu or of the word that you are trying to rafsi, so he/she will tend to learn that in some way remind you learn them in tandem. Since the of a corresponding word in the rafsi closely resemble their other language. corresponding gismu (as I'll ex- As evidence for the difference plain below), learning gismu helps in difficulty, people using our in learning the corresponding software tool 'LogFlash' will rafsi and vice versa. Simpler practice 'recognition' of a Lojban Lojban texts will probably have a gismu, and must get it correct 3 higher percentage of gismu than times correctly before they more advanced texts, and thus more attempt 'recall'. Depending on words can be simply looked up in individual skill at learning, and the word lists. (When the the amount of time spent studying dictionary is available, I suspect in advance of a first test, a that simpler texts will tend to Lojbanist will range from 20% to rely more on words in the perhaps 70% correct. However, published vocabulary than on having gotten a word correct once, coining of new words.) the minimum score for the 2nd From the recognition standpoint, attempt ranges from 60% to 90% the lujvo-making algorithm is correct, and the 3rd time after incredibly simple. Break a lujvo two correct recognitions in a row, at every 'y', dropping the 'y's, results in over 90% correct (most then break all remaining chunks of errors are typos). However, the more than 5 letters by removing 3 first recall attempt, which letter chunks from the front. You follows the 3 successful will be left with 3 letter pieces, recognitions, tends to range from which of course are short rafsi, only 30% to 70% again, almost as at most one 5 letter piece at the if learning to recognize the word end of the word, which is a well- gave absolutely no advantage to formed gismu, and 4-letter pieces learning to recall it. (Words which are gismu missing their successfully recalled once are final vowel, which can be recalled 90% correctly on the next trivially identified in a gismu recall attempt. However, recall list. (While le'avla borrowings skill decays relatively quickly are rare, especially in beginning without practice, dropping to the texts, they can be most readily original 30-70% level within a identified either by a 3-or-more couple of weeks if there have been letter consonant cluster with a only two test sessions. syllabic 'r' or 'n' after the Recognition skill drops off much first 3 letters - the classifier more slowly. rafsi - or more simply by the fact As applied to the rafsi that they fail to break down into components of lujvo, given no 3 and 5 letter chunks that are all clues to meaning from context, the valid rafsi, as described above. early Lojban student will still le'avla never contain a 'y', so 4- quickly gain the ability to letter rafsi will not occur.) recognize and identify the meaning As you start to write in the of the rafsi after having to look language, you will already know a 26 few gismu from reading, and maybe gismu, there are only a few a few rafsi. You then have to possible rafsi, and no more than learn to make lujvo. Initially, one of each of the forms. A CVCCV this can be done using long-form gismu (form C1V1C2C3V2) must have rafsi, with no complications. rafsi from among the 5 forms CVC Learning long-form rafsi is {C1V1C2 or C1V1C3}, CVV {C1V1V2, equivalent to learning gismu, so with or without the apostrophe no memorization is being wasted on between the vowels}, and CCV this stage. Ideally you will {C2C3V2 or rarely C1C2V1 and the memorize all of the gismu, or at consonant cluster must be a least most of them. Your permissible initial}. (By the continued reading will teach you time it becomes a factor, you will some shorter rafsi, because you've have learned which letter looked them up enough times that combinations are not permissible you no longer need to do so. initials, since there no Lojban These are probably going to be the words start with them). A CCVCV most common rafsi, the ones that gismu (form C1C2V1C3V2) must you will most likely need earliest choose rafsi from among CVC in your own efforts to coin lujvo. {C1V1C3 or C2V2C3}, CVV {C1V1V2 or You will also acquire a fairly in- C2V1V2, with or without the stinctive feel for the conditions apostrophe between the vowels}, under which 'y' is inserted to and CCV {C1C2V1 and the consonant break up impermissible consonant cluster must be a permissible clusters in lujvo, but the written initial}. In other words, up to 3 rules are clearly and formally from among 5 possibilities, and stated for cases that aren't you can eliminate any pos- obvious. As a learner, if you sibilities that you know are insert an extra 'y' in error, you assigned to other words. You will be understood; the occasions don't need to know all of the where extra 'y's cause word break- rafsi for a given word at first, up problems are extremely rare, since you can always use the long and only affect fluent speech forms till you are sure of the streams of spoken Lojban. short forms. Thus, you use what By the time you know most of the you know, and acquire new rafsi as gismu, through LogFlash or by some you need them. Of course, every other learning technique, you will rafsi you can recall, you can already have recognition control almost certainly also recognize. on many rafsi, and perhaps even As an example, take the gismu recall of a few of them. Only "bangu" The possible rafsi are then is it worthwhile to start "ban", "bag", "bau", "ba'u" (the 2 memorizing rafsi directly, and at CCV forms bna and ngu are ruled that point it becomes quite easy out because of impermissible to do so. initials). There can be only 1 Look first at recognition. When CVC and only one CVV rafsi, so you know almost all of the gismu, "bangu" has at most 2 rafsi. It then for any given rafsi, you turns out that they are: probably can identify all of the gismu it could represent (about bangu ban C1V1C2 (CVC) language 1/4 of the rafsi can only stand bau C1V1V2 (CVV) for one possible gismu, and many of the rest have only 2 or 3 and readers of this article have possibilities). But since no probably already learned the "ban" gismu has more than one of each of rafsi, since it occurs in the name the different forms of 3-letter of the language, Lojban. rafsi, you will be able to It should be easily seen in this eliminate some of the example that the more rafsi you possibilities because you know actually do know, the easy it another rafsi for that word. becomes to learn the rest. You Recall of rafsi is made easier have a closed set of three-letter by the fact that, for any given forms, nearly all of which has a 27 meaning. By the time you know a tradition in Lojban design has third of the rafsi, a 1/4 guess been to have a thorough review becomes a 1/2 guess. By the time immediately prior to any baseline you know 2/3 of the rafsi, you decision. This report describes probably can deduce 90% of them the results of such a review. without a word list, because you In July and August of 1992, the can determine so many by complete set of rafsi was elimination of alternatives. reanalyzed based on the 4 years of Of course, learning the rafsi actual usage since the original helps you cement in your knowledge analysis. Because of new data, of the gismu themselves. If you the report proposed many changes know 'bau' is a rafsi for the word to the set of rafsi. These for "language" (bangu), you know changes were reviewed by a that C1 is b, V1 is a, and V2 is committee from the community, and u. This rather reduces the burden almost half the changes were of learning the other two letters. thrown out at least partially in If you know the other rafsi is the interest of language "ban", then you know that either conservatism. C2 or C3 is 'n', and you can With this rafsi retuning and almost certainly guess the word at recent re-examinations of all that point. (In speech you can Lojban gismu place structures, all probably get away with slurring aspects of the Lojban design will over the other consonant and the have had two or more separate listener will guess what word you thorough reviews, separated sig- wanted from context.) nificantly in time, to ensure that the design can stand the test of time. While the proposed changes Revised rafsi Assignments are a fairly high percentage of the total set of rafsi as- The Lojban rafsi list, the set signments, the set of assignments of affixes associated with the seems to me (who knows the set of various gismu and a few cmavo, has rafsi best, to be much the same as explicitly not been baselined it was before. along with the gismu list during For both efforts at assigning the last few years. This is Lojban rafsi, they have been because the initial assignment of assigned using a method developed rafsi was based on merely educated by JCB for old Loglan during the guesses on what was needed, with 1979-82 timeframe, and described some highly suspect data as the in TLI publication "Notebook 2", basis for those guesses. The believed to be out-of-print; the intent has been to wait as long as document was not all that useful, feasible to build a data base of mainly being a 200-page catalog of actual lujvo-making usage before supporting data for what I de- making the assignments permanent. scribe much more briefly here The rafsi assignment list has been without such complete data. JCB exceptionally stable over the called his process 'tuning' the intervening years partly to en- rafsi list, or 'optimizing' it for courage lujvo-making, and partly 'coverage'. because there was no bona fide 'Coverage' refers to the extent basis to make judgements about to which words are used in lujvo rafsi needs without usage data. compounds, which is of course the Now, with the impending major use of rafsi (they are also dictionary publication, we want to used to a more limited extent in have rafsi assignments with a names and le'avla borrowings, the greater confidence of adequacy and latter of which has been taken stability. Indeed, the into account in my latest review, publication of a dictionary that as noted below). The goal is to we hope to be able to sell in book ensure that a maximal percentage form for a few years requires that of Lojban lujvo compounds can be we baseline the list. The 28 composed from 'short' (CVC, CCV, silent 'd' as Zipf appears to con- or CVV/CV'V form) rafsi. tinue to shorten the word after This goal is based on the its written form has been frozen paradigm known as Zipf's Law, in spelling). Similar processes which has been fully embraced by include the use of acronyms, a the Loglan design for at least the phenomenon which Lojban supports last two decades. The but tries to discourage. Loglan/Lojban paradigm actually Now there are other reasons for goes beyond the 'law' as inferred making lujvo other than merely by Zipf, which merely observed a frequency of usage. One obvious tendency in language and other reason is to get a more useful phenomena to inversely relate place structure, whereas a tanru length of a phenomenon to has the place structure of the frequency. As the original law is final term. But the inherent descriptive rather than unpredictability of lujvo place prescriptive, it has been ques- structures (notwithstanding tioned on occasion as a design various proposals for regularizing principle for Loglan. I do not them) means that most lujvo will intend to defend this design be made because someone sees that principle, merely to state that it the word/concept in question will is a central tenet of the Lojban be used multiple times in multiple design philosophy in accordance contexts, and hence justifies with our policy of following JCB's being thought of as a 'word', central design tenets for Loglan. rather than a phrase. Applying Zipf's Law to Loglan At this stage there is not a lot design, we have assumed that the of a priori decision making going law will, whether we allow for it on regarding lujvo-making. People or not, govern the evolution of usually make lujvo when the the language as it becomes used concept is expressed by a single widely in less-controlled word in the language they are circumstances as we expect in the translating from. But this is a future. We want to try to see valid practice, and indeed is most where the language will end up common when compounds are 'bor- (presumably in a state consistent rowed' from other languages, a with Zipf's Law), and design feat- process called 'loan translation'. ures into the language that will Of course, not all Lojban lujvo allow for that evolution to take that have been proposed correspond place smoothly, without actually to single words in other needing to change the language languages, so even at this point, design when it occurs. To the Lojban is evidencing its own extent that we can foresee the trends in concept/ word formation future of the language, we want to independent of other languages. make the changes now, and not It is presumed that under Zipf's later, when people have already Law most people will make lujvo to learned the vocabulary. cover concepts of higher One result suggested by Zipf's frequency, leaving as phrases Law is that words of greater fre- those concepts that occur once, or quency in usage tend to be in specific, isolated, context- shorter. If a word comes into dependent situations. Thus JCB greater use, it is observed that put a priority on making gismu and it becomes shortened, either by lujvo to represent concepts found natural word compression. Such in the one generally recognized compression might include the cross-language study of the use of compression of sounds as in concepts in languages (as opposed "cannot" to "can't", or the tying to words), Helen Eaton's study words together in compounds like from the 1920s and 1930s. lujvo rather than leaving them as Unfortunately that study is longer tanru (e.g. the English outdated, and its association with lujvo "grandfather" - interesting 4 European languages makes this in that many pronounce it with a data questionable as the sole 29 basis for a modern language final positions. Thus the long design. Now that we have actual form of a compound for "broda Lojban usage to include in the brode" will be "brodybrode". (The design evaluation, for the first 'example' gismu "brodV" are the time we can downgrade the only gismu in the language that importance of Eaton's study. share the same final vowel and History of the Loglan/Lojban hence have ambiguous lujvo com- rafsi system - The use of rafsi pounds - but then they are used in languages, including conlangs, most often for making examples. is not particularly controversial. The current reanalysis has given a Esperanto, for example, has a wide limited alternative to this variety of prefixes and suffixes ambiguity for those rare usages of which operate roughly as Loglan's these that are non-exemplary). rafsi do. The extent to which It must be clearly understood Loglan/Lojban uses and indeed de- that there is no guarantee that a pends on rafsi may be more lujvo compound means exactly what controversial. one would infer from the source Pre-1982 Loglan had haphazard metaphor. Language use is rather compound formation, with the too chaotic to assume that. effect that compressed compounds Indeed, Lojban policy is to assume had a structure such that that the source metaphor is etymology and hence implied ambiguous and context-dependent, meaning could not be elicited from whereas upon adopting a shorter the word. As a result, the compound form, that form becomes a 'correct form' of a compound had single word in its own right with to be memorized, and to a great a unique meaning and place extent, a given compound could be structure like all other Lojban looked at with relatively little content words (brivla). possibility of recognition of its Zipf's Law, plus this compound nature or of its implied distinction between metaphor and meaning. compound, require that the com- The GMR (Great Morphological pounds be both shorter than and Revolution) redesign in 1978-1982 distinguishable from the source incorporated the concept of metaphor. All Lojban gismu can 'resolvable affixes' (rafsi) such form long-form compounds of this that the fact that a word is a sort; the use of 'y' replacement compound could be recognized on in non-final rafsi assures that sight, and the nature of its there is unique resolution, while etymology and hence significant also ensuring that the words do clues as to its meaning could be not fall apart. In accordance recognized by identifying the with Zipf's Law, all such com- rafsi of which the word was com- pounds are at least trivially posed. In the spirit of Loglan's shorter than the uncompressed design, resolvable affixes were to 'metaphor' (tanru) from which they be unambiguously assigned to are formed. If short rafsi exist, specific gismu roots, so that rec- the compound can be shorter still. ognizing the rafsi identified a Since all Loglan rafsi occur unique etymology, and rules that only in bound forms (inside allowed a compound to be compounds), it was recognized that unambiguously recognized as being some shorter forms than the five- composed of these, and only these, letter rafsi could be used. rafsi. Unambiguous word-resolution The Loglan/Lojban design now limited this set of shorter rafsi allows for both 'long' and 'short' to CVC, CCV, and CVV forms, where rafsi. Long rafsi are identical in Lojban a VV pair might be one to the basic gismu (all of CVCCV of the four primary diphthongs or or CCVCV form) for final position a disyllable vowel pair (which is in a compound only or have the marked with an apostrophe ' to final vowel replaced by a 'y' indicate a devoiced, non-glottal- (pronounced as a schwa) in non- stop glide, which English speakers 30 usually approximate with an 'h' - as glue in two other special sound.) Older Loglan forms do not circumstances where a compound have the distinction between a might break up into smaller diphthong (such as "oi") and its pieces; corresponding divowel form ("o'i", - require a syllabic 'r' or 'n' pronounced as in "toe heel"), (rules determine which is used) hence have fewer possible CVV to glue on a CVV rafsi in first rafsi. (Note that the CVV rafsi position where it might 'fall are totally unrelated to the CVV- off' in spoken contexts and be form cmavo. The rafsi occur only mistaken for a separate unre- in bound form, and the rules for lated structure word (cmavo) of lujvo-making mean that the rafsi the same CVV form. (CVV rafsi can never be heard as separate do not need to be glued on the words. In some cases, a rafsi may front only in a two-part lujvo have a meaning related to that of where the final term is a CCV the cmavo spelled the same way rafsi, because the Lojban's (and this is recognized as a good penultimate stress rules hold memory hook to aid in learning the the pieces together). words), but such matches occur Including current new word only because the cmavo assignments proposals, there are 1342 Lojban were also chosen where possible to root words, and 93 cmavo that are be associated with gismu which useful in delineating meanings of would suggest the cmavo's meaning. compounds that are also given Since all gismu in the language short rafsi (where possible the are considered one part of speech rafsi is the same as the cmavo, and syntactically identical, it is but this isn't always possible.) a language requirement that all Since there are only 733 rafsi gismu be allowed to serve in all that can be used in final position positions within compounds; we (CVV and CCV forms), it is not cannot have a limited set that is possible to assign such a short more 'worthy' of use as prefixes rafsi to each root, in spite of or suffixes in compounds. We can the theory that permits any of use Zipf's Law to assign short them to appear in final position. rafsi based on other factors, the Because Loglan/Lojban words were minimum requirement that all gismu created based on recognition have combining forms for all scores in source natural lan- positions sets the dictum guages, they are not uniformly justifying the universal spread around the alphabet. We availability of 4-letter + 'y' wanted to make the rafsi set and 5-letter, 'long-form rafsi' easily learnable, so we limited that can be used for any gismu. the set of possible rafsi for a Given the current rules for given gismu to specific Lojban sounds and word-making permutations built from certain forms, There are 1445 possible letters of the word. Thus for Lojban CVC rafsi, 493 CVV rafsi, "broda", possible rafsi include and 240 CCV rafsi. The rules for only -bod-, -rod-, -bro-, -bo'a-, combining these compounds: and ro'a-. - forbid a CVC rafsi in final In some cases, there's no position; trouble assigning a rafsi to a - require a 'y' inserted between gismu - there is only one gismu rafsi: with the letters permitting use of - when they are conjoined so as the rafsi given the rules for to result in certain deriving possible rafsi. This 'proscribed medial consonant determines perhaps 550 rafsi in clusters'; the first pass (1 in 3.5 of the - to prevent 'assimilation' that CVC rafsi, 1 in 5 of the CVV would make it hard to distin- rafsi, and 1 in 6 of the CCV guish that combination from rafsi). But given that no gismu some other combination; could have more than one of a given type of rafsi, and some 31 simplifying assumptions (such as been used in a set of predefined noting that a gismu having a CCV compounds JCB's 1974-5 dictionary did not need a CVC or a CVV rafsi, chosen because they represented especially if it would prevent the most common concepts in 4 another from using that rafsi), European languages (based on Helen another 500 rafsi are trivially Eaton's study). This data is decided, perhaps 1/2 of the total. suspect of being both European- On the other hand there were biased and outdated, though no some rafsi that are extremely better study is known. difficult to assign. In the The metaphors underlying the recent retuning, for example, 1974-5 compounds were often there were 33 competitor-words culturally biased, and relied on that could use -ci'a-, and 33 for English-language based conventions the two possibilities -sai- and - unrelated to the Loglan words they sa'i-, while as many as 500 rafsi were built on. Classic bad (mostly CVC, but nearly 100 of the examples of underlying metaphors more valuable final position in that dictionary include "man- rafsi) could not be used by any do" for "to man a ship" (which can gismu. Only reinventing easily be done by a woman, and has significant numbers of gismu, no functional association with choosing lower recognition score manhood), and the word for "kill" word-forms could significantly (now a Lojban root), based on improve this maldistribution, and "dead-make" where the word for such a change would not be "make" means "x constructs y from considered under our baseline components/materials z" (meanwhile policy. (Only one gismu has ignoring the 4 completely previously been reinvented to get different Loglan words for a usable final position rafsi, indicating causality). Indeed "- mleca, meaning "less than". As make" was used in some 500 com- part of this retuning, the gismu pounds, and non-specific "-do" and for "daytime" is being changed to "-cause" (associated with only one "donri" to allow it a good rafsi. of the 4 causality words) in sev- This second change was considered eral hundred more each, making a only because the word was added to substantial part of the old Loglan the set of gismu so recently, that vocabulary rather restricted in it is not on the published gismu semantic variation. The Lojban list, and hence is little known.) vocabulary is intended to be far Because of the limited set of more analytical in terms of the rafsi, we want to make the rafsi Lojban meanings of the words, and assignments optimal for our word current actual usage ranges over a set, so as to minimize the length much wider variety of roots. But of compounds formed in accordance the older Loglan data necessarily with Zipf's Law (presumed to be dominated our initial rafsi most of them). This means that we assignments. have to 'tune' the set of Our other source of data besides assignments based on some type of JCB's dictionary were words usage statistics. invented by Loglanists, either in When we first assigned rafsi in efforts to cover the rest of 1987-8 after constructing the Eaton's word lists, or to cover gismu roots, there were no usage concepts not in the dictionary statistics. Older versions of that were needed by people in the Loglan had been used in only very few texts in Loglan that were scattered bits of text, and were attempted. These were generally based on a set of only around 900 either patterned on the already gismu roots, including a bunch poor examples in the 1974-45 dic- that were judged inappropriate as tionary, or, even worse, were 'basic roots' like words for built on haphazard ad-hoc 'billiards' and 'football', and methodologies generally in were hence not retained into ignorance of the rules for com- Lojban. Most of these words had pound-making that had been set 32 down. These included the much words only achieved 94.6% lambasted (for obvious reasons) reduction. "dog-woman" for the pejorative It was recognized from the start equivalent of English "bitch", that these initial assignments "one-future-one" for "in sequence" would have to be re-evaluated ('one' is a cmavo and had no final based on actual usage, of which position rafsi, so the word- there could not be any until we inventor just used the CV-form had a stable gismu list. This cmavo, resulting in an illegal requirement leads to a 'Catch-22' word), and "water-pass_ through- situation where you have to have skin" for "sweat" (the latter uses people learn the rafsi well enough the worst possible term order; to use them naturally, while Loglan grouping would lead one to preserving the flexibility to expect the metaphor to refer to a change them. Change will kind of skin, whereas the English naturally be resisted by people verb "to sweat" might be a kind of who have taken the trouble to 'passing-through', and the English learn something, and the Lojban noun 'sweat' might be a kind of project has been strongly 'water'). There was of course no committed to recognizing and frequency data for any of these respecting the amount of effort words, other than the frequency that goes into learning a lan- inferred from Eaton's list for guage, and not demand unnecessary that subset, which basically relearning through constant implied that all such 'Eaton change. words' would be among the most Since I was the likely person to frequent words in Loglan and hence do the eventual retuning, I should wherever possible have (Lojbab) made it a point to be the short forms. first to learn the set of rafsi In 1979-82, JCB did a (using the old version of LogFlash statistical analysis of the words 2 developed especially for this in his dictionary, choosing a set purpose), and made it a point to of resolvable affixes to minimize try use them heavily when writing the percentage of words that could in the language. Thus the re- not be written with short forms. learning penalty if there are In 1987, Lojbab repeated that changes falls at least as hard on analysis, using that data, along me as on anyone. We also with a hundred pages of notes on recognized that we could probably words proposed for Loglan in the only do this reanalysis once - intervening years, most of the low uncontrolled change in the lan- quality exemplified above. Only guage is debilitating to morale, some of the additional Eaton data so we've waited till the 'last was incorporated; we didn't have minute' before dictionary the software tools to handle such publication. a large data volume, and didn't Unfortunately, the minimal want the language design amount of change in the rafsi list overwhelmed by the poor quality of over the last couple of years most of the metaphors. Because of misled some into thinking that the a lack of software tools, we com- rafsi were baselined with the piled statistics manually gismu list, so we often repeated (probably making errors, and in- the statement of its not being cluding some entries multiple baselined. Still, we avoided times when they were invented changes, because people won't use independently by different something that is constantly sources. But the result was still shifting underfoot like sand. a significantly broader semantic Even when new gismu were added, we field of words - approximately 97% shied away from changing any rafsi of the lujvo in Loglan's compounds to accommodate them (though we as- were reducible to short forms in signed them rafsi from the JCB's 1982 tuning; the 1987 tuning unassigned set when they were based on a much larger set of available). 33 Luckily, what has happened fit extensive for us to lightly change our needs quite well. Few people such words, and indeed my actually learned the rafsi in any threshold against change was to systematic manner like I did (I protect a few dozen rafsi know of no one besides me who absolutely against change, and completed even one run-through of only reluctantly consider changes the rafsi list with LogFlash 2, to another large group. Thus and only a few have reported even "blari'o"/bluish-green had some trying to use the program. claim for 'sacredness' (but not Some people, like Nick Nicholas, absolute), even though it has only have used lujvo heavily in appeared to my knowledge in one writing, though he clearly hasn't set of examples - the recently memorized most of the rafsi (one published Diagrammed Summary. of the few problems with Nick's Still, if rafsi were to reflect texts has been trying to figure frequency of usage, that means out what his words were supposed that some of the most frequently to be when he fails to look up a used words had to change rafsi, so rafsi and guesses wrong - that as to get one more useful given many people are able to do so its typical position in a word. shows that the language doesn't Since the possible-rafsi-space is require people to memorize every densely packed with the existing rafsi in order to communicate assignments, though, retuning by effectively). Nick also makes assigning a rafsi to word A gen- good Lojban lujvo, since he erally means freeing that rafsi supports the idea of conventions from word B, which then needs a in lujvo-making to a great extent. rafsi currently used by word C, Though I disagree with making con- hopefully moving down a list until ventional standards for lujvo at you get to a word used seldom this point in the language enough that people won't so much development, conventions generally mind it not having a rafsi. lead to choosing appropriate In July, 1992 I used software components and getting them into a tools to process some 3 Megabytes plausibly acceptable order, a of Lojban text and English result clearly better than the commentary on Lojban text, strange efforts by some of the old identifying some 2700 lujvo Loglanists. created and their frequency of Because of Nick's and others' usage. (Because the processor heavy usage we considered certain could not distinguish English from rafsi assignments to be 'sacred' Lojban, a few English words crept as part of the reanalysis. For in because they looked like Lojban example, we could not seriously lujvo; e.g., the English word consider changing -loj- for "simple" might be a lujvo based on logji/logic and -ban- for the unlikely metaphor "mutual- bangu/language, since that would paper" - this mis-classification change the name of the language. happened relatively rarely.) The Likewise, other commonly used frequency data was used loga- words were considered inviolate, rithmically to weight usage data - like "selbri", "le'avla", "brivla" a word used twice got a score of (though some of these assignments 2, used four times got a score of did vary before the gismu list was 3, eight times getting 4, etc., up baselined: bridi used to have the to words like selbri and brivla rafsi -rid-, and 'brivla' was at used several hundred times and one time 'ridvla' (but this lujvo getting weights of at least 10. would now indicate a source This weighting supports both the metaphor of 'fairy-word'). The Zipf's Law basis of the language, current word "selbri" in our early and pretty effectively made sure documentation is "kunbri", -kun- to protect rafsi assignments that having been reassigned from are 'sacred'. kunti/empty to kunra/ mineral). I also used different tools to But our documentation is now too process the Eaton proposals into 34 the statistics. As noted, these ticularly bad metaphors in the metaphors aren't too good, but the Eaton data. But for the most words in question cover a broader part, statistics led the semantic spectrum than actual decisions. The resulting proposal Lojban usage. Also many of the improved coverage only a small meta-phors are bad mostly in being amount, from 92.6% to 93.8%, but phrased in a weird-for-Lojban coverage of the actual Lojban order, as in the above example usage portion of the data improved "skin-pass through-water". Thus more significantly, from 89.7% to even these poorly-made words give 92.8%. Given the constraints to suggestions as to gismu that need minimize changes to 'sacred rafsi coverage, though should be rafsi', this was about as good as ignored in deciding whether a word could be hoped. gets a final-position or initial Review by the community led to position oriented rafsi as- elimination of many of these signment. Words in the Eaton file changes, since people considered a were only given a weight of '1', few more rafsi assignments to be and multiple-occurring usages in 'sacred' than I did in my Lojban text thus far outweighed analysis. But the disapproved these terms. Eaton proposals thus changes had only minor effect on probably only served primarily to coverage statistics (no percentage break ties in the 'competition', has actually been calculated based and to ensure that the broadest on the final assignments appearing possible range of words was in this issue). represented. Methodology - This section deals The new statistics obviously with details of the methodology I tracked more closely with actual used, and may be skipped by people usage. However, the 'coverage not interested in such details. percentage' of the current rafsi As stated above, I gathered assignments dropped to only 92.6. statistics on usage of gismu in This sounds pretty good, but is various positions in lujvo. These almost 3 times as bad as JCB's positions were 1st/3-or-more term original tuning, and 50% worse lujvo (allowing any rafsi, but CVV than the rafsi assignments had rafsi must always be hyphenated), been under the original 1st of 2-term lujvo (any rafsi is statistics. The actual Lojban permitted, but CVV are only usage data was less than 1/2 of sometimes hyphenated), middle of the total weighted data, and was 3-or more terms (any rafsi is per- even more poorly covered, around mitted, but CVV/CCV never need a 89.7%. hyphen afterwards), and final term In addition, since 'coverage (CVC rafsi forbidden, CVV/CCV percentage' does not reflect hy- about equally useful, but CCV is phenation, the quality of the one syllable shorter than a CVV coverage was even more mediocre. with an apostrophe, and is thus For example, the cmavo, 'ka', much preferable for the highest usage used in lujvo in recent times, was words). originally assigned the rafsi Given these rules, it is clear 'kaz'. 'kaz' is hyphenated before that CCV rafsi are the most c/f/k/p/s/t/x/j because of the flexible. A word with a CCV rafsi compounding rules. These letters never needs a hyphen afterwards, form cover more than 60% of the and needs a hyphen before it only actual rafsi in non-initial part of the time when preceded by positions weighted for actual a CVC (an unvoiced-initial CCV is usage. Nick Nicholas and 2 others hyphenated about 25% of the time, thus asked that 'ka' be given a a voiced-non-liquid CCV about 40% less-hyphenated rafsi. of the time, and mlV/mrV rafsi are In a couple of cases, I hyphenated less than 10% of the overruled a statistical quirk time). after verifying that, for example, CVV rafsi can be used in any that it was based on some par- position but almost always require 35 a hyphen in initial position. out that both statistics and Since there are more than enough actual lujvo data show that drata words that need CCV and CVV words is almost never used in final for final positions alone, I position, while drani often is. emphasized using CVV rafsi for I made a few other assumptions concepts concentrated in final that explicitly deviated from the positions in the data words but original rafsi assignments, based relatively little usage in initial on understanding the word-making positions in metaphors, CCV rafsi implications of the lujvo-making for words with significant final algorithm better. Words with CCV position concentration, but also rafsi are hyphenated so seldom having high usage in other that it rarely improves coverage positions - in other words with to give the gismu another rafsi in high overall position scores. addition. Thus, once I assigned a CVCs are reserved primarily for CCV rafsi to a word, I ruled out words concentrated in the first adding a CVC or CVV rafsi for that positions. (CVC assignments were word as unneeded, unless no other also favored for gismu often used word could benefit from the rafsi. as le'avla classifiers, because Only 'sacredness' was allowed to CVC rafsi are the easiest to use interfere with this principle, as classifiers.) hence zmadu, with no competition I presumed to 'tune' at first for -zma, was assigned that rafsi, assuming only that a few 'sacred' and did not need -zad- or -mau-. rafsi would remain untouched, but 'mau' was deemed moderately otherwise assuming all assignments 'sacred', though, and was kept were freely determinable without with zmadu anyway. Unusual for a reference to the past. With this word with a CCV, this extra rafsi assumption, 30-50% of the rafsi may be occasional useful since it could be assigned either as starts with a different letter 'sacred', or as having little or than the -zma-, hence is useful to no competition for the rafsi best avoid hyphenation in about 25% of suited for them. lujvo where it is preceded by a For the most part, I proceeded CVC. However zad- was freed and as if I were starting to assign is no longer assigned to "zmadu" words from scratch, using or to any other Lojban word. 'sacredness' only to dictate A much larger variety of gismu choices when they came up. The have now been used in lujvo; in a alternative would be to identify couple areas of the alphabet, specific words that needed new something had to give. For rafsi as a change from the current example, to assign one of set (such as 'ka'), and 'force 'kal/kam/kan/kar' to 'ka', 1 of them' into a new assignment the existing 4 words using those cascading along a chain of rafsi rafsi had to give up its CVC as- assignments until a rafsi was signment. Each of these CVC rafsi found that wasn't already assigned was the only assignment for its to a word. This paradigm is very corresponding gismu, so this deci- useful for understanding the sion was going to deprive a word actual effects of a series of of having any rafsi at all (there changes in retuning. As a was no possibility of a chain of methodology, however, it is highly changes displacing a CVV or a CCV suspect. There is no obvious test rafsi). for when a word 'needs' a rafsi In actual lujvo usage data, CVV other than direct comparison of rafsi have been avoided in initial the statistics. People's positions in favor of CVC rafsi, instincts can be woefully especially when they are di- inaccurate on this score. Thus, syllable (with an apostrophe while 'ka' indeed turned out to between the vowels). Indeed, even justify a rafsi, Nick Nicholas when a CVC also requires a hyphen also proposed giving 'drata' -dra- afterwards, it has been preferred , taking it from drani. It turned to a CVVr in the same position. 36 This actually contradicts the as it did in this case. Else we experience of JCB when he did would end up with a few words 'taste-tests' to determine the having almost all the rafsi. I lujvo-making choices of the old gave slightly better favor to Loglan community - his conclusion words to keep a CVC rafsi assign- then was that people tended to ment that they had had previously, like vowel-rich compounds as more as sanga had previously had -sag-, melodious and easier to pronounce and indeed that was the determin- than words with many consonant ing factor in this example, clusters. (A possible counter- consistent with the goal to mini- explanation is that consonants mize unnecessary change. provide better aids to word Another assumption was more recognition, and are thus subjective. For the original preferred by people who want to rafsi assignments, a requirement easily recognize the components in was that all culture words be a written lujvo; such a tendency given a rafsi. Since each such was not measured in the 'Taste culture word associated with a Tests' conducted by JCB.) Because country automatically had at least of this tendency, I de-emphasized 8 identifiable lujvo (e.g., CVV scores in the initial merkyjecta merkybangu merkyrupnu positions, assigning them almost merkyfepni merkykulnu merkyturni solely on the basis of final po- merkygugde merkynatmi, etc.) this sition usage. The following data policy was justified, and indeed 8 shows one example. usages was generally enough statistically to warrant such a gismule'avla1st/31st/2mid end lujvo in the original tuning. But sanga 0 1 16 2 27 since then, the culture words have stagi 3 0 0 0 4 come under a lot of attack, and some Lojbanists have said they New assignment gismu old will avoid using them. At least assignment one person specifically sag sa'a sanga sag recommended freeing their rafsi - stagi - assignments for use by other words (though 'sacredness' would sanga gained the rafsi -sa'a- preserve the heavily used based on extensive new use in 'gic'/glico, 'lob'+'jbo'/lojbo and final position, a score of '27' in 'mer'/ merko. Similarly, a that position guaranteed it such a variety of words associated with selection. Having the rafsi chemical elements have been at- "sa'a", it is arguable that the tacked - most of their usages are word no longer needs the rafsi figurative ones dating from the 'sag', and it should have been JCB era, and figurative tanru used for 'stagi'/ vegetable, which metaphors are now dispreferred in has 3 usages (all in le'avla); Lojban usage. Finally, all metric though all other usages of "stagi" units were presumed to have a thus far are in final position defined lujvo for each metric where a CVC rafsi would do no prefix (about 16). good. I overruled this change, I downgraded all statistics for recognizing that with the these words by at least a factor substantial score for sanga in 1st of two, even when doing so meant of 3+ terms (1) and 1st of 2 terms that the calculated coverage would (16), there would be a lot of decrease. For example, because instances of sa'ar- that lujvo- Nick translated some texts from makers have dispreferred given a Ancient Greek, there were some us- choice. ages of 'xelso' in final position. Generally I let a word with a This warranted giving xelso the CVV rafsi keep a CVC in addition assignment of 'xle', currently only if the score for initial held by 'naxle' (canal) which has position usages exceeded all no actual usages indicating that competitors by at least 5/1 ratio, 'xle' would be useful in addition 37 to its noncompetitive CVC as- Four metric gismu proposed by signment of 'nax'. Nick John Cowan were included as specifically recommended against effectively equivalent to all "xelso", and I took his other metric words; the exact form recommendation more broadly to ap- of these words was selected to ply to all such cultural minimize rafsi assignment compounds. Some gismu in this set problems, since we had to modify lost all of their rafsi the actual prefixes to fit Lojban assignments because of the down- gismu anyway. weighting, many of these being When I was done with this culture words which were exercise, I looked at unassigned borderline to even have gotten a rafsi and tried to find cmavo that gismu in the first place. could reasonably have a use for Measurement word scores were them, in some cases proposing a down-weighted by a similar CCV for a CV cmavo by inserting a argument. "snidu" had its CVV - consonant. Since the cmavo as- si'u- removed in favor of the signments have proven to be most slightly lower scoring simxu, a unpredictable and unsatisfying change that would not have been based on statistics, this seemed considered based on pure like a wise course. For cmavo, I statistics. Nora argued that, felt that it is better to assign a while all metric prefixes were rafsi and drop it if it isn't used theoretical compounds for snidu, after the 5 year baseline than to in natural languages of metric not assign one and have the cmavo countries which also permit such be difficult or unable to be used compounds only a few metric in lujvo (in which case we might prefixes are actually used with never know they were needed). The each measurement. Thus we may community overruled me on this, talk of milliseconds, but seldom choosing to leave rafsi unassigned deciseconds, dekaseconds, or exa- in borderline situations, thus seconds. On the other hand, Nora minimizing the memorization of favored retaining -gra- for possibly useless data, and noting grake/gram because its most that any cmavo can be incorporated frequent use is in the compound into a lujvo-equivalent using kilogram which in Lojban would "zei", though this is not Zipfean. require a CCV rafsi to avoid Lest people worry, I expect that hyphenation. In this case, I did after the 5-year baseline, while not downgrade the scores, and usage might provide data grake kept 'gra'. Thus, some warranting significant retuning of amount of subjective judgement was the rafsi list, the assumed used in deciding assignments for philosophy will be to oppose culture/metric/element words. revising rafsi assignments. At I painstakingly assigned rafsi this point we are concluding a to each gismu, working ap- design phase; after 5 years of us- proximately 12 hours a day for 3 age, we can only justify fixing weeks. This was a largely manual what has demonstrably been found job involving cross-checking among unreasonable or void by actual us- several dozen pages of statistics. age. It is hopefully a one-time job and I put the results into the hence was not worth the effort to computer, and made lists of chains develop programs to do the anal- of changes as described above, to ysis automatically. Perhaps a make them easier to understand. A good spreadsheet might have saved couple of chains proved to offer some time, but I don't have a questionable improvement and were spreadsheet that could handle this backed out. Where changes seemed much data, and designing and to affect 'sacred' rafsi testing a standalone program would disproportionately, I created have probably taken more time than alternate changes for the I spent. community to select from. 38 The resulting set of change 421 assigned (85%) proposals was posted to Lojban 149 assignments changed (35%) List. Several Lojbanists Of the changes, 66 words lost a commented on the draft version of rafsi without replacement and 65 this report included with that gained a rafsi they didn't have proposal, and several people before. Some of the 18 remaining indicated a desire to vote on assignments involve switches individual changes. As a result, between a CVV and its a large number of the changes I corresponding CV'V to give a word proposed were rejected (some with a lot of initial position involving changing of rafsi that usages the monosyllable rafsi. others considered 'sacred', but Monosyllable CVVs seem not to be mostly involving assignments of as rejected by Lojbanist lujvo- rafsi to cmavo that were not makers in that position as di- certain to need them). The syllable ones, perhaps because the community also asked for a couple resulting word seems shorter. of other guidelines to be factored CCV rafsi into the analysis, such as 240 possible rafsi minimizing the number of gismu 209 assigned (87%) with multiple rafsi assignments 51 assignments changed (25%) (especially 3 rafsi assigned to a Many CCV changes were switches single gismu), unless there was with CVV assignments, sometimes really a good reason for them. freeing up a CVC rafsi (since a This led to some new changes. CVV word may need a CVC rafsi Summary of results while a CCV rarely does), thus In the baseline version approved cutting off a long chain of after review, there are a total of changes that might have affected 457 changes in rafsi assignments, several more words. 24 words lost about 30% of the total, affecting a CCV rafsi, while 27 gained one 372 total gismu and cmavo. This that they did not have before. No overstates the actual change rate, words changed CCV assignments, an since in most cases, giving a option that was rarely possible. rafsi to one word means taking it The numbers and percentages of away from another, giving 2 actual changes may seem large, given the changes. The adopted total is small benefit in coverage (that significantly lower than the benefit is actually even lower original proposal, which would than the benefit mentioned above; have changed 590 rafsi. The The numbers above were calculated community rejected about 1/3 of based on the original proposal the proposed changes, though it fore changes, some of which did requested a small number that I not occur. However, percentage did not have in my original coverage seems now to be a less report. significant figure than the degree Following is a more detailed of failure to cover words that breakdown. have a great deal of usage in luj- CVC rafsi vo. 1445 possible rafsi While the overall coverage 915 assigned. (64%) percentage changed by only a small 257 assignments changed (28%) amount, most 'problem words' were Of the changes, 97 words lost given useful rafsi. In the 1987 CVC assignments where they once rafsi assignments, a word was had them (many of these also had a considered a 'problem word' if it CCV or CVV and didn't need both). had more than an uncovered score 100 words gained CVC rafsi where of '4'; i.e. more than 4 lujvo they did not have one before. 60 where no reduced form could be words actually changed from one used. No problem word in the CVC to a different one, generally original data had an uncovered as part of a cascading chain. score more than 8. CVV rafsi By comparison, no less than 111 493 possible rafsi words had 'uncovered' scores more 39 than 10 when I started tuning and On lujvo 52 had scores exceeding 15. The by Greg Higley worst words had uncovered scores exceeding 30. This means that I'd like to make a few comments there were an awful lot of lujvo on nu jvozba. As I've read, the using these words in ways for current policy of la lojbangirz. which they did not have short is "Let a thousand flowers bloom." rafsi. These numbers, though While at first I was opposed to large, do not affect the coverage this, I now see the wisdom of it: percentage much; the latter How could it be otherwise? I've percentage includes some fully- decided after much thought to covered words with weights of disband the lujvo pulji and let several hundreds. the prisoners go. (nu jvozba As a result of tuning, 37 words "lujvo-making"; lujvo pulji with scores over 15 were reduced "lujvo-police") to a score less than 15, while 7 But this doesn't mean that I others were forced above that don't have anything to say on the level to make room for them. Thus topic of nu jvozba! Au contraire, there are now only 15 such really mon frЉre! I have actually come severe problem words, with the 180ш from my old viewpoint: I'd highest scores being two words like to suggest - since 'suggest' with uncovered scores of 19 and 3 is really all I can do - that a words with 18 (one of the latter different view of lujvo be being "snidu", for which we adopted. decided to discount the numerous As I understand it, a lujvo, as metric lujvo). currently defined, is a tanru that There remain 51 words with has been "compressed" into a scores above 10, so the total single word, and that has been number of problem words was cut by assigned a fixed meaning. (And I more than 1/2. guess a new place structure, as The enclosures give complete well.) Thus the essential lists, in several orders, of the difference between the tanru new rafsi assignments. "remna sovda" and the lujvo "remso'a" is that the former does __________________________________ not have a fixed meaning, it might ______________ mean "the human's egg", i.e., the one he had for breakfast, or it [This issue contains several could mean the same thing as (what essays written by Greg Higley. I'm suggesting for) remso'a, Greg, who is not on the computer namely "human ovum", i.e. the networks, has only contributed female human reproductive cell. irregularly on Lojban topics, but I see lujvo more as has still been able to affect the "abbreviations" than "fixed language design with his tanru": I don't think a lujvo has insightful comments. (Note that to be so exact that its meaning is his examples and translations are crystal clear. Then we'd have not necessarily sanctioned, but huge lujvo. I see the parts of a are sometimes of the nature of lujvo as forming a "memory hook" discussion or proposal. See the which can be used to remember its comments after each essay, which meaning, and which, knowing the sometimes indicate that a given concept, can be used to remember example was either ungrammatical the lujvo. I don't think that, or means something other than what seeing a lujvo on a page, you Greg intended.) should instantly be able to know The essays are generally located what it means. Rather, finding with other essays on similar out what it means, you should then topics, so that this issue forms a be able to more easily remember cohesive flow. it. Case in point is "le'avla". This is a word well-known to Lojbanists, but let us assume that 40 we've never seen it before. Would anything ground up and made into a you know what it meant, just by patty. It doesn't have to be looking at it? You could rely on meat, doesn't even have to be the context in which it occurs, food. If you're eating a but what if there were no context, hamburger, and you call it "le or what if the context wasn't zaltapla", you aren't likely to be informative enough? You could misunderstood, and you can always probably make some educated get more specific if you want. I guesses, but let's face it, find that this makes Lojban much "le'avla" is not a very clear more interesting, because it lujvo as lujvo go. Expanding it divides the semantic space in a into a tanru is just as unhelpful: different, perhaps "Lojbanic" way, "lebna valsi" is just as nebulous. and it helps me to think And yet I'd like to argue that "Lojbanically". If you wanted to this is just exactly how lujvo say "That hamburger looks good" in should be made! Once you discover Lojban, you're likely to try to the meaning of "le'avla", you make the word for "hamburger" very aren't likely to forget it: You specific. While there's nothing can now see why it means what it wrong with this - clarity is a does. This is similar to the good thing. I think doing this process that goes on with an makes Lojban no more than a code abbreviation, although thankfully into which we translate the pre- lujvo have clearer parts than ab- existing concepts of other lan- breviations. You can't guages. With GPL, or even lujvo necessarily figure out the meaning that are unique, but with specific from the abbreviation, but you can meanings (SPL "Specific Purpose figure out the abbreviation from Lujvo"?), we can build a language the meaning. With lujvo, it might that is not just a code, but a be more accurate to say that, living language of its own, that given a list of lujvo, you could divides the semantic space in its pick out the one that corresponds own way. to the concept in question. Mark Shoulson: Higley makes a good point, and "General Purpose Lujvo" it touches a little on something by Greg Higley that I've been thinking about a lot myself. I feel that a lot of One of the reasons why I don't the Lojban text written suffers do much translating from English from overuse of lujvo owing to a to Lojban, or from Welsh to tendency to try to reproduce the Lojban, is that in order to do specificity afforded by natural- this with any reasonable degree of language terms. I try to use more accuracy, you have to make lujvo. tanru than lujvo, and to be as Well, I do make them, but I non-specific as I can, while still usually don't start out with an saying what I want to say (with a English or Welsh word or concept few exceptions; e.g. I don't use that I'd like to translate into prenu as "person" in the English English. I start out with the meaning of "human being" - that's gismu list and just start a "remna". "prenu" is more of combining, trying to see which "thinking being" or even "soul" combinations suggest meaningful (minus the religious and non- concepts. This is how I arrived bodily connotations)). So I at the idea of "General Purpose avoided Nick's "beipre" for Lujvo". "waiter": what did the "prenu" While making lujvo in this way, rafsi add? The waiter is just I'd often come across a word which "that which carried the coffee": had no exact equivalent in "le bevri be lei ckafi". English, but which seemed to be Sometimes you may need to be more useful nevertheless. A good specific, that's okay. But I example is "zaltapla". This is think you'll find that you don't 41 need to be specific as often as Greg proposes and explains some you might think at first. That lujvo the "bevri" was also a "prenu" gets cleared up later, when lujvo velcki conversation is initiated. ---------------------------------- Higley's view of lujvo as ------ "abbreviations" rather than "fixed bromalsi "synagogue" tanru" is very cogent and, I musymalsi "mosque" suspect, very close to the xisymalsi "church" etc. official view of what lujvo should [And so on. It's no new discovery be. His example, le'avla is a that the names of the major good example. After all, religious edifice(s) can be made "le'avla" expands to "lebna valsi" with "malsi".] which is "take word" or better, jelspo "destroy by burning" "taker word" - a word which is [This is the basic meaning. More somehow associated with a taker, colloquial translations might be perhaps. A more pedantic "jvozba" "put to the torch, burn down, burn would have made it "selyle'avla", up" and many others. "-spo" can for "se lebna valsi": "taken- be added to many words to create thing word", much closer to the interesting lujvo of this type:] meaning: a word which is taken. po'aspo "destroy by (causing to) Note, though, that that's not what explode" we use, nor should it be: you [It is the x2 place of "po'aspo" can't trust an expanded lujvo that does the exploding. "lenu ta 100%, you can only assume that spoja cu po'aspo ti" covers any x1 it's close to what the lujvo explosions nicely.] means. lujvo are intended to be zdabartu x1 is exterior dictionary words, having their own to/outside of the definitions not precisely derived nest/dwelling of x2 from their associated tanru (the [As in "Mom, I'm going outside.": "selpinxe"/"se pinxe" problem I "doi mamta .i mi zdabartu had before is another good klama".] example. "selpinxe" is a good zdane'i x1 is inside of/interior lujvo for "na'o se pinxe", i.e. "a to the nest/dwelling of beverage", as opposed to just x2 plain "se pinxe" which could mean [As in "I'm staying in": "mi "ca'a se pinxe", "liquid-thing- zdanei stali". It could also sliding-down-someone's-throat".) roughly mean, "at home" - as long as x2 is the same as x1.] Colin Fine: zdasta x1 stays at home x2 I agree somewhat with Greg, and zaltapla x1 is a tile/patty/etc. wholeheartedly with Mark, made of ground-up especially about inappropriate material x2 specificity. (I recall once [This is one of the "General inviting people to join me in a Purpose lujvo" I talked about in campaign against precision!) my comments on lujvo.] I also like to play around with rartapla x1 is a naturally possible lujvo - and go beyond the occurring tile-shape of obvious when trying to coin them. composition x2 One thing I do in text is that I taktapla x1 is a ceramic tile of will sometimes use a more precise specific ceramic x2 lujvo the first time I introduce a drutapla x1 is a ceiling/roof concept, and then omit a term or tile of composition x2 two from it thereafter. Thus [A GPL. It isn't specific as to having once said "samymrilu" I whether ceiling or roof tiles are will thereafter quite happily use needed. But if you're tiling your "mrilu" later in the passage. roof, and you say, "Joe, hand me that drutapla", you aren't likely to be misunderstood. It's the same thing in English. When 42 tiling a roof, you don't keep be 7 such common characters, we repeating "roof tile" over and don't have enough to make much of over. You eventually just say a choice yet. "tile".] Also included later this issue zdabartu drutapla "roof tile" is Nick Nicholas's second ckafy- [There may well be an easier way barja piece, written last year, to say this. "bartu drutapla" which he was revising at the time might not clearly mean "roof JL17 was being prepared. tile". I don't know anything about carpentry or the like, but Character Sketch "bartu drutapla" could be some by Zoe Velonis kind of "exterior ceiling tile" as opposed to an interior one.] She had the kind of body that po'ertutra x1 is territory clothes couldn't contain. It (property) owned by x2 wasn't that she was so fat that ni'ablo x1 is a submarine she burst out of whatever she [I experimented with a number of wore, that her flesh strained different terms for "submarine", against the warp and the weft, but but I think this sums it up that she had the kind of body that nicely. I had "sfeni'ablo", but clothes just shouldn't confine. "sfe-" turned out to be rather Her bra straps were forever redundant: What else would it be falling down: she'd go about the under but the surface?] kitchen tugging at one absent- zalre'u x1 is ground meat from mindedly as she stirred a source x2 [A good GPL.] concoction. Buttons would fly off remso'a x1 is a human ovum from at a moment's notice, turning up woman x2 later in a bowl of soup. The remtsi x1 is human sperm from zipper of her jeans had to be human x2 anchored with a safety pin else it cticinza ["cinza" used for would slowly creep down, leaving eating] her blushing. benmro brain-dead Her naked body was voluptuous, [Lojbab: A little unclear what resplendent, Rubenesque. Never of you mean by this - the most common the personality to subscribe to colloquial usage of the English, the feminine beauty myth, she of course, is merely a form of exuded both femininity and beauty, "mabla". If you are referring to from her thighs to her belly to the medical state, this seems her gloriously round and pendulous fine.] breasts. jiksre x1 errs socially in x2 He would come to her at night, ["social faux-pas".] creep into her bed and bury menmikce [A general purpose himself in her warm, soft flesh; lujvo: "psychiatrist, nestling his face between her psychologist, counselor" thighs and reaching up for huge etc.] handfuls of her breasts, marvelling at her bounty as she tossed her head and moaned with le lojbo se ciska pleasure. She surrounded him, New ckafybarja Submissions took him in, made him feel complete. It appears that theres been In the daytime she never gave little work done on the ckafybarja any sign that she knew of his project since JL17, and I am nightly visits. She was the cook, beginning to think that the he a busboy, and there was no hint schedule for the planning phase of affection or shared pleasure, was much too ambitious. The only much less gratitude, in her voice new material received was one as she thrust dishes at him, English-language personality giving him instructions in a firm, sketch, giving us 3 to choose clipped voice that bore no con- from. Since there are planned to tradictions. 43 He'd worshipped her beauty for jeans. Breath came in short weeks, in the beginning, longing gasps. for her, his flesh aching for her, "Have you ever been with a woman his mind consumed by the demands before?" she asked. of his loins. He'd sneak outside Mute, he shook his head. It was the cafe' at night, stare up at the truth: his absentminded the window he knew was her room as penetration of his sister's best she turned on the light. He'd friend when they were all playing watch, hypnotized, as she lan- doctor behind the abandoned barn guorously disrobed, brushed her didn't count. She took his hand hair, leaned out of the window to and led him into the room, whose breathe deeply of the night air. walls were covered with tapestry Her breasts shone like twin moons bedspreads that exuded odors of as she drank in the night, erasing frankincense and patchouli. She the scents of garlic and rosemary, guided him to the bed and butter and tomatoes from her nos- undressed him carefully, opened trils. Once, as he watched, she herself to him and then, when he laughed, a low, quiet chuckle, and had spent his first desire in her, opened her arms in an embrace. taught him how to pleasure a woman "Come up then, why don't you," she as well as himself. said, her voice rich with a He realized, at one point, that melodiousness off nuance that it he didn't know her name, that she never had during the day. His didn't know his. Somehow it breath caught in his ribs, clung seemed desperately urgent that she there until he remembered and whisper his name at her climax, opened his lungs again. "Me?" he but when he told her, she only asked, desperately grateful that laughed. his voice didn't display that And now she was just another annoying habit it had lately, of part of the day to him, the thing cracking when he particularly that he escaped to when his shift wanted it not to. "No, the other was over each night, threading his people who are out there watching way through the tables and up the me every night," she said, the stairs to her soft, endless flesh. laughter still in her voice. She was always the same, never So he went back into the cafe', cried or wept or showed that past the night janitor who anything touched her emotion. whistled as he wiped down tables Her laughter, though rich, was and mopped the floor, who gave him only amusement, never joy or a knowing wink that made him all happiness; and he wondered if the the more nervous. He went through walls would echo with her moans of the kitchen and paused at the foot pleasure without him, if she even of the stairs, put, finally, one needed him. So one night he foot on the first protesting step. stayed away. Thirteen stairs, he counted, and She looked the same the next crossed himself. He turned down day, but the one after, her face the hall, past the head waiter's seemed drawn. He watched her room, the manager's to her room. carefully, but she never said As he stood outside, breathing anything to him or to anyone, and heavily, his pants distended with although for a month she grew his desire, she opened the door. paler and thinner, stopped tugging Her nakedness was more than he'd at her bra straps, and although dreamed of. Not perfect: he her cooking grew bland and could see the silvery stretch tasteless, the decline finally marks on her breasts and thighs, ended. Her color came back and the moles and freckles, the pits her voluptuousness was even more and scars of age. But her irresistible. He thought that she imperfection only made her more had found a new lover and, jealous achingly real, more desirable, and more than he had thought himself his genitals throbbed against his capable of being, he mounted the stairs one night to see. 44 There were no sounds from her indirectly to several other room and he had almost turned away changes. when he heard her low rumble of a In most cases, proposals laugh. He opened the door quietly discussed in this section have and peered into the darkness. been adopted in some form, The window was open, making the although not always in the form tapestried bedspreads billow in originally proposed in the the air, sending out whiffs of discussion. Sometimes, for ex- their scent like tendrilled ivy. ample, we were able to resolve a And she...her bed faced the window problem just by explaining things and on the ceiling was a mirror. a little better, or possibly by She lay, legs spread wide to the making a change to the cmavo list night, looking up at herself, and (adding or deleting a word, or laughed a laugh of joy and happi- changing the selma'o or detailed ness. As he watched, she moaned definition). and tossed her head in that way he knew so well, and then she cried Proposed Changes 1-32 to the 2nd out, syllables that formed what he Baseline Lojban Grammar knew must be her name, and wept, tears of release and happiness as [Terminology note: Ek, JEk, well as pain and emotion. GIhEk, ZIhEk, GUhEk, JOIk, etc., He crept out, closing the door have traditionally been used to softly behind him, and tried to refer to the sets of logical/non- blank out the emptiness inside him logical connectives of the with alcohol, tried to forget that appropriate type, and their the night and the mirror and her compounds that involve negation of own hand had done what he never either the preceding or following could. term (or scalar negation of the It was then that the cafe' began connective in the case of JOI). to become very popular, then that This is a useful shorthand when its cook began to acquire her talking about these families of reputation for food with the compounds that are function indefinable passion, mer'aki, for identically in the grammar.] being a chef unparalleled by any before. Executive Summary: 1) Change Ek+KE and GIhEk+KE to Grammar Changes lowest precedence 2) The next section of this issue Add JEk+BO construction is the largest, and deals 3) primarily with changes to the Add various new free modifier grammar. We first present the locations proposed changes to the Lojban 4) grammar baseline, which will Add ZEI compounds become official with book 5) publication. Detailed discussions Allow observative after GI in of a few of these, recorded at the forethought connected sentences time they were proposed, will 6) reveal a bit about how the Regularize BOI with free decisions to change the grammar modifiers are made, and perhaps show that 7) such decisions are never made Simplify relative-clause lightly. connection to "zi'e" only The largest portion of this 8) discussion is devoted to the Allow I+BO at the beginning of change in Lojban relative clauses, text which is centered on Change 9) Proposal number 20, but also led Allow bare NAI at the beginning of text 45 10) 30) Allow any kind of JOI in Allow afterthought JOI in forethought termsets 11) 31) Remove POhO Allow JOI+BO and JOI+KE parallel 12) to E+BO, JE+BO, and JE+KE Allow full selbri after NIhE 32) 13) Allow JAI without following tag, Disallow NAhE in forethought as unclefter termsets 14) CHANGE 1 Allow multiple I or I+BO at the CURRENT LANGUAGE: beginning of text Currently, the logical 15) connective constructs Ek+KE (and Allow conversion of abstract and GIhEk+KE) have higher precedence negated selbri (bind more tightly) than either 16) Ek+BO (GIhEk+BO) or Ek(GIhEk) Allow ZAhO+NAI for contradictory constructs. negation of event contours PROPOSED CHANGE: 17) Give Ek+KE (GIhEk+KE) the lowest Merge LUhI into LAhE; make precedence among Eks (GIhEks). NAhE+BO equivalent to LAhE RATIONALE: 18) In 1987 (NB3 = Notebook 3 TLI) Merge BRODA and LEhAVLA into Loglan, the equivalent of Ek+KE BRIVLA and GIhEk+KE had low precedence. 19) In the first Lojban baseline, Regularize rule names in YACC Ek+KEs had been changed to high and E-BNF versions and update precedence, and in the second comments baseline, GIhEk+KEs were changed 20) to follow. In writing the logical Revise grammar of relative connective paper, considering clause incorporation in sumti constructs like 21) A .e B .ake C .e D ANNULLED suggested that the most reasonable 22) interpretation is: Change description of Step 5 in (A .e B) .ake (C .e D) preparsing to match reality Therefore, this change restores 23) the original Loglan situation, Allow CUhE to be logically which supports that grouping. connected to other tenses; forbid NAhE+KI CHANGE 2 24) CURRENT LANGUAGE: Allow KI after CAhA (and Currently, there is no way to including it) rather than before group tanru components logically 25) in pure afterthought. The only Disallow NA [tag] after CO in alternatives are: inverted tanru X je Y ja Z 26) which groups left to right Allow only selbri rather than (X je Y) ja Z bridi-tail after NAhU and 27) X je ke Y ja Z [ke'e] Allow I, I+BO, NIhO after TUhE which groups right to left 28) X je (ke Y ja Z [ke'e]) Create NAU+tag as a non-logical but is a hybrid of forethought and connective (probably ANNULLED) afterthought. 29) PROPOSED CHANGE: Change MAhO from lerfu-to- Allow operator conversion to mekso-to- X je (Y ja bo Z) operator analogously to A .e (B .abo C) 46 in sumti. CHANGE 4 RATIONALE: CURRENT LANGUAGE: Uniformity and flexibility. There is no way to construct lujvo that involve le'avla or CHANGE 3 cmavo, unless the cmavo have been PROPOSED CHANGE: assigned rafsi. Allow free modifiers (such as PROPOSED CHANGE: subscripts, vocatives, and Add the metalinguistic cmavo metalinguistic comments) in the "zei" (selma'o ZEI) which will following new places: join the word before it and the after LOhO when not elided word after it into a construct after LAhE for both sumti and treated by the parser as of MEX operands selma'o BRIVLA. More than two after CO words can be joined by using after CEI multiple "zei"s. The words "zo", after NU[NAI] "zoi", "la'o", "lo'u", "le'u", and after NA preceding a selbri or a "fa'o" cannot participate, since GEk-bridi-tail they are delimiters of quoted after NAhE BO text, which will be resolved by after NAhE, except in tenses and the lexer before compounding with within NAhE+BO (which are lexer "zei". compounds) RATIONALE: after TUhE Other methods of incorporating after TEhU when not elided le'avla into lujvo are extremely RATIONALE: error-prone and subject to a Increased flexibility. multitude of special-case tests. No method of incorporating cmavo into lujvo has ever existed, encouraging speculative assignment of rafsi to cmavo that might be used in lujvo. (TLI Loglan allows incorporating lerfu into compounds using a 'magic' compounding method.) CHANGE 5 CURRENT LANGUAGE: It is not currently grammatical to say: ge mi klama le zarci gi klama fa mi le zdani PROPOSED CHANGE: Allow logically connected sentences wherein the first sentence has terms before the selbri but the second one does not. (The reverse situation is still forbidden, because it looks like bridi-tail connection to a LALR(1) parser.) RATIONALE: The previous restriction was arbitrary and unnecessary. CHANGE 6 CURRENT LANGUAGE: "boi" gets special treatment unlike that of all other elidable terminators. In all other cases, free modifiers may optionally ap- 47 pear after the elidable terminator types (restrictive and non- (in which case it can't be restrictive). elided). Free modifiers must be Mark Shoulson comments: This placed before "boi", however, one I have some trouble with. because "boi" is used to terminate I'll concede that in most cases, subscripts, and subscripts are a GIhEks and the like within the species of free modifier. relative clause will suffice for PROPOSED CHANGE: logical connection, but there Regularize the rules for "boi" are some things that we lose by so that it takes free modifiers dropping ZIhEks. For one thing, after it, except that no free how could we do logical modifiers at all are permitted on connections (other than "AND", a "boi" that terminates a of course) between restrictive subscript. ("ve'o" already has and non-restrictive clauses? this split personality: no free Granted, I can't think of much modifiers if it is terminating a of an application for such an subscript, but allowed otherwise.) animal, but it may be a needed RATIONALE: construct. Simplicity and regularity. A Also, we lose logical new convention is needed for connections between NOI phrases subscripts on subscripts, however; and GOI descriptions. This one so we simply declare that actually has applications. For consecutive subscripts are taken example, a system of locking to be nested. things on many MUDs (Multi-User Dimensions: text-based, multi- CHANGE 7 user, user-extensible thingies CURRENT LANGUAGE: that are sort of adventure games Multiple relative clauses can or chat programs, (or something only be placed on a single sumti in-between) depending on how by connecting them with logical people choose to use them) often connectives, namely ZIhEks. works with methods like "A PROPOSED CHANGE: person who is carrying the key, Eliminate ZIhEks except for a or who is Herman, can pass single cmavo, "zi'e" of selma'o through this door." In the old ZIhE, which places two relative method, this is neatly done with clauses on the same sumti but does "lo prenu poi ponse le ckiku not count as a logical connection. zi'a po'u la xerman. cuka'e RATIONALE: pagre levi vorme". No muss, no There is some doubt whether any fuss. In the new method, we'd of the ZIhEks make sense other have to expand out the "po'u" to than "zi'e", which puts both get "lo prenu poi ponse le ckiku relative clauses into effect. gi'a du la xerman. li'u", which Unlike other logical connectives, granted is okay, but loses the ZIhEks cannot be split up into whole point of having "po'u" in multiple sentences. The existing the first place (it can always implementation of ZIhEks was be expanded). (actually, an incomplete, and did not allow the even more Lojbanic translation, full functionality of other in the old grammar, would be "lo logical connectives, and there is prenu pe le ckiku zi'a po'u la no easy way to make them work. xerman.", taking advantage of Analysis shows that the most the symmetrical nature of "pe"). likely combinations of relative John Cowan responds: Mark has clauses can be easily expressed presented the first useful with other types of logical rationale for "zi'a" that I connectives within a single have ever seen: "poi broda relative clause. The only zi'a po'u la xerman." restriction this places on the Nonetheless, I still think language is the as-yet-unused that the logical problems of situation of a non-AND connection "poi broda zi'V noi brode" are between two relatives of different overwhelming; if we were going 48 to split up NOI and POI (and PROPOSED CHANGE: GOI and PO) into separate sel- Remove POhO. ma'o, there might be a RATIONALE: rationale, but we aren't. Earlier versions of the grammar required POhO, possibly due to an CHANGE 8 implementation weakness in the CURRENT LANGUAGE: YACC version used in developing Currently, a text can begin with that grammar. It is never a bare ".i" or an I+JEk, but not necessary because it can always be with an ".ibabo". elided, so it serves no purpose PROPOSED CHANGE: except to clutter the grammar. Allow I+BO, I+JEk+BO, I+tense+BO, and I+JEk+tense+BO at CHANGE 12 the beginning of text. CURRENT LANGUAGE: RATIONALE: Only a restricted form of selbri Allows people to complete each (simple selbri plus optional other's expressions by adding linked sumti) are currently causals, presuppositions, and the allowed after NIhE. like. PROPOSED CHANGE: Allow any kind of selbri. CHANGE 9 RATIONALE: CURRENT LANGUAGE: The former restriction was meant Theoretically a text may begin to remove ambiguity, but now that with "nai", and this bare "nai" is the TEhU delimiter has been taken as attitudinal. However, introduced, it does the necessary the parser does not currently job, and so a full selbri is handle bare initial "nai" in permissible. This grammar is also embedded texts within quotes or parallel to that of MOhE, which parentheses. allows a full sumti. PROPOSED CHANGE: Allow bare initial "nai" CHANGE 13 explicitly within the grammar CURRENT LANGUAGE: rather than as a preparser hack. In forethought termsets, a NAhE RATIONALE: is allowed just after the NUhI. Uniformity and consistency. PROPOSED CHANGE: Disallow this NAhE. CHANGE 10 RATIONALE: CURRENT LANGUAGE: Nobody can figure out what it Forethought JOIks (also known as might mean to have a scalar JOIGIks) are restricted in their negation of a termset, a construct syntax. In particular, GAhO which currently exists solely to brackets are not permitted in implement a certain kind of forethought. logical connective. What does it PROPOSED CHANGE: mean to scalar-negate not a term Permit any sort of JOIk, so that but the logical connection of two JOIGIks are any JOIk + "gi". or more terms? RATIONALE: COUNTER-ARGUMENT: Simplicity and uniformity, plus Change 30 makes explicit the use the ability to specify GAhO of non-logical connectives in brackets on forethought intervals. termsets, and scalar negation of such non-logical termsets makes CHANGE 11 some sense, possibly enough to CURRENT LANGUAGE: justify the status quo, even Three kinds of fragmentary though no usage has yet been found utterances (bare I with or without to support it. JEk or modal, bare number, bare STATUS: NA) currently have a special This change has been terminator "po'o" (of selma'o incorporated in the current draft POhO). This terminator is always of the new baseline, but will be elidable. reconsidered at least once before 49 final baseline for book CHANGE 14 publication. If any Lojbanists CURRENT LANGUAGE: can propose an authentic use for Only a single instance of I or the construct, this will be I+BO (and their related compounds) considered in the final decision. is allowed at the beginning of text (per change 8 above). PROPOSED CHANGE: Allow multiple Is or I+BOs consecutively. RATIONALE: Symmetry and simplicity. With the elimination of POhO, multiple Is are now allowed at the end of texts and between sentences. CHANGE 15 CURRENT LANGUAGE: It is not possible to convert an abstract selbri [NU + bridi] or one that has been (scalar) negated [NAhE + selbri]. PROPOSED CHANGE: Allow these forms. The place structure of [NAhE + selbri] is that of the original selbri. RATIONALE: Simplicity and uniformity. CHANGE 16 CURRENT LANGUAGE: PU and FAhA allow -NAI for contradictory negation. This is not very useful on tenses (punai = na pu), but very useful for sumti tcita to deny that the relationship holds. ZAhO cannot take -NAI, although it is also useful as a sumti tcita. PROPOSED CHANGE: Allow ZAhO+NAI. RATIONALE: Consistency and general usefulness: mi morsi ca'onai le nu mi jmive I am dead, but it is not the case that this is so during my life. CHANGE 17 CURRENT LANGUAGE: There are three kinds of qualifiers which can be prefixed to a sumti, giving another sumti: - LAhE provides indirect reference, indirect discourse, and sumti raising; - LUhI changes sumti between individuals, sets, and masses; - [NAhE+BO] provides sumti scalar negation. 50 LUhI has terminator LUhU; the CHANGE 18 others have no terminators. LAhE CURRENT LANGUAGE: is also allowed on mekso operands. Technically, brivla fall into PROPOSED CHANGE: three selma'o: LEhAVLA (for Merge LAhE and LUhI into a le'avla), BRODA (for single selma'o, with the current broda/brode/brodi/brodo/ brodu), grammar of LUhI but named LAhE and BRIVLA (for everything else). (for compatibility with the past). PROPOSED CHANGE: Allow the same grammar for sumti Merge LEhAVLA and BRODA into and for MEX operands. Change BRIVLA. NAhE+BO grammar to be the same as RATIONALE: LAhE, thus allowing it on operands The grammar is identical and the as well. machine parser has never bothered RATIONALE: to make the distinction anyway. Proposed changes to the sumti It is a relic of long-ago pre- grammar (including Change 20 baseline versions. below) make LAhE and NAhE+BO messy without terminators. Merging them CHANGE 19 with LUhI allows greater PROPOSED CHANGE: generality (expanding the Various rule names: expressiveness of the language) bri_string -> selbri and simplicity, without needing to bri_unit -> tanru_unit add a new terminator. NAhE+BO is header_terms -> prenex a compound and cannot be merged utt_string -> paragraph directly, but can be made cmene_A_404 -> cmene_404 grammatically equivalent. ekroot -> ek_root no_FIhO_PU_mod -> simple_tag sentenceA -> sentence_A indicators_412 -> indicators_A_412 bridi_valsi_408 -> bridi_valsi_A_408 JOIk_JEk_957 -> simple_JOIk_JEk_957 PA_812 -> number_812 PA_root_961 -> number_root_961 BY_string_817 -> lerfu_string_817 BY_string_A_986 -> lerfu_string_root_986 modal_972 -> simple_tense_aspect_972 modal_A_973 -> simple_tense_aspect_A_973 modal_B_974 -> modal_974 modal_C_975 -> modal_A_975 BY_987 -> lerfu_word_987 space_time_* -> space_* (where "*" stands for each of several letters) interval_mod_1050 -> interval_modifier_1050 interval_prop_1051 -> interval_property_1051. RATIONALE: Consistency between the YACC grammar and the E-BNF version and other documents. Also, this results in no two rules differing only in number. (Some rules have the same names as selma'o, though.) 51 RATIONALE: CHANGE 20 The current grammar appears to CURRENT LANGUAGE: group relative clauses with the (See JL18 text article!) "inside set" of a description Relative clauses on descriptions sumti, that portion of a sumti are grouped by the parser so as to including from the LE to the KU attach to sumti before outside which includes the inside quantifiers are put on. The quantifier and not the outside actual semantics of what is being quantifier. In the case of non- attached has been pragmatically restrictive "lo" descriptions, and determined, and analysis has now possibly some others, this is not shown that this can theoretically what is normally intended. be vague/ambiguous or even lim- Example: "pa lo sipna noi iting to expression in the melbi" groups as "pa <lo sipna noi language, though work-arounds melbi>" apparently adding the probably exist for all problems incidental claim that "all raised. sleepers are beautiful". PROPOSED CHANGE: The problem manifests itself in Allow the distinction between a various forms more completely relative clause attaching to the documented in a long paper by "inside set", excluding external Colin Fine, but the bottom line is quantifiers, of a description. A that the existing grammar is vague relative clause outside the KU as to what a relative clause will refer to the entire sumti. A attaches to, and there are relative clause inside the KU will definable cases where this generally be preposed so as to vagueness can lead to unacceptable parallel the historical pseudo- ambiguity. possessive which is recognized as The proposed solution has the a transformation of an inside-set secondary virtues of: relative clause. However, 1) making pseudo-possessives postposed relative clauses will be visibly match the parallel inside- inside by default, matching the set relative clauses, but without way in which the parser inserts overt relative clause marking; elidable terminators (i.e. only if 2) making it obvious how to needed). express a pseudo-possessive with a Comparable expansion of the quantifier ("le ci mi broda" is a relative clause possibilities complete sentence and not a sumti, inside vocatives is incorporated since "le ci mi" is a complete in this proposal. sumti. With preposed inside-set relative clauses, "le pecimi broda" is unambiguously a sumti.); and 3) the problematical "[quantifier] [quantifier] [description]" is eliminated from the language (analysis can give a meaning for this expression of "[quantifier] lo [quantifier] lo [description]", and it has even been used once or twice, but experience has shown that the analysis is counter- intuitive to many people, who see also "[quantifier1] lo [description] [quantifier2]-mei" as plausible). Postposed inside relatives are allowed in all descriptions, so the preposed/postposed distinction becomes a forethought/afterthought distinction, which can be 52 valuable. Existing texts retain their currently official inside- le yes no noi relative interpretation (unless ci le sipna noi melbi the KU is explicitly present, a [ci (le su'oci sipna noi melbi rarity), which is arguably ku)] desirable as the default (though 3 of the sleepers, who are it must be recognized that there beautiful... are text examples where the speaker obviously wanted to apply le yes yes poi the relative clause to the exter- re le ci sipna poi melbi nally quantified sumti.) The re (le ci sipna poi melbi ku) negative tradeoff of this is that re le ci sipna ku poi melbi KU becomes always required when [re (le ci sipna ku)] poi melbi you want an external relative [The] two of the 3 sleepers who clause. (Other options were are beautiful... considered and rejected by the The Lojban in this case makes the net-based Lojban community.) distinction based on presence of Preposed relative clauses (but the "ku", forcing the speaker to not relative phrases) will almost think about the distinction when always require a terminator, important. though monosyllabic "vau" is usually as applicable as "ku'o". le yes yes noi The following analyzes all re le ci sipna noi melbi definite and indefinite relative re (le ci sipna noi melbi ku) clause cases. re le ci sipna ku noi melbi [re (le ci sipna ku)] noi melbi Descriptor External inte Two of the 3 sleepers, who are rnal noi/poi beautiful... quantifier quantif The Lojban in this case makes the ier distinction based on presence of present present the "ku", forcing the speaker to think about the distinction when le no no poi important. le sipna poi melbi [ro (le su'o sipna poi melbi ku)] lo no no poi The sleepers who are beautiful... lo sipna poi melbi [su'o (lo ro sipna poi melbi ku)] le no no noi Sleepers who are beautiful... le sipna noi melbi [ro (le su'o sipna noi melbi ku)] lo no no noi The sleepers, who are beautiful... lo sipna noi melbi [su'o (lo ro sipna noi melbi ku)] le no yes poi Sleepers, who are beautiful... le ci sipna poi melbi ro (le ci sipna poi melbi ku) lo no yes poi The 3 sleepers who are lo ci sipna poi melbi beautiful... su'o (lo ci sipna poi melbi ku) At least one of the 3 in the le no yes noi universe that sleep who are beau- le ci sipna noi melbi tiful... ro (le ci sipna noi melbi ku) (the following is a more likely The 3 sleepers, who are example:) beautiful... lomi ci cukta poi melbi su'o (lomi ci cukta poi melbi ku) le yes no poi At least one of my 3 books that ci le sipna poi melbi are beautiful... [ci (le su'oci sipna poi melbi (Quantifying the inside set ku)] emphasizes it so that the restric- 3 of the sleepers who are tion applying to it seems natural beautiful... - natural enough that English 53 requires forcing an indefinite lo yes no poi description if there is an inside ci lo sipna poi melbi quantifier.) [ci (lo rosu'oci sipna poi melbi ku)] lo no yes noi 3 sleepers who are beautiful... lo ci sipna noi melbi With no inside quantifier, the su'o (lo ci sipna noi melbi ku) English becomes an indefinite, and At least one of the 3 in the there is no suggestion that there universe that sleep, who are is an inside-set, much less that beautiful... the relative clause relates to it. Likewise in the current Lojban which is equivalent to the indefinite ci sipna poi melbi (which under this change will have the ku after the melbi to separate from other sumti). The restrictive clause unambiguously talks only about the 3 sleepers, since in an indefinite there is no internal quantifier to put secondary focus on the inside set - the set of all sleepers. If the inside quantifier "ro" was present, under this change the restrictive clause would attach to the inside set unless explicitly closed off with "ku". ci lo ro sipna poi melbi ci (lo ro sipna poi melbi) Three out of all sleepers who are beautiful. ci lo ro sipna ku poi melbi ci (lo ro sipna ku) poi melbi [The only] three of all sleepers who are beautiful. lo yes no noi ci lo sipna noi melbi [ci (lo [rosu'oci] sipna noi melbi [ku])] 3 sleepers, who are beautiful... (The English again becomes an indefinite and the incidental clause goes outside. Note that this time, the English remains ambiguous and odd-sounding no matter how you phrase it: ?3 of sleepers, who are beautiful... ?3 of those sleepers, who are beautiful... unless you go to 3 who sleep, who are beautiful... which is better reflected in Lojban as ci da poi sipna zi'e noi melbi which accurately puts the relative clause outside. 54 lo yes yes poi The comments in question were re lo ci sipna poi melbi written presuming that the parser re (lo ci sipna poi melbi ku) would use method 5b, i.e. re lo ci sipna ku poi melbi insertion of lexer tokens. All [re (lo ci sipna ku)] poi melbi actual practice has employed Two of 3 sleepers who are method 5a, i.e. replacement of beautiful... lexer compounds by single tokens. (The English is totally ambiguous It seemed to be more useful to as to which sleepers are document actual practice: 5a and beautiful, and the Lojban in this 5b have different ordering case makes the distinction based implications. on presence of the "ku", forcing the speaker to think about the CHANGE 23 distinction when important.) PRESENT LANGUAGE: The current rules for connecting lo yes yes noi "cu'e", the tense/modal question, re lo ci sipna noi melbi with other tenses using JEks or re (lo ci sipna noi melbi ku) JOIks are erroneous and hopelessly re lo ci sipna ku noi melbi irrational. "cu'e je bai" is [re (lo ci sipna ku)] noi melbi legal but "bai je cu'e" is not. Two of 3 sleepers, who are Also, "na'e ki" is legal but beautiful... meaningless. (The unlikely English is totally PROPOSED CHANGE: ambiguous as to which sleepers are Put "cu'e" on a level with beautiful, and the Lojban in this space/time tenses and with modals. case makes the distinction based No modifiers such as scalar on presence of the "ku", forcing negation are allowed to affect it. the speaker to think about the This is what Imaginary Journeys distinction when important.) (John Cowan's paper on Lojban tenses published with JL16) says. IMPORTANT NOTE: Change 20 Put bare "ki" on the same level; affects nearly all of the sumti this does not affect "ki" grammar rules. There may be following modals or tenses. unforeseen side effects, although RATIONALE: analysis so far has shown that the The YACC grammar said one thing, only reduction in expression is the E-BNF another, and Imaginary the confusing "[quantifier] [quan- Jourmeys a third. The Imaginary tifier] [description]" which has a Journeys version is clearly what much clearer equivalent. makes sense. NAhE+KI was the However, the introduction of unintended result of a previous such a major change at this late fix intended to get bare KI stage of the project makes it working. highly controversial, as any problems may show up too late to CHANGE 24 be easily fixed (i.e. after books CURRENT LANGUAGE: are published). In complex tenses, the optional CAhA (for potentiality) comes CHANGE 21: ANNULLED after KI, and therefore cannot be made sticky. CHANGE 22 PROPOSED CHANGE: PROPOSED CHANGE: Place the optional CAhA before Bring the description of lexer the optional KI. compounding (Step 5 of the RATIONALE: preparser) in the comments at the Sticky CAhA is not unreasonable. beginning of the grammar into conformance with the way the CHANGE 25 current implementation (as well as CURRENT LANGUAGE: all its predecessors) actually do It is currently legal, though things. pointless, to insert NA RATIONALE: (contradictory bridi negation) 55 after the CO of an inverted tanru, CHANGE 26 rather than in its usual place at CURRENT LANGUAGE: the beginning of the selbri. NAhU is used to construct a Furthermore, it is possible to mekso operator out of a regular follow such a NA with a tag or Lojban predicate. The current another NA or various grammar allows a bridi-tail to be combinations. used after NAhU. PROPOSED CHANGE: PROPOSED CHANGE: Disallow them by splitting up Allow a selbri only, with no current rule 131, which conflates following sumti. CO handling with NA handling. RATIONALE: RATIONALE: In a context like The disallowed constructs have li by. na'u broda te'u cy. never been used by anybody, have the number B # C no advantages over the normal use where "#" represents the nonce of tenses/negation at the operator, the elidable terminator beginning of the selbri, and may "te'u" turns out to be always tend to confuse people if used - required. If it is omitted, the they look like a negation/tense "cy." is interpreted as part of that applies only to the second the bridi-tail. Reducing the half of the selbri, a meaningless generality of what is permitted notion. makes elidability much more likely. The original reason for allowing the bridi-tail was that some of the places of the general predicate may be non-numerical, and allowing sumti permits those places to be "plugged up" and not used in the operator. However, the same effect can be achieved by binding any such sumti into the selbri with "be...bei...be'o". CHANGE 27 CURRENT LANGUAGE: Normally, I, I+BO, and NIhO are allowed only between sentences; for special effects, however, they may also be used at the beginning of text. This initial use is not permitted, however, in portions of text grouped by "tu'e...tu'u". (See change 8, 9, and 14 for related beginning-of-text changes.) PROPOSED CHANGE: Allow I, I+BO, and NIhO after TUhE. RATIONALE: Increased flexibility. In particular, leading "ni'oni'oni'o..." may be required to set the maximum level of "ni'o" nesting that will be used in the text enclosed by "tu'e...tu'u". CHANGE 28: (Probably ANNULLED) CURRENT LANGUAGE: 56 The draft textbook had a cmavo closely inter-related with this "moi" used to attach a relative change.] phrase to a sumti 'modally'. i.e. PROPOSED CHANGE: neither restrictively or non- Assign the cmavo "nau" to the restrictively. As part of an latter use. Since "sumti NAU tag early cmavo change, "moi" was sumti" is really a kind of non- combine into the non-restrictive logical connection between sumti, "ne" because at the time there was it no longer makes sense to treat not seen to be any logical dis- it as a relative phrase; this tinction between the two. This grammar change makes "NAU tag" a was an error. kind of non-logical connective, The relative-phrase introducer usable between sumti, tanru units, "ne" is used before a tagged sumti operators, and operands only. in two different ways: to add COUNTER-ARGUMENT: incidental information (the non- This mechanism only works restrictive equivalent of "pe"), correctly if a second place is and to attach a new sumti to the implicitly given the modal or bridi, modally associating it with tense tag. For tenses, the second some already existing sumti. place is the space/time origin; Paradigm cases are: for the comparatives, it is what mi nelci la .apasionatas ne fi'e is being compared; for the la betoven. causals, it is the effect (and I like the Appassionata, created vice versa). But for a tag such by Beethoven. as "bau", using the x2 place of and "bangu" simply isn't useful. la djan. nelci la betis. ne For most uses of this semau la meris. construction, the right thing to John likes Betty more than (he do is to use the actual underlying likes) Mary. gismu, which has all the necessary respectively. In the former places: recast pure comparisons sentence, "ne fi'e la betoven." using "zmadu", "mleca", or means no more than "noi la "dunli". If you want to betoven. finti"; in the latter simultaneously make positive and sentence, however, "ne semau la comparative claims, use meris." does not mean "noi la ".esemaubo". To apply tags meris. se zmadu", since the separately to the two parts of a information is essential to the non-logical connective ("I in bridi, not merely incidental. Lojban, with you in English, That is, John may like Betty more discuss"), use Change 30's non- than Mary, but not really 'like' logical termset connection. Betty or Mary at all. In fact, It has been argued that the the second example generally standard use of "semau" in means: relative phrases is logically le ni la djan. nelci la betis. cu misleading. If we are saying that zmadu le ni la djan. nelci la "John likes Betty more than (he meris. likes) Mary", the essential claim The amount-of John's liking Betty is not "likes"/"nelci" but "zmadu" is-more-than the amount- as stated above, and the main of John's liking Mary. bridi should therefore be "zmadu". The confusion between the two This essential logical structure types of "ne" is unacceptably is hidden by the status quo, and ambiguous. The second type is to some extent by the proposed especially valuable with "semau" change. The counter-argument to and "seme'a", and has seen this, that natural language usage considerable use, but this use is of comparison warrants an contrary to the nominal definition abbreviated form, is logically of `ne'. [See Greg Higley's unsound. article on JOI, elsewhere in this Change 28 will probably not be issue, for a discussion that was accepted, and is not incorporated into the published E-BNF, but is 57 being retained here until all RATIONALE: interested parties have seen the Some flavors of mathematics arguments on all sides. (lambda calculus, algebra of PROPOSAL: functions) blur the distinction Clarify that "ne semau" is non- between operators and operands. restrictive, not simply Currently, an operator can be comparative. This means that the changed into an operand with example Lojban sentence above "ni'ena'u", which transforms the requires that John like both Betty operator into a matching selbri and Mary, in order for the non- and then the selbri into an restrictive "ne semau" phrase to operand. The reverse transaction be true. By comparison, the is not readily possible. English can be used if John likes There is a potential semantic Betty, but doesn't like Mary. ambiguity in "ma'o fy. [te'u]" if This clarification requires no "fy." is already in use as a grammar change, but substantial variable: it comes to mean "the reworking of draft textbook lesson function whose value is always 6. 'f'". However, mathematicians do not normally use "f" as a normal CHANGE 29 variable, so this case should not CURRENT LANGUAGE: arise in practice. The flag "ma'o" (of selma'o MAhO) is used to convert a CHANGE 30 letteral string to a mekso CURRENT LANGUAGE: operator. It serves to disam- Termsets are defined with biguate uses of "f" or "g" as logical connectives only. names of functions from the Forethought non-logical identical-looking uses of "x" or connectives (JOIGIks) are allowed "y" as names of variables. also, but only as a by-product of PROPOSED CHANGE: their grammatical equivalence with Allow any mekso to follow GEks. "ma'o". This involves changing PROPOSED CHANGE: the terminator to "te'u", the Explicitly allow afterthought general mekso terminator. non-logical connectives (JOIks) in termsets. RATIONALE: Sentences like: nu'i mi bau la lojban nu'u joi do bau la gliban. cu casnu I in-language Lojban joined-with you in-language English discuss. are not possible without termsets. The effect of a non-logically connected termset is to non- logically connect each of the corresponding terms in an inseparably cross-linked way. CHANGE 31 CURRENT LANGUAGE: Logical connections can be grouped closely (with BO) or loosely (with KE), but non-logical connectives cannot, except in forethought. This is a hangover from Loglan days, when there was only one non-logical connective and grouping was irrelevant. PROPOSED CHANGE: 58 Allow JOIk+BO between sumti, case, "jai" is equivalent to "jai tanru units, and operands; and gau". JOIk+KE between sumti and Note that this type of sumti- operands. We already allow raising is semantically ambiguous, JOIk+KE in tanru and operators, as is "tu'a" sumti-raising. The because no cmavo compounding is natural raised sumti may not required. always be the actor. In the above example, the bracketed "mi" is RATIONALE: implied to be the agent because it Completeness: "the set of red- is omitted from the abstraction in joi-blue and green-joi-black the "fai" place. If Jim were also things" can now be done with omitted from the abstraction: "cebo" as the middle "and". mi jai jenca la djein. fai le nu catra. CHANGE 32 I shock Jane by the event-of CURRENT LANGUAGE: killing. Currently, "jai" (selma'o JAI) it is not clear whether it is my is used only with a following tag doing the killing or being the one (tense or modal), and causes a killed is the event that shocks modal conversion analogous to the Jane (ignoring the pragmatics of regular conversions expressed with whether someone who was killed SE. The sumti normally tagged by could/would be making such a the modal is shifted into the x1 statement; well-known American place, and the regular x1 place is essays such as the hypothetical moved to an auxiliary place tagged statements by people who have died with "fai" (selma'o FA). in traffic accidents after PROPOSED CHANGE: drinking alcohol come to mind). Allow "jai" with no following What is known is that the speaker tag. The semantics is to extract wants to emphasize the role of a place from the subordinate bridi "mi", whichever role he played in within the abstract description the killing. normally appearing in the x1 If it is necessary to raise from place, and raise it to the x1 an abstraction which is not in x1, level. The abstract description a regular SE conversion following goes to the "fai" place. For (and therefore inside) the "jai" example: can be used to get the abstraction le nu mi catra la djim. cu jenca to x1: la djein. lo nazbi jai te frica do mi fai the event-of my killing Jim leka [lo nazbi ...] shocks Jane. A nose is the difference between becomes: you and me. mi jai jenca la djein. fai le nu (exactly what about the nose that [mi] catra la djim. is different is quite vague. I shock Jane by the event-of [my] killing Jim. Exactly which place is extracted A Change to Relative Clause from the subordinate bridi is left Grammar vague. (Change 20) RATIONALE: This construction is a sort of [The following is an extract of sumti-raising; it differs from the the discussions that led to the "tu'a" type because it marks the most significant grammar change in selbri rather than the sumti. The the language since mid-1989, long whole abstraction is preserved in before we baselined the Lojban the "fai" place if it is wanted, grammar (that change was the one and "le jai jenca" can be used to that incorporated the structures mean "the one who shocks" (where in the Negation paper). Although "le jenca" would be "the event the relative clause change which is shocking"). In this discussed below is fundamental to a major structure in the language, 59 it is almost invisible to the rebuttal. This rebuttal was con- average Lojbanists: few texts vincing to Lojbab, who hit upon a that have been written require satisfactory solution through a changes. It was also taught in rather serendipitous consideration passing in less than an hour to of a lesser change proposed by beginning students, with no real John Cowan. That proposal difficulty. constituted Change Proposals 20 The extensive discussion, and and 21. Change 20 as adopted is the serious resistance to even found earlier in this issue in the what turned out to be a very low- summary of grammar changes, while impact change should stress for Change 21 was rejected by the Lojbanists the commitment that the community. The optional portions design team has to language of Change 20 and the whole of stability. On the other hand, the Change 21 are included here, as outstanding and detailed technical well as some the commentary that analysis that Colin Fine and oth- led to the final decision. ers put into this change is both informative of the 'nitty gritty' of this change and its Quantification and noi philosophical underpinnings, and by Greg Higley of several broader aspects of the Lojban design philosophy, which A potential problem has come to are mentioned in passing during my attention regarding the the discussion. I believe that quantification of sumti modified the result, while technically by relative bridi. Since this detailed, should be fairly under- "problem" almost invariably pops standable to relatively novice up when "noi" is involved, I will Lojban students using only the discuss it as it relates to "noi" Diagrammed Summary of Lojban only, and its occurrence with Grammar due to the detailed other relative clause cmavo can be translations that accompany the inferred. This problem does not examples. I also note that Iain seem to occur with "poi". and Veijo, when participating in All sumti that are not this discussion, had started explicitly are implicitly quanti- studying the language only a fied. In the following discussion couple of months before, and hence I will deal only with those that considered themselves to be be- are made by the addition of a ginners at the time they wrote gadri (article) to a selbri. With (though their analyses were all such sumti, whether the generally quite correct). quantification is implicit or The following is presented in explicit, there are two "points" several parts. First comes Greg of quantification, one (the Higley's paper, actually submitted selected subset) before the gadri after the decisions had been made and one (the "inner" set - so on this issue, but developed called because of its position) independently of Colin's work. after it. (I shall henceforth re- Then follows excerpts from Colin's fer to the "inner" set as I and original analytical paper, which the selected subset as S.) we have footnoted with some of the Put simply, the question/problem discussion that resulted on each is this: In a non-restrictive point (edited to make the in- relative clause, does the cmavo teraction more evident), Then "ke'a" refer to I or to S?1 If we follow comments from Iain take the analogy of "poi", it Alexander, Veijo Vilva's (showing ____________________ his perspective as a non-Indo- 1In referring to I, "ke'a" always European language native speaker), refers to S as a subset of I. But and a few others, which did not the question here is whether fit well as annotation in the two "ke'a" might ever refer directly original papers. After all this to S, thus excluding some members discussion, Colin responded with a of I. 60 refers directly to I, and thus to 4. mi viska ci ninmu noi melbi S as a subset of I. In the I see three (of the set of all?) sentence "mi pu viska ci le vo women, who are beautiful. prenu poi ca vave'a litru", "four Look carefully at these examples people were moving around in a and their colloquial English medium-sized area a medium dis- translations. If "ke'a" always tance away, but I saw only three refers to I, then we may run into of them". Thus "ke'a" refers to occasional problems, particularly I. If we replace "poi" with "noi" if we definitely do not want it to in this example, we get "mi pu refer to I. As for example 4, I viska ci le vo prenu noi ca vave'a would venture to guess that most litru". For this a colloquial Lojbanists would not take "ke'a" English translation will be as referring to all women! But helpful: "I saw three of the four this is the interpretation we must people, who were (at the same accept if "ke'a" always refers to time) traveling (i.e. moving I. If, on the other hand, "ke'a" on/across/via some unspecified always refers to S in noi clauses, surface) a medium distance away in we run into the problem from the a medium-sized area." Based on the other end. For this, look at ex- English translation, it is quite ample 1. What if we want to say impossible to tell, in the absence that "all of the women are, of context, whether three or four incidentally, beautiful, while I people were "traveling", although only see three of them"? it is certainly clear that only One solution to this is to three were visible to me. Since divide "ke'a" into two cmavo. One of course we cannot take the that refers to I, and another that analogy of English ^ we would be refers to S. For the following rightly guilty of malglico - we examples, I have assigned the must conclude that "noi" is experimental cmavo "xai" the analogous with "poi" in this meaning of S-referring relative respect2, and that "ke'a" always sumti, and "ke'a" refers to I: refers to I in a non-restrictive 1a. mi viska ci le vo ninmu noi relative clause. xai melbi But here's where we run into a Three women are beautiful (out of problem. If "noi" and "poi" are the set of four that I happen to analogous in this respect, many have in mind) and the same three Lojbanists, myself included, are are seen. making the mistake of assuming 1b. mi viska ci le vo ninmu noi that "ke'a" can sometimes refer to ke'a melbi S, particularly if S is quantified Three are seen and four are explicitly and I is not. The beautiful. examples below will show what I 2a. mi viska ci le ninmu noi xai mean: melbi 1. mi viska ci le vo ninmu noi Three women are seen (as always) melbi and the same three are beautiful I see three of the four women, who (out of the set of all that I have are beautiful. in mind). 2. mi viska ci le ninmu noi melbi 2b. mi viska ci le ninmu noi ke'a I see three of the women, who are melbi beautiful. All of the women are beautiful, 3. mi viska le ninmu noi melbi and three of the same are seen. I see the woman, who is beautiful. 3. (skipped) I see the women, who are 4a. mi viska ci ninmu noi xai beautiful. melbi ____________________ Three are seen, and three are 2Since we have no reason to think beautiful, and we avoid the otherwise. I have never seen a problem of having to call the rule of the grammar that whole lot beautiful! specifically states whether "ke'a" 4b. mi viska ci ninmu noi ke'a refers to I or to S. melbi 61 Three are seen, and the members of relative clauses - as shown by the the set of all women are fact that, so far as I know, no beautiful. one has noticed this problem Another possibility has come to before - so it will still often be my mind, and the grammar may very possible to omit the relative well specify exactly this, but pronoun. One last possibility I'll call it to your attention would be that "noi" clauses always anyway. What it involves is the refer to S and "poi" clauses quantification of "ke'a" itself. always to I, but that will run If we allow "ke'a" to refer to all into some problems, as you may of I, then we can echo the already see. quantification of I or S to show What does the baselined grammar the one to which we are referring, say about all this? I'd love to and thus we won't need two cmavo. know. If this seems rather hazy, the following examples should clear it up: Sumti and Relative Clauses 1. mi viska ci le vo ninmu noi ci by Colin Fine ke'a melbi Here we know that "three of the I believe there are some hidden women are beautiful", because the problems with the semantics and S quantification is echoed with syntax of relative clauses and "ke'a". (Remember that "ke'a" is quantifiers. In this paper I always quantified as "all of I", discuss the problems, and suggest so "ci ke'a" means "three of the some solutions. four", and the rule would state that these three must be S.) 2. mi viska ci le vo ninmu noi ro 1. Relative clauses ke'a melbi The syntax of relative-clauses Here "four women are beautiful". is: 3. mi viska ci le vo ninmu noi relative_clause_110 ke'a melbi : relative_clause_A_111 Here we don't know whether three | relative_clause_110 or four are beautiful, and only ZIhEK_820 context will help us. relative_clause_A_111 4. mi viska ci le vo ninmu noi i.e., a constituent consisting of paboi ci ke'a melbi a left-associative list of indi- "I see three of the four women, of vidual relative clauses. which one of the three (of all I believe this is a faulty four) is beautiful." And this analysis. To see where the woman is a member of S. problem lies, consider a relative 5. mi viska ci le vo ninmu noi clause as a semantic operator: it paboi ro ke'a melbi takes as its argument (the "I see three of the four women, of referent of) a sumti - some more which one of the four is or less specified set of entities beautiful." And not necessarily - and delivers another set (or a any of S. sumti which refers to this set - 6. mi viska ci le vo ninmu noi it doesn't matter very much su'oboi ci ke'a melbi whether we take the operator as "I see three of the four women, of acting on sumti or their whom at least one of the three is referents). beautiful." Etc. In the case of an incidental relative (ne, noi, goi), the I frankly don't know which one membership of the result set is of these systems (two cmavo or one identical to that of the argument with special quantification rules) set - all we have done is made a will work best, but I am partial subsidiary claim about its to the latter method. Our members. e.g. intuition will still be of great lo sipna help to us when deciphering [some of] all sleepers 62 lo sipna noi melbi __________________________________ [Some of] all sleepers, by the [some of] {all those sleepers who way, they are beautiful both are beautiful and whom I The problem is in determining love} which sleepers are beautiful, 'all Thus multiple restrictions are of them', or just the 'some' that not 'successive' restrictions, but we are talking about in this in effect tantamount to a logical sentence. AND on the restrictions. My argument is that if you Whether there should be a follow the parse, it means 'all of successive restriction capability, them', because it parses as is arguable. (su'o) [lo sipna [noi melbi]] A key point about Lojban with the (implied) quantifier grammar, especially where unequivocally outside the scope of 'grouping' is concerned, is that the relative.] the groupings produced by the The set of all sleepers is parser go beyond what is needed to selected by "lo sipna", and un- resolve the grammar, and impose a changed by the incidental structure that is not necessarily relative. there. Thus the 'left-grouping'- A restrictive relative clause, ness of relative modifiers is an on the other hand, in general artifact of LALR1 grammar that delivers a different set from its exists because you cannot have argument. e.g. multiple relative clauses without lo sipna some grouping - the grouping is [some of] all sleepers not intended to have implication lo sipna poi melbi for semantics. [some of] all those sleepers who Here is where reasoning from "da are beautiful. poi ..." comes into play. Clearly each successive Restrictive clauses have a deep restrictive will deliver a further effect on "da"; they do not simply altered set: say that in addition to fitting lo sipna poi melbi zi'e poi mi into its existing bridi "da" must prami ke'a [some of] {{all those also fit into another bridi; sleepers who are beautiful} whom I instead, the meaning of "da" is love} changed from "some object" to and logically we have a left- "some object chosen from the associative structure in which the universe specified by the 'poi'". relative-clauses is not an This is shown by the fact that independent constituent. "da" thereafter has a meaning Thus far, I have established incorporating the restriction: it that the grouping in the Lojban is not local to the current sumti, syntax is logically erroneous; but but is pervasive until another "da this might not be very important. poi" appears. The next sections show how it does By similar reasoning, "lo mi ci matter.1 sipna", which means "lo ci sipna ____________________ [ku] pe mi" exactly, and is 1Lojbab and John Cowan note: roughly equivalent to "lo ci sipna "zi'e" is a degenerate logical [ku] poi [ke'a] srana mi", asserts connective (reduced from a large that "the number of sleepers is set of connectives in Change 7, three" within the domain "things decribed above), a sumti with two associated with me", as opposed to relative clauses, restrictive or "lo ci sipna" by itself, which non-restrictive, or both, is claims that "there are three applying both relatives sleepers within the general simultaneously. By the principles (unrestricted) domain". (In ei- of Lojban logical connectives, ther case, the quantification Colin's example must be claim is incidental.) interpreted as Once this domain restriction has lo sipna poi ge ke'a melbi gi mi been done, the meaning of the prami ke'a sumti can be evaluated. At this 63 __________________________________ 2. Mixed relatives time, the incidental clause can be First, note that incidental understood as applying to the relatives certainly associate (in sumti in its entirety, and making fact, commute): a subordinate bridi (possibly lo sipna noi melbi zi'e noi vasxu compound) which is incidentally "sleepers, who are beautiful, and asserted. Note that this analysis who breathe" implies that "ke'a" means does not depend on any grouping, different things within and is even the same (except maybe restrictive and incidental for some pragmatics) as clauses: in a restrictive clause, lo sipna noi vasxu zi'e noi melbi it refers to the meaning the sumti "sleepers who breathe and who are would have if no restriction were beautiful" in effect; in an incidental Probably, the same is true for clause, it refers to the sumti as- restrictives: is with any restriction in effect. lo sipna poi melbi zi'e poi mi Therefore, vasxu ke'a ro da poi mlatu cu mabru "sleepers who are beautiful and all things which-are cats are- who breathe" mammals probably always delivers the same has an utterly different meaning set as from lo sipna poi mi vasxu ke'a zi'e ro da noi mlatu cu mabru poi melbi. all things (which incidentally are "sleepers, who breathe, and who cats) are mammals are beautiful" which says that "everything is a (I am not convinced this is always mammal", and what's more, true). "everything is a cat, too". The first problems appear Colin rebuts: Your explanation when we mix the two. Does of the effect of "da poi" is very lo sipna poi mi vasxu ke'a zi'e clear, and more succinct than my noi melbi own. We are in complete mean the same as agreement. Further, your lo sipna noi melbi zi'e poi me discussion of "ke'a" exactly vasxu ke'a? demonstrates my point: that As far as I know, the answer is logically restrictive and not currently defined in Lojban. incidental clauses belong at I believe that the first is (or different places in the parse. should be) saying "(incidentally) Lojbab: It appears that Colin that all the sleepers that I love is arguing that because a word has are beautiful", whereas the second different semantics in the two says that "all sleepers are different constructs, the two con- beautiful", even though it is then structs must have a different going on to talk about only "those syntax. There are numerous cases whom I love".2 to the contrary in the language, __________________________________ as for example the fact that "da" no special grammar needing to be has completely different semantics defined. than most any other member of 2Lojbab: The two are defined to KOhA, while all members of KOhA mean the same, though I'll agree are considered syntactically that it isn't written in any of equivalent (indeed, this our published materials. consideration has led to useful Order in Lojban does not and serendipitous realizations, as necessarily imply succession. The for the use of prenex non- obvious example being NA negation, definite-sumti for topic which does not affect quantifiers construction, and the use of in this left-to-right succession prenex bu'a-series, which is fashion in the way that English especially anomolous in semantics, negation does. Similarly, stated for 2nd order predicate logic with order of sumti does not imply any particular importance. 64 Though this is a problem, I ci lo cukta "three books" don't think it is a big one, is roughly equivalent to something mainly because the only common like occasion for mixing the two has lo cukta poi lu'i roke'a cu cimei been with "goi": "books such that the set of all of le prenu goi ko'a zi'e poi mi them is a threesome" viska ke'a (I am not claiming that this is a vs. precise paraphrase, or a le prenu poi mi viska ke'a zi'e transformation; my point is that, goi ko'a like a restrictive clause, the "The people whom I saw, quantifier performs a substantive (henceforward x1)" selection operation on the set of and even there, the technical referents). difference (whether x1 refers to In fact, external quantifiers do all people or just the one(s) I not bind as tightly as restrictive see) is often vitiated by the in- clauses, so a phrase like tensionality of "le" as opposed to ci lo sipna poi melbi "lo". means If this were all, we could three of (those sleepers who are probably get by with the existing beautiful), syntax, and adding one of two and the current parse interpretative rules to the (pu'o) ci [[lo sipna] [poi melbi]] semantics. Either: corresponds with this "Take the relative clauses in interpretation.3 order; each restrictive clause ____________________ selects some subset from the 3Lojbab: As I said above, the current set of designated parse within the sumti may be im- entities and makes that the plying more structure than is current set; each incidental semantically significant. In a clause makes that subsidiary restrictive relative clause it remark about the current set" does not matter whether "lo sipna" or, more simply: or "ci lo sipna" is restricted by "Take all the restrictive "poi melbi"; you still get the clauses together and apply them same result. Thus it remains to get the final set; then arguable. interpret each incidental clause I think that the problem almost as commenting on that final set" goes away, by stating that you can which is certainly simpler, though interpret all relative clauses to very grubby. be 'outer'; then, if you want them to apply to an 'inner set' you do so by sticking another descriptor 3. External quantifiers outside: "le <ci lo sipna poi Where the problem starts to melbi> ku". But you cannot do become bigger is with quantifiers. this when you leave the There are actually two quantifiers implicit: "*le [su'o] semantically different occurrences lo [ro] sipna poi melbi ku". This of these, which I shall call has convinced me there is a prob- "external" and "internal". lem to fix. Internal quantifiers are within Note that the classic Loglan descriptions, considered below in descriptor is "le", and not "lo". section 4. External quantifiers Colin tacitly agrees that this occur in rule intensional descriptor doesn't sumti_D_95 really suffer from these problems : sumti_E_96 (a "le" description means | quantifier_300 sumti_E_96 precisely what I want it to mean). (and also in indefinite sumti, The only reason this issue which I will come to below), and I surfaces at all is for "lo" with suggest that they are semantically its default outside quantifier similar to a restrictive clause. that is "su'opa" and not "ro". That is to say, This was a change from old Loglan, 65 But if we then introduce This does not give any problem incidental relatives, the current with explicit incidental clauses: syntax does not give the right lo mo'a temci noi sutra simlu answer. the too-few time intervals (that Thus: seem fast) ci lo sipna noi melbi but the interaction with explicit currently parses as restrictives is wrong: ci [lo sipna noi melbi] lo ci sipna poi mi nelci ke'a three out of [all sleepers, who is at present unequivocally incidentally are all beautiful] [lo ci sipna] [poi mi nelci ke'a] but I believe that almost all those among [the three sleepers] seljbo would interpret it as whom I like [ci [lo sipna]] [noi melbi] whereas what it should mean is [three out of all sleepers], who lo ci [sipna poi mi nelci ke'a] are beautiful. i.e. the sleepers that I like, of Similarly with quantifiers and whom there are in fact three.5 both types of relative: So as with external quantifiers, ci lo sipna goi ko'a zi'e poi mi incidental relatives belong nelci ke'a outside, but restrictive ones The current syntax makes this belong inside. ci [lo sipna [goi ko'a zi'e poi mi nelci ke'a]] i.e. ko'a is either "all 5. Indefinite sumti sleepers", or "all the sleepers I (pe'i these are an annoying like", but in no way just three of mistake, complicating the syntax them. just so that we can omit a word In summary, incidental relatives here there and thereby muddy the belong outside the external logical structure. However, we quantifier, but restrictive ones have them and we can cope.)6 belong inside. ____________________ 5Lojbab: This grouping is bogus, 4. Internal quantifiers since a restriction cannot apply When we look inside a until after there is a description description we get a different - a sumti - whereas you have kind of quantifier, with different marked it to apply to a selbri. properties: The "ke'a" can stand for nothing le ci sipna until you have identified that a the three sleepers single place of sipna is being It seems to me that this is used as the description, and this semantically an incidental rather takes the descriptor. than a restrictive construction.4 I will accept As I understand it lo [<ci sipna> <poi mi nelci lo vo prenu ke'a>] makes the subsidiary claim that as being what you meant, in which there are only four persons, which case the inner quantifier plus is an incidental claim to the description in effect makes an description, and not a re- indefinite that can be restricted. striction. 6Lojbab: JCB spent 25 years __________________________________ waxing wishy-washy on indefinite which set the default of the constructions, agreeing to equivalent to "lo" (lea) at the eliminate them because they caused equivalent of "ro", making it only problems in the grammar, but useful for universal claims. finally deciding that they were Nora's first reaction to this too natural for him and other whole problem was thus - if you Loglanists who actually used the have problems, just use "le". language. So he said "make the 4Lojbab: Incidental in the case grammar fit it", and they did, and of "lo", identifying in the case it remains so. This is of course of "le". what used to be called the "se 66 Transformationally, as I lo mi cukta noi xunre understand it = lo cukta pe mi zi'e noi xunre <quantifier> <selbri> restricts the set to "books which e.g. ze prenu are mine", and comments that they is exactly equivalent to (my books) "are-red". <quantifier> lo <selbri> But it does not work at all with ze lo prenu internal quantifiers. and we have precisely the same lomi ci cukta difficulties as with any other which is always used to mean external quantifier, except that 'my three books', i.e. the <quantifier> and the optional 'all books, restricted to those <relative clauses> are introduced belong to me, there are three of at the same point in the syntax these' (indefinite_sumti_94), so for (= lo ci [cukta pe mi]) example is actually defined to be ze prenu poi gleki lo mi [ci cukta] = [lo ci cukta] parses as pe mi [ze prenu [poi gleki]] 'my books, out of the three' , with three constituents, and not i.e. explicitly as 'all books (there are three), [ze [prenu [poi gleki]]] restricted to those which belong in the way to me'7 ze lo prenu poi gleki while, does. i.e. the syntax is equivocal *lo ci mi cukta here. which has some hope of meaning what we want, is not even valid!8 ____________________ 6. Preposed possessives 7Lojbab: Fallacious. The "lo" The other anomaly in the current and the "mi" cannot be semanti- grammar is the preposed possessive cally separated from the "ci" by (the optional sumti_E_96 in an artifactual bracket. sumti_tail_113): Especially since you have le mi cukta identified the "ci" as also being This is precisely equivalent to equivalent to a relative clause, le cukta pe mi you should make all transforms of This does not interact a type at once if you wish problematically with relative consistency: clauses, of either type: "lo mi ci cukta" = "lo cukta pe mi lo mi cukta poi xunre zi'e noi cimei = lo cukta pe mi zi'e poi xunre 8Lojbab: If it were valid, the restricts the set of books to "ci" would quantify "mi", which is those which are both mine and red. why it is forbidden. There is no way to make the grammar work with quantifier before the pseudo- possessive, unless we choose to eliminate the established [LE + quantifier + sumti] construct which has existed historically in the language and is more impor- tant. "lo mi ci cukta" is defined to __________________________________ transforms into "[lo ci cukta] pe sorme" ("seven sisters" in older mi". It cannot transform as Colin versions of Loglan) question. wishes. Since relativization is "lo" inherently muddies the inherently a function of a sumti logical waters, and logical and not a bridi (or a selbri), "lo purists would prefer either that ci [cukta pe mi]" makes no sense, you use "da poi" or "le", and skip since "cukta pe mi" makes no "lo". Indefinite sumti are no sense, is not grammatical, and muddier than the rest of "lo". shouldn't be. The structure of a 67 __________________________________ (It is true that these forms sumti does not group that way. In with 'lo' are relatively unusual, this sense, the E-BNF grammar and it is more common to use 'le', makes more sense than the YACC which once again gets round the grammar. The essentials are the logical problems by pragmatics; "lo" and the "cukta" in the but I think the problems are there description - the quantifiers, nonetheless.) pseudo-posessives, and relative clauses are all optional. But they are all at the same level, 7. Summary of the problems not grouped more tightly just There are two basic problems, because there are brackets one of them in two parts. present; the brackets are an 1a. restrictive relatives belong artifact of the way it is easiest inside external quantifiers, to write YACC grammars and should incidental relatives belong NOT be assumed to have semantic outside. import. 1b. restrictive relatives belong "pe mi" must be a restriction on inside internal quantifiers, "lo cukta", and the only con- incidental relatives belong sideration is the relevance of the outside.9 inside quantifier "ci" (and any __________________________________ outside quantifiers too perhaps). which loses the semantics of My initial guess is that the selection implicit in the outer inside quantifier might indeed quantifier, but perhaps answers transform to another relative Colin's objection on other clause, which is incidental: grounds. I think that this would lo ci cukta reflect the semantic expansion of = lo cukta noi cimei "lo" better than the current lo ci cukta pe mi grammar, but lose the selection = lo cukta pe mi zi'e noi cimei implication. (I couldn't make a or lo cukta noi cimei zi'e pe mi YACC grammar work with this In any case, I think it is approach to sumti descriptions, so historically clear that the it is a non-solution). outside quantifier on "lo" exists 9Lojbab: I would instead label as a selection from the well- the problem as being that the defined sumti that exists without grammar is vague as to whether the quantifier present: "ci lo relative clauses apply to inside cukta pe mi" is "ci [lo cukta pe sets or outside sets, and that mi]; however the bracketed text is this is probably logically parsed internally - it selects 3 unacceptable. out of that inner-sumti. Given that the grammar needs to Since this answer is different be changed to permit inside and for restrictive and non- outside sets to have distinctive restrictive clauses (which relative clauses, I present the traditionally have been following example, using Colin's interpreted to apply to the set syntax, where both types after the quantifier is attached) (restrictive and incidental) are convinces me that Colin is right. used constructively both inside Where there is some grounds for and outside. A bit contrived but argument is that the quantifiers plausible. on a descriptor should be bound mi cuxna ci lo xa cukta poi mi into the descriptor since the nelrai zi'e goi ko'a ku poi cfika descriptor expands to some default zi'e ne semau leko'a ci drata quantifier if they aren't present. I choose (the) 3 of the 6 books I'm not sure what I think of that I most-like (the 6 being ci lo mi vo cukta pe broda ko'a) which are fiction [over] parsing as their (the 6's) three others. <([ci] lo [mi] [vo]) cukta [KU]) I'm sure it is clear that pe broda [GEhU]> restrictive clauses can apply to either set; the point of the above 68 At the end of the relative 2. preposed possessives belong clauses, if there is an internal inside internal quantifiers.10 quantifier stored, use it to select an appropriate number from the set. Then carry the 8. Suggestions for problem 1 set forward. There are a number of Possible, but hideous, and not possibilities I can think of. worthy of something described as a a) Nothing. logical language. (And preposed Thus far, we have found this possessives will give a further area to be workable. However, complication). wait until you try to teach the b) The minimal change I can see is semantics to a computer. This to require all restrictives to will require rules something precede all incidentals, and like the following: modify the grammar as follows to Quantified sumti: Store the reinterpret almost what we have quantifier, then go ahead and ... [detailed proposal omitted, interpret the sumti including since it was rejected] any relative clauses. Then I believe this will produce just select the specified number from the same surface strings as we the set of denoted items. If have at present, except that all there are any incidental clauses incidentals will have to follow stored, now apply them. all restrictives.11 Internal quantifier: Store the The parse will however be quantifier, and go ahead and different: the incidentals will interpret the selbri, and carry lie outside the "sumti_D", while the set of denoted items the restrictives will lie within forward. the scope of the external Relative clauses: Interpret ____________________ each clause in turn. If it is a 11Lojbab: I do not see that you restrictive, select have made any case for requiring appropriately from the current any particular ordering of set of denoted items. If it is relative clauses, since ZIhEks an incidental, remember it. imply no ordering that can be interpreted as erroneous. I've __________________________________ also devised examples wherein both example is that, at least for restrictive and non-restrictive "goi" assignment, non-restrictive clauses could be applied to either clauses can be used on the inside inner or outer sets. Restricting set. That pragmatics can lead to what can be said in order to the either interpretation of either more common usages seems too ex- type of relative that makes me see treme a solution. this as a true problem worthy of The ordering is also not the degree of change needed even pragmatically acceptable because at this late date. Otherwise the people want the incidental "goi late date would cause me to ko'a" (which might be intended to consider this merely a semantic apply to either inside or outside interpretation problem, rather quantified sets) to be as close as than an ambiguity problem; logical possible to the description that ambiguities must be fixed in a it marks. A restrictive relative logical language, while semantic clause can be quite lengthy, and questions can be left for if it also has complications and pragmatic usage to decide. relative clauses within it, the 10Lojbab: I don't agree, since I incidental information becomes consider quantifiers and posses- worthless. Thus sives to be at the same level - le ci broda poi brode da de di they both relate to the inside ku'o goi ko'a set, and there is only one such is dispreferred, in favor of inside set that has meaning for a le ci broda goi ko'a poi brode da simple description. de di [ku'o] 69 quantifier, and (in the case of d) I considered a solution with a description without KU) within arbitrarily nested scopes, each of the scope of the internal which was limited by a quantifier quantifier. (Note that selma'o and/or restrictives, and each of NOI and GOI have to be split, which could have an incidental and that ZIhE performs some very attached to it, thus: strange functions). *[so'oboi { < [so'i The only thing in favour of this { <lo tarci suggestion is that it does the > poi se viska tu'a le minimum damage to existing texts. terdi ku'o It complicates the syntax } noi melbi ku'o remarkably and - in the name of ] compatibility - confusingly. > poi mi di'i catlu ke'a ku'o c) My preference is to introduce } no'u la ze mensi three specific locations for ] relatives, thus but this requires a much more so'a lo panono cukta poi mi nelci complicated grammar, and I think ku poi dopa'a nelci ku'o noi cfika it can be managed by structures would parse as already existing at a higher level {[so'a {<lo panono {cukta poi mi (KE or LUhI). At any rate, I did nelci} ku> poi dopa'a nelci not investigate its syntax ku'o]}] [noi cfika]} carefully. [almost all of those of <the I think (c) is the best hundred {books I like}> that you solution. It does not do a lot of also like] which incidentally are injury to existing texts: as long fiction... as they don't mix restrictive and incidental clauses, they will ... [Colin's detailed proposal still parse; if they do, the two eliminated]12 sets need to be sorted out, and ____________________ the first (restrictive) set ended 12Lojbab: I do not see the by a KUhO/GEhU (or by a KU if essential difference between the there is a description). And the 1st and 2nd of the three relative scoping will make sense. clause positions in your example, Note that something like and believe that the image of le ci cukta poi mi nelci their difference is due to the will parse as fallacious "*cukta poi mi nelci" le [ci [cukta [poi mi nelci]]] which is ungrammatical and but you can force the restriction meaningless. You want "[books outside by (that I like AND that you also [le [ci cukta ku] [poi mi nelci]] like)] of which there are 100", which I claim is selecting "those with the incidental clause I like" from among "the three applying to the outer set. books".13 However, even reducing this to 2 __________________________________ clause positions, one inside the tally that "you also like them", KU and one outside, would at first before noting that "most of them glance mean that the KU is no are fiction". Or perhaps you want longer elidable when you wish to to restrict the set to "most of put an outside relative clause. them that are fiction", This may be ameliorated by your associating with the outside distinction between incidentals quantifier. and restrictives, but I think that 13Lojbab: Since restrictive distinction is pragmatic - what is clauses are often outside, this most often wanted - not what is has the effect of requiring the KU plausible in language use. For terminator much more often than it example, in your just previous has been. We've worked quite hard example, what if you wanted to to make Lojban not be a "ku-ku" merely restrict the "100 books" to language, as older versions of "those I like", but note inciden- Loglan tend to be when expressed 70 consistently with any changes to solve problem 1.15 9. Suggestions for problem 2 [Omitted - there was no consensus Commentary from: Iain Alexander that Colin's #2 was a problem.] First of all, let me point out that the latest Diagrammed Grammar 10. Conclusion Summary appears to support one of your proposals. At the bottom of I have presented at length some page 19, it describes a logical problems in our current "description sumti" as sumti grammar, and made some [number] le [number] [sumti] suggestions: [modal] selbri [ku] 1. Withdraw the which is your solution (c) to "<quantifier><quantifier><selbri>" problem 2.16 form of indefinite sumti14 In general, however: there is 2. Distinguish restrictive from no rule that says that the incidental clauses, and define deep(er) structure of a language three distinct places where they (natural, artificial, computer, may occur: incidental ones only whatever) has to correspond to the outside quantified arguments, surface structure. (This is restrictive ones both inside obvious, isn't it.) external quantifiers, and inside On the other hand, it is kind of internal quantifiers in nice if it does, particularly if descriptions. it's easy. This is particularly 3. Reverse the order of the true when you've got people like internal quantifier and the pre- myself who have access to the posed possessive in descriptions. grammar definition, which gives The three suggestions are all the syntax, but tells you independent of one another. essentially nothing about the I have not looked at vocatives: semantics of any given since they do not include construction.17 quantifiers, they do not really ____________________ have a problem, though for 15Lojbab: Almost. Vocatives can consistency they should be changed have quantifiers, but only in the context of the sumti_90 internal __________________________________ grammar, and hence are taken care at the natural level of sentence of by whatever we do for the complexity that we have found latter. However, the solution typical of Lojban usage. [Note: proposed requires some changes to the proposal actually adopted does the vocative grammar, though have this characteristic of consistent with the other changes requiring more KU terminators. being made. 14Colin's argument on this was 16Lojbab: This is a typo. deleted from the article text, Correct is since it really is a separate [number] le [sumti] [number] issue. This construct is an [modal] selbri [ku] artifact of the older versions of This basic structure becomes the grammar - something that was incomplete because it doesn't in- permitted, ended up being used clude the preposed relative rarely (mostly by people here in clause. However at the point in DC), and therefore preserved. the Grammar Summary in which it is Since there was little presented, relative clauses have justification for its existence not yet been covered. At some and it was difficult to preserve point this will need to be cor- under the changes proposed to rected. resolve the other problems Colin 17Lojbab: JCB had a strong policy identified, it is passing from the on the machine grammar matching language without much fuss. the 'human grammar' as closely as 71 Some of it we intuit from the corresponding English language Commentary from: Veijo Vilva construction - we are after all still a predominantly English- My initial reaction to Colin's language group - but this is in paper was to agree with him but itself dangerous. Many of the Iain's cautionary note about discussions I've seen or been Anglocentrism sent me thinking (as involved in recently (and some the only non-Indo-European in this I've never started, because I saw group). what was going on in time) have I thought of Colin's example been a result of confusing an sentences and their close English gloss for a Lojban relatives in view of the current definition - mainly of gismu Finnish pragmatics and after a rather than grammar rules, but __________________________________ then there are more of the former. provided at this point than what There's a lot of stuff in the will be in the final set of papers language which needs careful being written by John after the definition, which is a lot of spirit of Imaginary Journeys [the work, and it's not even obvious JL16 tense supplement. how you can best present some of Colin responds: Iain and Bob it. rightly point out that it is not In any case, I think I'm saying essential that the deep that although your concerns are structure/semantic parse follow theoretically unimportant, in the surface structure; but it is practical terms they are extremely highly desirable. I also believe reasonable, and I am in favour of that getting this sort of any such rationalisation which disparity straightened out is a makes it easier to get to grips valuable step in the process of with the grammar - I would need to understanding what we mean and read it all through again before what we are skating over in committing myself to any of your learning and talking Lojban - for particular solutions. But this is me probably the foremost attrac- coupled with a warning that much tion of the language. of the grammar, possibly even Lojbab: Agreed, and most of the including this part after your little changes that have been improvements, needs semantic accepted by John Cowan and me clarification, and we as a group since the last baseline have been need to find some way of handling little cleanups that arose from this.18 the writing of his papers like __________________________________ Imaginary Journeys, which exercise possible, to the point of starting I see as essentially dealing with fights about it and putting in this step in defining the kludges in the grammar to make it language. The main question, work rather than accepting even apparently now resolved in favor small changes in what he saw as of change, is whether the degree the human grammar. This is of change necessary is warranted similar, if not identical to 'deep by the level of confusion structure' matching 'surface possible. This is by far the structure', and our policy has biggest change in the grammar been to preserve this as much as since the MEX change before the possible. first baseline, which affected a 18Lojbab: Such clarification is then-unused part of the grammar, desirable where possible - there or the even earlier negation-paper is little likelihood of and abstraction clause lenu[ke] overdefining the language, but it changes while the first Lojban shouldn't be necessary. Lojban is class was being taught, which did already by far the most thoroughly affect usage. It thus takes defined language there is. I enormous justification at this don't expect that there will need late stage for a change of such to be that much more depth magnitude. 72 while I wasn't too happy anymore. a relatively early stage in their The original parses also seemed development as Lojbanists and may quite necessary and changing the contain usages which necessarily parsing would have necessitated haven't been so thoroughly ana- the introduction of new alternate lyzed at the time of writing but ways of similar simplicity to may have been 'instinctive' express the original 'grammatical' choices reflecting more the meaning. linguistic background of the ... [much of Veijo's commentary is writer than the grammar of Lojban. deleted as it supports options When I spoke of translating above that were rejected. Among these I didn't mean that to be taken was further elaboration of the quite literally. What I mean is concept that "zi'e"-joined that when we are dealing with a relative clauses were nested, completely different language like which was an erroneous assumption Lojban we mustn't always expect to on the part of both Colin and see things expressed in an Veijo. The apparent demand for 'instinctive' way. We have a nested relative clauses led to grammar which defines the change proposal 21, but support framework within which we are for nested clauses did not trying to express ideas and before persist, and change 21 was we modify it I think we must see annulled.] whether it is possible to express In general I find that properly the ideas we might want to express combining le/lo, internal/external - even in an 'alien' way. After quantifiers and that we must make a choice: do we restrictive/incidental relatives accept the 'alien' way or do we gives about all the semantic modify the grammar. I think that variants I might want. It may at this stage we still have the take some juggling at the natural option of specifying the way language level to get just the various things are expressed. wording you are accustomed with - but often finding the proper 4. Internal quantifiers wording to express just the shade On this issue, I would use the of meaning you are after in a following structure allowed by the natural language expression in present grammar: general may be more difficult and le ci [le sipna poi mi nelci ke'a] even beyond the capabilities of The three of [the sleepers that I most people. like]. I think we ought to get away i.e. the sleepers that I like, of from translating and to start whom there are in fact three. taking Lojban as is. It has it's (Produced from: "LE_562 own ways of expressing ideas and [quantifier_300 sumti_90] gap_450) it is very important to avoid [sumti_tail_113]" imposing an alien strait jacket The meaning is quite obvious - in upon it. fact it matches exactly the first My approach was based firstly on English gloss. the fact that I am, as a newcomer, This produces a kind of still struggling to express ideas intermediate quantification - it and to understand ideas expressed is internal in the total structure and secondly, after all, this but external to the restrictive interplay of expression and relative clause. The only blemish understanding is what a language I can see is that it is occa- is all about. sionally necessary to use a double Lojban is an emerging language KU terminator. which still is in a state of flux Colin's example for solution in many respects. We have a (c): relatively limited corpus of *so'a lo panono cukta poi mi nelci existing text which is at least ku poi dopa'a nelci ku'o noi cfika partly outdated. Some of this would become: text has been created by people at 73 so'a lo panono le cukta poi mi 6. Preposed possessives nelci ku poi dopa'a nelci ku'o noi cfika By the way, the last production Neither is a candidate for casual in the present definition allows conversation but I prefer the constructs like: latter one (conforming with the le paboi ciboi ze cukta present syntax). so the indefinite sumti cause And the ones in the discussion: trouble also here. Perhaps we Colin's proposal present ought to prune them off totally as grammar the easiest solution?20 le ci cukta poi mi nelci => le ci le cukta Response from John Cowan: [ku] poi mi nelci I believe that Colin's main le ci cukta ku poi mi nelci => error lies in ignoring the uses of le ci cukta relative clauses with non- [ku] poi mi description sumti. If anything, nelci the use of relative clauses with To me the present way is in this da-series variables is even more case more obvious.19 important. Colin's proposal to separate incidental and restrictive clauses, and to place the latter within the scope of "le...ku", does nothing for "da poi" constructions. Colin rebuts: It is true that I did not specifically discuss relative clauses with non- descriptive sumti; however I did not ignore them: My contention is that as a matter of current fact we inter- pret relative clauses with non- descriptions as (necessarily) outside the sumti (but inside ____________________ 20Lojbab: It may be an easy solution but not an acceptable one, since it removes a ____________________ significant expressive form of the 19Lojbab: Veijo's approach was language, and indeed one of also Nora's initially-proposed re- historical import with a clear JCB sponse. A limitation is that it pronouncement. In this time of doesn't allow you to leave the baselined grammars, that is three outer quantifier unspecified, if strikes against a deletion it is default. However, it does supported primarily by the seem clear that, if we left the argument that the grammar language unchanged, it is still generates messy, probably useless, possible using this construct, if strings. As long as the strings not always convenient, to express are not syntactically ambiguous, anything you need to in the we can tolerate them, though logi- language. cal ambiguity also warrants However, it seems silly to consideration, as indicated by our require the extra "le" and the ex- current discussion. But no one plicit quantifier to force a has clearly claimed indefinites relative clause inside; also, the are themselves logically current grammar does suggest to ambiguous, only that they make some like Colin that the default certain aspects of the grammar clause is already inside. messy. 74 the (external) quantifier), All existing strings that do whereas we interpret relative not involve incidentals will clauses with descriptions as in- remain valid, but they will side the sumti and the internal parse differently according as quantifier. (I am ignoring in- there is a description or not. cidentals here, which are cur- As an extra, it will be possible rently a problem, as I ex- to place the restrictive string plained). outside the description explic- Thus itly (and therefore outside the ci da poi sipna internal quantifier) by using means "KU".23 ci [da poi sipna] three (out of) (those x who are [Cowan continues:] I also sleepers) believe that the notion of but "restrictive relative clause" is lo ci prenu poi sipna far more semantically deep than means can be reasonably addressed by lo [ci [prenu poi sipna]] mere syntactic manipulations, some ((persons who are sleepers) requiring its own semantic (incidentally there are three)) processing module. but our existing parse matches First, it seems clear (and Colin in the first case, but not the implicitly recognizes) that all second. My suggestion 1(c) is talk of relative clauses and to change the syntax so that phrases can be reduced to "noi" these two currently valid sumti and "poi" only. The alternatives will still both be valid, but are "voi" clauses (which Colin will parse reflecting the ignores) and relative phrases with semantics I have given.21 "ne", "pe", '"ne" + BAI', '"pe" + Thus my proposal is not 'to BAI', "po", "po'e", "no'u", and separate incidental and re- "po'u". All of these may be strictive clauses, and to place reduced as follows: the latter within the scope of voi -> poi mi skicu fo da poi "le ... ku"'. It is to separate ne -> noi srana incidental and restrictive pe -> poi srana clauses, and to define two ne + BAI -> poi BRIVLA [where different places of attachment BRIVLA is the source of BAI] for the latter: one within pe + BAI -> noi BRIVLA [ditto] descriptions and the other out- po -> poi steci side the sumti-4.22 po'e -> poi se ponse [with ____________________ additional connotation of in- 21Lojbab: Current interpretation alienability] is [ci da] [poi sipna] - the sumti no'u -> noi du has an implicit claim that there po'u -> poi du are exactly ci who are sleepers. These transformations are not Except that in a second usage necessarily claimed to be exact or after such a definition but within to work in all cases, but they its scope, say "re da poi prenu", indicate the basic mechanism the implication is [re le <ci da involved. (still poi sipna)>] [poi prenu]. I suspect, that the current 22Lojbab: The second half of this attachment point of "relative- and is what this restatement clauses" is too far down in the caused me to recognize was the sumti hierarchy: the fact that it fundamental problem. Hence this appears twice is ipso facto clarification was well-timed, suspicious. I will make an at- Colin. The latter, though __________________________________ actually more problematical for incidental and restrictive the rare incidental that can go in clauses. either scope, was convincing to 23Lojbab: But since this is often me. I remain unconvinced of the the desired expression, it makes need to grammatically distinguish KU less elidable. 75 tempt to do the necessary YACCing ... Further, while I would be to determine if the connection keen to have a transformational point can be moved up closer to, description of the language, I or within, "sumti-3<93>". would vastly prefer one limited External quantifiers should be to transformations within the processed either before or on the syntactic structure, not just of same level as relative clauses.24 surface strings; i.e. that did not allow shifts into or out of [Colin rebuts]: Obviously, I constituents, as this would don't agree that "relative- require. clauses" is too far down in the hierarchy - it is both too far down and not low enough. Lojbab's solution Incidentally, the fact that it appears twice is purely a The relative clause change I requirement of mabla indefinite proposed in response to Colin's descriptions.25 paper and ensuing discussion will ____________________ be found as Changes 20 and 21 in 24Lojbab: Moving relative clauses the proposed baseline changes. up to a higher level affects the (Change 21 was annulled, and is rules for interaction with "la'e". not included in the list above, Both "la'e" and relative clauses but may be found below, along with are things we'd like to move up, parts of Change 20 that were but which can cause problems be- deleted as a result of cause of being open-ended. discussion.) That is "la'e lo prenu poi A change of this magnitude is nanmu" is ambiguous without a very controversial. Cowan and I terminator for the "la'e" were originally opposed to any construct, unless "la'e" grabs change, primarily on the basis constructs above the rule for that the language design is too relative clause attachment but is firmly baselined to permit such a itself also above that rule. It degree of fiddling as was neces- is possible that grammar sary, and the possible unforeseen flexibility could be increased side effects of this change are with an elidable terminator for enormous. We were for the most "la'e". ... [such a terminator part unconvinced until a late was indeed added as part of the __________________________________ solution]. the indefinite rule, you will 25Lojbab: The reason for repeated probably see that the relative occurance of relative clauses in clause rule appears just once in the rules is indeed the perversity each fork, at about the same of indefinites, which interact level. Only by moving the badly with virtually everything. indefinite fork further down They are a blotch on the grammar, (which restricts what you can and this has been recognized for indefinitize), can you eliminate ages. JCB even agreed to remove the problem of which rule goes them for years because of this, highest. but they kept creeping back into In the adopted solution, we did his and others' usages, and he so, by putting an elidable ter- finally said that they were obvi- minator on LAhE and NAhE-BO ously intuitively a part of the constructs, the LUhU of grouped grammar, hence the grammar must be sumti, and putting them all in the made to fit them, regardless of same grammar rule. Thus, except how ugly it was. But in order to its use in MEX (modified to be put them at a proper place, they consistent with the sumti grammar in effect need a parallel set of usage), in effect LAhE is the same rule structures from the standard selma'o as LUhI and the lexer- sumti structures. Thus, if you constructed selma'o NAhE_BO, look at the baseline grammar sumti though its actual usage is very rules as a forked tree just above distinctive. 76 stage that the logical problem serious consideration of this Colin was talking about was indeed proposal stopped his work on the serious enough to warrant the type sumti paper, and its adoption of change we believed was needed forced a totally redesign of that to solve it, one that might render paper, not to mention changes to a much existing Lojban texts lot of documentation already com- incorrect. pleted. Similar changes in the An earlier major proposal like future pose equally drastic this had Colin and a few others threats to already completed and basically arguing that if the in progress documentation efforts. language has an irregularity, it If the language isn't documented; is still permissible to change it no one can learn it. because not all that many have A proposal of this magnitude learned the language to a point serious affects on-going learning where it would hurt them to and teaching efforts. At the time relearn. In that case, Nick sided of this proposal, it affected the against the proposal. Nora did then ongoing DC class - I had to also, seeing herself as guardian decide which version of relative of language stability, since she clauses to teach within a week, knows how many people were driven since relative clauses was indeed off by similar attempts to stick the topic of the week. one more necessary improvement These comments are thus set after another in old Loglan in the forth as a warning - that while we 1970s and early 1980s. The cost want to make the language right of continued change is not only and it is worthwhile finding such relearning, but a reluctance of problems, proposals alike this are new people to try to learn a lan- stressful to the project, the guage that they might have to design team that is trying to fin- relearn. ish the project, the language and On the other side of the fence the community, and thus are decid- is someone like John Hodges, who, edly unwelcome. This doesn't mean while opposed to unnecessarily that questions should not be fiddling with the language in raised - I hope people will do so, general, sees that Lojban's main but the expectation must be that hope as a language in the future most such problems as are depends on its logical integrity, identified from here on out will and flaws in that integrity must be merely documented as problems, be resolved even if it costs sig- with no change to the language. nificant relearning for those of [Colin and others reassured me us already studying the language. immediately in response to the (A limitation on this position is above that there were no other that, for most of the logical pending major issues, and indeed, issues that have faced Lojban in none have been raised in the 10 the last few years, formal logic months since this discussion]. gives no clear and single answer. Colin's last rebuttal on the Different schools of thought on issue finally convinced both me logic solve the problems and Nora that the problem required differently. Thus, Lojban fixing. Cowan remained less than research has had to forge its own convinced that a change of this school of logical thought based on magnitude at this late date was what is necessary to make the lan- tolerable even if the problem is guage self-consistent.) real, but went along with the John Cowan, who has frequently consensus. Nora's priority in proposed minor changes in the last this issue is to minimize the three years, almost all of which effect on existing text and were adopted, has come to documentation and this led to a understand the third aspect of the complication in the proposal. All problem: if the language is ever three of us were fairly certain to be documented, it must stop that Colin's solution, which is to changing. The mere existence and separate the grammars of 77 restrictive and incidental "le <quantifier> lo clauses, is not the right <description>", a plausible but solution, and also results in too arguable proposition. Cowan much complication to grammar, talked me out of this to minimize documentation, and teaching. change - it would require a "ku" My solution instead attempted to after relative clauses for all see the problem as a restriction indefinites (in addition to the in what can be said in the relative clause terminator), language, specifically in where a though real speakers don't need it relative clause may/must be because indefinites have no attached. Indeed, my solution is explicit 'inside' set to be modi- mostly an unexpected side benefit fied). The grammatical rule of trying to add preposed inside stayed in without mentioning relative clauses as a way around indefinites, because by then the the oft-occurring problem of the change was evolving to the current invalid sumti form "*<le [ci mi] proposal. The remnant of this broda ku>" that mucked up my side exercise became option 3 attempts to understand what Colin under the change, and was the was arguing during the above assumed default in the discussion. discussion (that text parses as a Upon seeing Colin's writings, my complete sentence: "<le ci mi> first inclination was to say that [cu] broda" and the "ku" is inside clauses could be solved therefore invalid). under this plan in a way that My solution to that problem was Veijo proposed: "le ci le to allow the preposed relative "le <description> ku poi broda ku", pe ci mi broda ku". and indeed it is a tribute to In proposing this to John Cowan, Veijo that this almost works. I did not realize that the real However, when there is no explicit argument was centering on the outside quantifier, a problem that distinction between inside and only manifests with "lo" and outside quantified sets, since I family, since "le" has a "ro" had not yet read Colin's paper. outside quantifier as default. Cowan had put the issue to me in For terms of an attempt to attach lo sipna noi melbi" relative clauses to explicitly I raised the following question include the outside quantifier with Nora: "Since the default without mentioning that there was quantification expands to a reason why someone might want to su'o lo ro sipna noi melbi also relatively modify the inside is the unexpanded form claiming set as well. Thus I saw the solu- that the 'indefinite sleeper' is tion as merely explicitly moving beautiful, or are all of the the relative clauses indisputably sleepers?" outside. (A major side effect of The answer appeared to depend on this turned out to be the need to whether you expanded the put a terminator on LAhE clauses, quantifiers or not - the which in turn has resulted in the unexpanded form appears to be simplification of the language outside because we haven't indicated by Change 18. That explicitly quantified the inside; change is numbered first because the expanded form seems more we agreed on it before the full ambiguous. The problem is even proposal reached its full glory. worse when repeated with "poi", Changes 17 and 19 are also side and Nora declared that something effects related to Changes 20 and was indeed 'broken'. You cannot 21.) use Veijo's solution to fix this I also attempted to pretty up since "*le [su'o] lo sipna poi the grammar by combining melbi ku" isn't grammatical with indefinites with relative clauses the "su'o" left implicit and in one place. The rule I proposed unstated. basically saw the use of an inside Thus we needed some kind of quantifier as "le <indefinite>" or inside relative clause, and I 78 looked at my working proposal and free<32> = SEI # [term ... [CU #]] said, voila - it is already there. selbri /SEhU/ | SOI sumti The preposed relative clause is [sumti] /SEhU/ | vocative selbri indisputably 'inside', and I even [nested-relative-clauses] /DOhU/ had a postposed inside relative | vocative relative-clauses available when the inside set is sumti-tail /DOhU/ | vocative quantified, based on the internal- CMENE ... # [nested-relative- indefinite rule. clauses] /DOhU/ | vocative Indefinites were separated back [sumti] /DOhU/ | (number | out per Cowan's argument, as letteral-string) MAI | TO text mentioned above, but the result is /TOI/ | XI number /BOI/ | XI highlighted in the following letteral-string /BOI/ | XI VEI extracts from the E-BNF. Note mex /VEhO/ that I consider the question of nesting of relative clauses and a The rule that proposed for 113 couple of other things that came is the remnant of the attempt to up, as side issues, but they also merge indefinites and inside appear in the rules quoted. quantifiers. It allows inside postposed relative quantifiers [The following E-BNF is not the before the "ku" if-and-only-if proposal as finally adopted, which there is also an inside deleted Change Proposal 21. quantifier. My argument for this However, it is fairly hard to was that it allows the most understand the three original natural meshing with the defaults options of Change 20, along with assumed in the past language, Change 21, without this version of which perhaps have been the E-BNF.] excessively English-based, but in any event are indeed historical sumti-3<93> = sumti-4 | gek sumti and at least plausible gik sumti-3 interpretations. sumti-4<94> = sumti-5 | quantifier John Cowan did not like this selbri /KU#/ | sumti4 relative- idea, because it makes "lo sipna clauses poi melbi" and "su'o lo ro sipna sumti-5<95> = sumti-6 | quantifier poi melbi" group differently even sumti-5 though one is the defined sumti-6<96> = (LAhE # | NAhE BO #) transformation of the other. I sumti /LUhU#/ | gek sumti gik argued that the transformation sumti-4 | KOhA # | letteral- must include the "ku" explicitly string /BOI#/ | LA CMENE ... # | before expanding, and thus there (LA | LE) sumti-tail /KU#/ | LI is no inconsistency. "lo sipna ku mex /LOhO#/ | ZO any-word # | LU poi melbi" expands to "su'o lo ro text /LIhU/ # | LOhU any-word sipna ku poi melbi". However, the ... LEhU # | ZOI any-word inside restriction requires that anything any-word # the relative clause be preposed in sumti-tail<111> = relative-clauses order to contract it "su'o lo ro sumti-tail | [sumti-6 [nested- sipna poi melbi ku" -> "lo poi relative-clauses]] sumti-tail-1 melbi vau/ku'o sipna ku" sumti-tail-1<112> = selbri | Note that you need a terminator sumti-tail-2 | quantifier sumti on the preposed relative clauses sumti-tail-2<113> = quantifier most of the time. I would use selbri | sumti-tail-2 relative- "vau", though "ku'o" is more clauses exact, because "vau" is nested-relative-clauses<120> = monosyllabic and the idea of relative-clauses ... preposing is to contract. relative-clauses<121> = relative- clause [ZIhE relative-clause] ... Excerpts from Change 20 and 21 as relative-clause<122> = GOI term originally proposed but not in the /GEhU#/ | NOI sentence /KUhO#/ final proposal 79 Options relating to allowing to do so. Another negative aspect postposed relative clauses inside is that "lo broda noi/poi brode" the KU (referring to inside-sets, (external relative) would have a and thus paralleling the preposed different parse than "su'o lo ro equivalent) lead to a complicated broda noi/poi broda" (internal tradeoff, which is left for the relative), which is merely the community to resolve. Option 3) same sumti with implicit is believed closest to the current quantifiers made explicit. This grammar and semantics, and is the could make it more difficult to default selection described by the teach, though it might make natu- E-BNF above. ral expression easier if relative 1) If postposed inside relatives clauses end up grouping correctly are allowed in all descriptions, most often without the KU. then the preposed/postposed A note applicable to all options distinction becomes a is that preposed relative clauses forethought/afterthought (but not relative phrases) will distinction, which can be almost always require a valuable. It also makes existing terminator, though monosyllabic texts retain their currently "vau" is usually as applicable as official inside-relative "ku'o". Since preposed relative interpretation (unless the KU is clauses require a terminator, 1) explicitly present, a rarity), or 3) may be advantageous in that which is arguably desirable as the they always allow the afterthought default (though it must be construction which does not recognized that there are text ex- require a terminator (but may amples where the speaker obviously require explicit KU too often, wanted to apply the relative especially in option 1). clause to the externally quantified sumti.) The negative CHANGE 21 tradeoff of this is that KU PROPOSED CHANGE becomes always required when you Allow nesting of relative want an external relative clause. clauses, distinct from ZIhEk 2) If postposed inside relatives grouping which retains relative are never allowed, then all clauses at the same level existing usages will become parsed (commutative and associative, with as external relatives whether or all restrictions taking place not a KU is present. This is before non-restrictive uses). probably equally valid as 1) as a RATIONALE default, and makes a simpler, This change is mostly made moot easier-to-teach grammar, since one by the addition of both inside and learns the rule: prepose inside, outside relative clauses, which postpose outside. The negative probably renders the need for tradeoffs are that this eliminates nesting to be negligible. the forethought/afterthought It is argued that natural distinction, forcing the speaker language speakers will process to form all inside restrictions relative clauses as they come to before starting the description. them, making "zi'e" grouping Somewhat more of older texts will unnatural if in keeping with the be misinterpreted under the new logical aspects of the language. parse, since they use postposed (Actual Lojban usage suggests that relative clauses, but are often people will prefer to put "goi" intended to refer to the inside assignments, which are non- set. restrictive, closer to the sumti 3) A third option is to allow than restrictive ones, even when postposed inside relatives only the wish the assignment to include when there is an inside the restriction.) quantifier. Though it seems The advantages are that nesting counter-intuitive that this would allows variable assignment to handle almost all problems with intermediate restrictions: existing texts, in fact it appears 80 lo sipna goi ko'a poi melbi goi Commentary on the Proposed Change ko'e poi mi nelci [ke'a] goi ko'i that led to the version that was ("ke'a" in this case would seem to adopted be the same as "ko'e", requiring "ke'axire" to get the equivalent Iain Alexander: of "ko'a" if it was useful for sumti-6<96>: How do we attach some reason. relative clauses unambiguously to Another argument is that "voi" a whole "<GEk ... GIk>" or "sumti restrictive clauses, which are ek sumti"... I think the only way intensional, would be implicitly to do that is some kind of nested. As yet there has been no terminator or grouping mechanism. example of a multiple "voi" Similarly we do need to say things relative clause to support this like "Three of the people who since "voi" is new in the language voted", or "Three of the men who and remains seldom-used. voted". But you can either use Thus the bottom line is that some sort of inside quantifier or some would like this option, and use "ci lu'a ... lu'u", so we're it is an expansion of the language covered. that dovetails well with Change If LUhI is the answer [yes, it 20. is], then I'll accept that. sumti-5<95>: I notice that in getting rid of multiple quantifiers on an indefinite description, you've ended up with multiple quantifiers on a sumti-6 :-) Change 20. I've tossed this around various ways, and I've more or less convinced myself that, if it comes down to it, I can probably live with all the options, including no change. The argument revolves round the ability to force the required grouping, either by using one of the (LAhE that used to be LUhI), to force an inside quantifier, or an explicit "ku" to force an outside one. The existing grammar has some potential ambiguities, such as <quantifier selbri /KU/ relatives> and <quantifier (LA | LE) sumti-tail /KU/ relatives> (which latter is an expanded instance of sumti-3) - with the "ku" elided and no explicit grouping, it could be interpreted either way. You can regard this as a bug or a feature, depending on your point of view. The way the grammar is actually laid out suggests an outside relative for the former, and an inside one for the latter (but that's with or without the "ku"). In fact all versions seem to imply an outside relative for the former implicit indefinite, which 81 is reasonable enough. However on This is obviously cumbersome, but balance, I suspect the ambiguities then the whole idea of three are too confusing. nested relatives with intermediate On balance, I prefer an variable assignments is occasional extra "ku" to an occa- cumbersome. We already appear to sional extra LAhE. The "ku" is have relatives coming out our ears shorter, and the LAhE carries an in descriptions (preposed, nested, extra unwanted semantic inside postposed and outside implication. In the "poi" case, postposed). I'm generally in the distinction between some cases favour of flexibility, but perhaps with and without the "ku" is enough is enough. Put me down as vanishingly small, e.g. "lo a NO, although not a very loud sipna", "le ci sipna". In the one. "noi" case, I think if anything the "ku" helps to make the point, Veijo Vilva echoing the pause resulting from Lojbab's analysis of the the comma in the English - but (de)merits of the various options that may be excessively parochial. seems reasonable. My ranking of I like the preposed relatives the options is, however, 2 3 1. for variety, but I'm too fond of At this stage option 2 seems to postposed relatives not to use be clearly the best choice and the them even at the expense of a difference between the other two little awkwardness. is minimal. All the options are, I'm not so keen on option 2, however, acceptable to me. since it means you will always 1. option 2 seems to be the need a LUhA to force an inside basic option, the other two are postposed relative. just elaborations of it : 2 < 3 < The decision between options 1 1 and 3 is closer. If I were to 2. Basically 3 and 1 just add work out all the cases, it might ways to express the same things. turn out that extra LAhE in option I am not very concerned about the 3 were sufficiently fewer than lack of the fore- extra "ku" in option 1 to tip the thought/afterthought distinction scales to option 3, but at the in option 2. Most afterthoughts moment, I lean towards option 1. are, after all, incidental in 21. The only problem with this nature and can be considered appears to be cases like external. "le prenu goi ko'a poi mi nelci 3. Option 2 will cause perhaps ko'a goi le prenu poi mi nelci". the greatest amount of changes in "le prenu <goi [ko'a poi mi nelci the existing texts but the corpus {ko'a goi <le prenu poi mi is not too large at the moment. nelci>}]>". In five years time the situation ... [Some complicated analysis by will be different, I hope. It is Iain showed that use of multiply always easier to expand the nested and variable-assigned language later on, if the need relative clauses, one of the few arises, because it doesn't benefits of Change 21, are very necessarily mean changes to the non-intuitive. They often group existing texts. I think it is differently than you would expect wiser to adopt option 2 now and unless you put a lot of terminator check the need for and syntactical in.] consequences of options 3 and 1 In the current grammar, we could very carefully during the five- have said year waiting period. lu'a lu'a lo sipna [vau] [ku] goi 4. Not much goes to waste if ko'a [ge'u] lu'u the use of relative clauses is poi [ke'a] melbi [vau] [ku'o] taught according to option 2 as it zi'e goi ko'e [ge'u] lu'u is the core option (besides being poi mi nelci [ke'a] [vau] the easiest to teach). [ku'o] zi'e goi ko'i [ge'u] 5. I have tried to estimate the consequences of using only the 82 preposed form of internal relative It is also noteworthy that a clauses based on the knowledge I sumti with preposed relatives is a have about different languages. I very clearly demarcated entity and do read reasonably well Finnish, in x1 position there won't be the English, German and Swedish. In separation caused by a postposed addition I know the basic grammar relative between the main sumti of Japanese quite well (my reading and the selbri. isn't too good). There are great 6. One of the weaknesses of differences between these option 3 is that the legality of languages in the use of preposed the postposed internals - which clauses. English is quite limited many feel are more natural - is in this respect, Finnish coming as dependent on the existence of the a good second. Swedish and German internal quantifier. In the heat are reasonable and in Japanese it of a conversation it's all too seems to be the only possibility easy to forget the rule and use and is quite well developed. the postposed form even when not I have often been quite appropriate. frustrated writing Finnish because In option 1 the need to juggle of the inherent limitations of the the KU's is a real drawback and a so-called pro-sentences which can possible source of confusion. The be preposed. It takes extreme flexibility of opt1 may be more care in the formulation of the illusory than real. It might well postposed relative clauses to make turn out that in practice this exactly the point I am after as it extra flexibility would be more of is all too easy to write am- a burden. It is also more bivalent sentences. The difficult to check the possibility to use the preposed consequences of the adoption of restrictives would usually solve option 1 to the whole sumti the problems but the limitations grammar. in the Finnish system are too Option 2 has no apparent severe. In Japanese the problem weaknesses and is in a way a quite is reversed. You can prepose balanced choice between two worlds complete sentences but differen- as the restrictives will mostly be tiating between restrictive and preposed and the incidentals incidental clauses may be dif- postposed - so everybody ought to ficult. I have never had, be happy :-). however, difficulties in under- I think we ought to use the standing and using the preposed design of the language as a tool clauses of Japanese in general. to enforce clearer ways of My general feeling is that the expression - as long as the use of preposed relatives adopted design doesn't hinder shouldn't cause unsurmountable expression. How many of us do difficulties. really customarily strive for The beauty of the preposed exact expression? Most of the restrictive clauses is in that you scientific articles I have read define beforehand what you will be during the last 25 years have been talking about - it's kind of full of ambiguous sentences - having a local prenex. The irrespective of the language they incidental information is clearly have been written in. Quite few separated and there is less chance authors seem to have the ambition, for confusion. I feel this is so the talent and/or the time to hone important that I'd be willing to their expressions to clarity. It give up in exchange the nested would be a real bonus if a lan- relative clauses I have been guage were designed so as to advocating. (NB. Even though the gently push the users in the right nested relatives do offer some direction. Maximum flexibility in theoretical advantages, we may be a language sets also the greatest asking for trouble in the form of demands on the user to avoid lots of incomprehensible exercises ambiguous ways of expression. We of cleverness if we adopt them.) are in a unique position and we 83 ought to do our best to find the ditto (sumti-4) and sometimes a correct balance between regulation constituent in their own right and flexibility. I feel that the (nested-relative-clauses). I expressive power of Lojban at its accept that this is an artifact of present stage of development is writing grammar for YACC, but I such that even if we adopt the think it is unfortunate for a most restrictive one of the "nu'o" syntactic-semantic options, it is quite impossible to description of the language, not prevent a really determined to mention any transformational individual from presenting his account. thoughts in a muddled way - so I The three options: I favour think we needn't worry. option 1) because it is the most orthogonal - I don't like the way Colin Fine: that forethought/afterthought What particularly delights me is either have different meanings (2) that your proposal in effect or depend on other structures, matches both much of my recent whose relevance may not be im- suggestion, and also the call I mediately obvious (3). Note that made the other month for pre-posed the part of my argument which you relatives. I did not expect this have rejected is my claim that the bounty. unmarked position for incidentals I understand le do'o reluctance should be external, while that for to make a change of this size this restrictives is internal; option 1 late, but I believe it is a reflects that belief in the (more noticeable improvement to the important pe'i) case of grammar, so I certainly support restrictives. it. I definitely favour option 1) Preposed relatives: I didn't (which is the closest to my say that "postposed relatives are suggestion), but would accept 3). abnormal to all but English I am least happy with 2). speakers in an AN (adjective- A few more specific comments: noun)-ordered language"! That's a "le pe ci mi broda" was exactly much stronger claim than I ever what I argued for the other month. intended to make. I said that I have one or two queries about some languages have only pre-posed the grammar you exhibited: 1) the relatives, and I don't see why E-BNF has "gek" in both sumti-3 Lojban should not extend its and sumti-6, which surprised me, flexibility to allow those. and indeed it seems to be only in I note that we will have the sumti-3 in the YACC. This option of teaching pseudo- prevents you from saying possessives as a special case of *ci ge le broda gi ko'a and preposed-relatives, thus *[ge le broda gi ko'a ] poi melbi le mi zdani which seem fine to me - they're as elliptic for not very intuitive, and if you le pe mi zdani really want them you can nest just as explicitly though sumti-6 with ze mensi LAhE or else LE <quantifier> is elliptic for <sumti>. I take it that this is ze lo mensi. actually just a bug in the I don't say we have to do this, proposed E-BNF. [Yes] but it is an option. 2) I found it a bit odd that both sumti-4 and sumti-5 can start Mark Shoulson: with quantifier, but I take it I prefer options (1) and (3) LALR-1 can handle this. greatly over option (2), perhaps 3) I also found it odd that with slight preference to (1). I multiple "zi'e zei claxu" don't like the restrictiveness of [without-zi'e] relative clauses (2); I want to be able to put my are sometimes left-branching relatives as afterthought even if sisters of a constituent (sumti- they're inside, thank you. (3) tail), sometimes right-branching seems kludgy, and I don't much 84 mind the odd "ku" thrown in here [Mark: Well, allowing one and there to make (1) work. For entails allowing the other, so it one thing, it's usually close to amounts to the same thing. And I right even without the "ku", and did consider using a non-logical for another, "ku" is a short, (perhaps "ce"), though I figured quick syllable, and we've already that the observation could be gotten used to using it with the independent, simply "seeing one" very common conjunction "joi" ("lo and "seeing the other", as if in nanmu ku joi lo ninmu", etc.) And two sentences, and thus using the don't screw around with reversing logical ".e". Stylistic point of "ku'o" and "vau"; much work for contention, of course, and I'm little gain. open to correction.] [Colin continues: Nonetheless, John Cowan I agree with you [Mark] - a Infinite quantifiers on a sumti: logical ".e" is possible there, I agree that this is a useless though I don't think it is a good wart and that it should go. One translation; and in any case, quantifier is enough; if you want there are plenty of examples with more, use "lo I lo J lo K broda". ".a" or ".onai" [It went.] mu'ulu<< mi darno viska le Relative clauses vs. logical xirma .onai le xasli .i connectives: I don't agree that le sego'i cu lacpu le it makes sense to attach a karce >>li'u relative clause to logically e.g. " I see far off a horse connected sumti. Remember that or donkey(. It's) logical connection expands to pulling a cart" separate sentences. If this This is one way to say it, and really needs to be done, use LAhE. there is another with a connection [Mark Shoulson responds: Oh, inside the description, "le xirma no. It is very sensible. I ran jonai xasli noi lacpu le karce", into it when I started playing but I don't know how to get it with the Tower of Babel story. If with connected sumti and a "noi", you check your text, God descended which is what I want to use. (The to see "the city and the tower Lojban above does not express which the sons of Man had built." whether the second sentence is I think we'd all agree that that's restrictive or incidental). a very natural construction, and [Lojbab: Non-connected that "which the sons of Man had sentences are inherently inci- built" obviously applies to both dental.] the city and the tower. Logically [Mark replies: The only way, (and non-logically, for that currently, to do it is using matter) conjoined sumti are as LUhI/LUhU. Pick the one that natural to language as simple makes the most sense. I'd go with ones, and are as likely to be "lu'a". Thus: relativized as a unit. I used a mi darno viska lu'a le xirma LUhI/LUhU set to handle this case, .onai le xasli lu'u as "lu'a le tcadu .e le kamju lu'u poi/noi ke'a lacpu le poi loi remna cu zbasu" (I thought karce the logical ".e" worked here, but Simple enough, but I suspect maybe not...). It could be that common enough to warrant finding a termsets are the best answer to way to do it without the "lu'a" this type of problem, but it is and unelidable "lu'u". Can our not true that this type of tired, overworked "bo" help? No, construction is nonsensical or un- I think it's already in use in common. that place...] [Colin Fine replies: But John specifically referred to "logical [As a result of the above connectives" and your example is discussion, option 1 was selected, better translated with a non- and the proposal was modified to logical. account for the comments. 85 - regarding these as JOI. In this way they could even be Usage Questions and Grammar/Word used in tanru, just as the members Proposals Related to Usage of JOI are. We could say: (5) le karce cu xunre semau narju New JOI "The car was more red than by Greg Higley orange." With the current definition of the Has it ever been considered that grammar, I can't even imagine how some of the members of selma'o BAI to say something like this. You might be better construed as can see how much easier it is to members of a conjunctive selma'o do if we change the grammar of mau such as JOI? In particular we and me'a. have "mau" and "me'a". To borrow Sentences too could be linked a natural language analogy, aren't much more easily this way. We these much more like conjunctions could say: than like prepositions, much more (6) le karce cu xunre .isemau ri like non-logical connectives than narju. like sumti tcita? The car is red. More than it is Take a look at a sentence with a orange. JOI connective: (1) mi djica lo vanju ku ce lo I think the main reason why djacu "mau" and "me'a" were included in "I want the wine and the water." BAI in the first place is that Here both wine and water are se when the list of gismu were sorted djica. This sentence can be to look for candidates for expanded to: inclusion in the BAI set, "zmadu" (2) mi djica lo vanju .ice mi and "mleca" seemed obvious djica lo djacu. choices. But I think it's fairly "I want the wine and also I want clear that they are conjunctive the water." and not modificatory in nature, as The "force" of the x2 place of evidenced by the current awk- djica is distributed to both sumti wardness of their usage. Please linked by ce. Now look at a consider changing their status. sentence containing semau "more (I am currently looking through than": BAI to see if any others of its (3) mi djica lo vanju ne semau lo members need to be put into a new djacu conjunctive selma'o.) Actually, "I want the wine more than (I zo me'a du lu semau li'u .ije zo want) the water." mau du lu seme'a li'u. This is a Here the sumti "lo vanju" is the little redundant. I suggest me'a x2 place of djica, and "semau lo for "less than" and mau for "more djacu" is simply linked to it as a than". This is opposite to the modifier. Awkward! current definition, but seems more It is clear semantically, though intuitively correct. Their it is not true grammatically in conversions, seme'a and semau this case, that lo djacu is a kind would be unnecessary. Keeping of "spiritual" x2 place of djica. their place structure integrity Why not make it one explicitly? would be irrelevant, since they Think how much clearer and easier would no longer be BAI. it would be to say: Try "playing around" with these (4a) mi djica lo djacu ku mau lo as conjunctive cmavo, and see if vanju they aren't much easier to use. I want the water, exceeded by the Below are a few sentences wine. designed to show the potential or range of use of my suggested (4b) mi djica lo vanju ku semau lo definition of me'a and mau: djacu (7) mi mau la djan djica lenu I want the water, more than the klama ta wine. I more than John want to go there. 86 (8) mi djica lenu klama ta .imau connectives [into multiple la djan. go'i sentences] in this way. I want to go there more than John All of which does not affect does. your point ... (9) mi djica lenu klama ta me'a la The effect you want in 4a/4b can rom. be achieved with the current I want to go there less than to grammar, admittedly less Rome. elegantly: (10) mi pumauca nelci lo vanju mi djica lo vanju .esemaubo lo I was more than I am fond of wine. djacu (11) mi dzukla mau bajykla asserts that both are wanted and I am more a walker than a runner. that there is a "semau" between Perhaps you can think of some them. more structures in which mau and (Note that this gives a me'a might be useful. possibility of variation lacking in your method: Mark Shoulson: mi djica lo vanju .anaisemaubo lo Oh, my. "mau" and "me'a" as djacu JOIs. The scary part is that it I want wine only if, but more makes a lot of sense. I don't than, water.) feel strongly enough to join Higley in calling for their re- Your version of (6) is the form classification, mostly because most closely approached by the it's a major change in concept and current grammar: in syntax, and it would invalidate le karce cu xunre .isemaubo ri a lot of text. But if by some narju bizarre set of circumstances What your suggestion does ignore reclassifying them gains support, is the possibility that there are I wouldn't be opposed, much. uses of "mau" which are genuinely Gotta think about this more. sumti tcita (attached to a selbri). I agree these are not Colin Fine: frequent, but there are some: I accept the point you are mi gleki semau tu'a le prujeftu making in [Example 1], but the "I am happier than last week" example is flawed. Probably you can always find a "jo'u", "joi", "ce" are non- paraphrase (often using "zmadu"), logical connectives delivering the but the fact is that there are three basic types of sumti: current uses of "mau" which your individuals, masses, sets. (This proposal does not meet (note that is one of Lojban's few obligatory you can almost always paraphrase a grammatical categories, and, sumti tcita with the corresponding interestingly, it is not shared by gismu, but this does not make them any other language that I know useless). of). If they were changed to JOI, Thus [using "mau" and "me'a" instead of mi djica lo vanju ku ce lo djacu "semau" and "seme'a"] would make I want the set containing wine and some sense: place structures for water most BAI are counter-intuitive does not say anything about until you understand the wanting wine or water. Use 'jo'u' principle. However, note that or else use 'lu'i'. JOIk in the grammar has an The same applies to the '.ice' optional 'SE' anyway - at present construction - except that it is the only asymmetric JOI is 'ce'o', very unclear what on earth it but conversion is permitted for means. I think it is constructing all of them. a set of sentences, but I'm not [On Greg's (7), (8), (9):] sure. In any case, it has been These are all good, but can be well established that you cannot expressed with "[j]esemaubo". in general expand non-logical [On Greg's (10):] This is exciting. I can't see an easy way 87 of doing it at present. The best mi djuno le du'u pakau le prenu pu I can think of is: dzuli'u le loldi mipepu .esemaubo mipeca cu nelci I know that one of the people lo vanju walked on the floor, and I know I of the past, more than I of the which one. present, am fond of wine. I know which one of the people [On Greg's (11):] Poor example walked on the floor. - I took that as "I walk more than I am indicating that the referent I run", which is different in of "pakau le prenu" is known (to English, but the principle stands. me). Thus "kau" means something mi dzukla gi'esemaubo bajykla like "referent known". And if I - but that has a different just say "pakau le prenu pu structure, because yours is one dzuli'u le loldi" apparently the tanru, mine is not. meaning is the same as when This example also shows the "djuno" was the main selbri. And general problem with "mau" - the here's where we run into a prob- scale is not expressed. This is a lem. How do we know to whom the problem with the existing "mau" referent is known? Is "kau" too, but it is possible to add a somehow connected to the x1 sumti "ci'u" or "ji'u" phrase. I'm not of "djuno" and any other related sure that would work with "mau" in gismu? For if I say JOI. la djos. djuno le du'u pakau le I agree [with Mark] that it prenu pu dzuli'u le loldi makes a lot of sense, and is quite apparently it is to Joe (and not attractive. I don't agree that to me?) that the referent of "it's a major change in concept "pakau le prenu" is known. If and in syntax" - on the contrary, "kau" does not always indicate it is shifting two words from one that it is the speaker who knows selma'o to another (existing) one. the referent, what is the standard It would invalidate a lot of text. for determining this? For However, I think that unless la djos djuno le du'u pakau le Greg can convince me that he can prenu pu dzuli'u le loldi cope with existing structures, I could mean will not support the change. Joe knows that one of the people walked on the floor, and I know Result: Change 28 was proposed in which one. response to this issue, but But this seems contrary to currently there is no support to intuition. What is the standard? implement it. Changes 30 and 31 Is there one? indirectly derive from this In the examples that came with change. The ensuing discussions the article on "kau", it was used on the topic have led to with words which might be classed significant rewriting of material as "indefinites" and in the draft textbook, and a "interrogatives", and apparently couple of the minor grammar these were used interchangeably. changes above, which enhance the For our purposes, an indefinite is expression of joined sumti in the a word like "zo'e", while an 'termset' construct. interrogative is a word such as "ma" (which, as I'll show, is a close relative of "zo'e"). I kau think it would be useful and by Greg Higley advantageous to split the use of "kau" as it is used with As I understand it, the cmavo indefinites and interrogatives. "kau" indicates that the value of With interrogatives, "kau" could that which it "modifies" is known, be used to ask a question, while presumably to the speaker, but indicating that the speaker there are instances where this is already knows the answer. Thus a apparently not the case. Thus if teacher could ask her students I say mi makau zukte makau 88 What am I doing and to what end? moment. But no consensus on and her students would realize default interpretation was that she wasn't just asking this reached. for her (mental) health. I hope this distinction [between With indefinites on the other interrogatives and indefinites], hand (and I class such things as which is pretty elegant and clear, "pa le prenu" among them), "kau" wasn't passed over in the would perform its simple duty of specification of "kau" (although I letting us know that the referent remember at the time that I felt I is known. understood "kau" better than mi zo'ekau zukte zo'ekau Lojban Central :). But yes, means something like that's correct. I'm doing something-known-to-me By the way, as John Cowan will for some purpose-known-to-me. no doubt point out, "kau" is not And thus restricted to knowing/"djuno", but mi djuno le du'u do du zo'ekau can extend to all sorts of I know that you are someone-known- analogous concepts like believing, to-me. opining etc. I know who you are. becomes easy. Colin Fine: Has anyone yet noted the strong I don't believe that "se'i" relationship between "kau" and works like that at all. As things "ki'a"? The former indicates that stand at present, all discursives, the referent is known, and the like all attitudinals (other than latter asks for clarification. "pei") strictly refer to the Both can be used to express "which speaker's intentions/quality of one of the people" but in semanti- knowledge/attitude. I have on cally different situations. occasion wanted a way to indicate Still, the relationship between somebody else's attitude etc., but them is clear, and perhaps worth I'm not convinced that it is exploring further. desirable. ("se'i" is about Also note that "zo'eki'a" is whether the speaker's attitude virtually identical - if not relates to "vo'a", not about whose completely identical - to "ma" in attitude it is).1 meaning. In fact, it is probably ____________________ possible to form the whole range 1Iain comments: Regarding Colin's of interrogatives by affixing comment on "se'i",] as I un- "ki'a" to their corresponding derstand it, the way to indicate indefinites. (Japanese, I someone else's attitude etc. is to believe, does something similar.) use something like "sei [vo'a] I am not suggesting that this be jinvi". done. It would be unnecessarily Colin responds: or "fi'o jinvi verbose. But it is worth noting ko'a"... the relationship. You can do this with most UI, but it sometimes needs some Nick Nicholas: thought to find a suitable brivla. [Who does "kau" refer to?] An Anybody got any ideas about the outstanding question. I have held selbri corresponding to ".ai"? that the knower of "kau" is the Iain replies: The closest I've knower of the bridi it is in, come up with is "terzu'e". As implicit or not. "John knows mentioned in my comments on Nick's which one." I also wished that mekso translation, "ca'e" isn't extended to observative very easy either. attitudinals such as "za'a", which Lojbab: When we first created gave rise to reaction from Lojbab. the attitudinal list, we had a This issue is unresolved, but I gismu or brivla equivalent for agree with you on the above each attitudinal - this was part solution being counter-intuitive. of the criteria in choosing the "se'i"/"se'inai" exist as (kludgy) original gismu list: a primitive patchwork disambiguators at the emotion word should have a 89 On reflection, I think [Greg's] "kau" was the subject of the is a good distinction. However, first comment I posted on the if this is the case, then "kau" list. My interpretation of John does not, as I thought, remove the Cowan's response is that "kau" 'performative' quality of isn't about "knowledge", it's question-words ("ma" etc) - then about abstraction, in particular, various texts of mine, and I think the identity of the concept it's others, are wrong. attached to. So "lekau prenu" is mi djuno le du'u le cukta cu zvati "the identity of the person". makau Since it's a UI, it can be is still asking a question of the attached to almost anything, to hearer, which was not my previous denote the identity of, e.g. a understanding of it. logical connective. The current By the way, "kau" is not official position is that exactly restricted to "knowing/djuno, but which member of the selma'o (or can extend to all sorts of presumably, which gismu) is used analogous concepts like believing, is not important, although it opining etc." Asking, too! might indicate something about the type of value expected. Iain Alexander: With this interpretation, "le __________________________________ pakau prenu" means "the number of primitive root. The redesign of people", i.e. essentially the same the attitudinal space, and the as "leni prenu". major expansion that result In practice, it frequently therefrom kinda messed this up. occurs inside a "du'u" abstrac- The distinctions that are tion, with the side-effect of permitted now using attitudinals 'inverting' the whole construct to are more diverse than there are refer to the identity of whatever yet defined gismu and brivla in is tagged, within the given that semantic space. context. To my mind, this means By recollection, the old meaning it changes the meaning of "du'u". of ".ai" could simply be handled Further complications arise if the by "balvi". The sense that JCB "du'u" is nested, in which case had for ".ai" was like unto the subscripts need to be used to American sailor's response "Aye, indicate that the "kau" is Aye! Sir!", hence the cognate. relative to an outer "du'u". But we certainly now have the Things might be simpler if a capacity to distinguish between separate cmavo, say "xau", in "intent", "prediction", and selma'o NU, was allocated for this "expectation" using the attitudi- usage, meaning "x1 is the identity nals, and "balvi" no longer of whatever is tagged with "kau" satisfies me for ".ai". My choice in [bridi]". of the top of my head would be "platu" using the new place struc- Nora LeChevalier: My ture that puts a planner in x1, understanding of "kau" is that it instead of a plan. flags the 'key item' for any As for "ca'e", I can see a lot bridi. Thus, of these questions coming. mi djica lenu pakau le prenu pu Someone want to tackle a list of dzuli'u le loldi gismu/brivla for the entire doesn't say that I know the one attitudinal list? Editted and who walked on the floor, but enhanced, it will probably be rather that I desire that added to the dictionary-in- particular one. It can be used to progress. "ca'e" doesn't seem say "John is the one I want to that hard: "smuni xusra" or walk on the floor": "smuni cuxna" or "smuni jdice" mi djica lenu pakau le prenu ku seem like tanru on which to base a po'u la djan. pu dzuli'u le loldi lujvo for "define". Hmm. Add in "zo'eki'a" can appear after "sruma" in combination with the usage of "zo'e" as more of a above to add to the possibilities. metalinguistic comment (What do 90 you mean "zo'e" - "zo'e" can't be ri mulno be loka nolraixli be'o the right word here!) and is thus gi'o se zanru ko'a =.isemu'ibo similar to "na'i". "ma" has no ko'a fe'eroroi litru gi'e sisku pa such function. Using "zo'eki'a" go'i =.iku'i roroi nabmi =.i for "ma" would deny the important sa'e ge lo nolraixli cu raumei usage that prompted invention of ju'o gi lo ni ri nolraixli ku ko'a "ki'a". "ki'a" is a request - for na se birti .!uu =.i roroiku le clarification - and would be no'e drani vau30 =.i ko'a ki'u inappropriate except in response se'irzdakla gi'e badri lenu to someone else using the words na'epu'i cpacu lo nolraixli mulno that you are questioning. ni'o pa vanci cu ki jaica ke selte'a vilti'a =.i lindi joi savru joi carvi joi camcilce =.i le lojbo se ciska (cont) zo'e darxi le tcavro =.i le sorna'a nolraitru ki'u minde lenu Speaking of "kau", the following le vorme cu karbi'o =.i le bartu Lojban text makes use of the word. cu nolraixli =.i ri selkecmlu See Nick's footnoted comment for .!uuse'inai ri'a tu'a lo carvi his further views on "kau". .ebo lo xlali vilti'a =.i Following is Colin Fine's mo'ini'a flecu lo djacu vi le translation into Lojban of a kerfa .e le taxfu =.i flecu ji'a familiar children's fairy tale. pa'o le cutci file cucti'e le It is the first text to be vetted cucyzbi [tosa'a pamoi pinka toi] under the 'editor de jour' concept =.i cusku fa ra ledu'u ra described in JL17. Nick Nicholas nolraixli mulno served as the reviewing editor. ni'o ®lu .!ue =.i cipra In this case Nick recommended =.ai li'uЇ se seisku le sorna'a publication, making some comments. truspe goi fo'e =.ije ri bacru Colin declined to make Nick's noda ku'i gi'e klama le sipku'a suggested changes, which therefore gi'e vimcu ro le ckabu'u gi'e appear as footnoted comments. All __________________________________ lujvo have been updated to the new and "ninmu", which explicitly do rafsi list enclosed with this not imply maturity. "nakni" and issue (manually by Lojbab, so "fetsi" might also do, though they please forgive any errors). do not necessarily imply 'human'; The translation immediately however, "person-ness" is implied follows, unlike our normal by the "royal-" status - the story practice, due to the length of could easily be told about a non- this issue. human but vaguely humanoid intelligent species. ®lu le nolraixline ga'u le dembi 30Nick: Hm. Because I equate the li'uЇ referent of "lo nolraixli" with cmene di'e noi se finti the earlier one in the tale (He la xans. krIstian. Andrsn. seeks a princess), this sounds like "the princess is enough". =.itu'e tu'e But of course, the Lojban doesn't lisri le nolrainanla29 goi ko'a say that at all; "nolraixli" is =.i ko'a djica lo nolraixli =.i quantified afresh here. Still, ____________________ might it not make more sense to 29Lojbab: Colin chose to base his say "raumei lo nolraixli" or "loi words for "princess" and "prince" nolraixli cu raumei"? I don't on "nanla" and "nixli", which recall the place structure of explicitly denote immaturity, even "mei" right now. And I'd have though it seems from the story said "roroiku da no'e drani" (note context that the prince, at least, that, for quantification, the is an adult (he is taking the "roroiku" has to go before the princess as a wife, and it appears "da", else we assert that there is to be his volition rather than an one thing always awry, rather than arranged marriage in the royal one thing each time. (We do need youth. Better choices are "nanmu" a quantification paper badly). 91 punji le pa dembi le ckazbe lenu fo'a34 fi le reno sraki'e ku =.ijebabo fo'e cpacu reno jo'u le reno gairki'e cu ganse fe vresraki'e gi'e cpana punji ri le le dembi =.i lo ckaji be loka dembi =.i pa'aku reno datkypi'u ganse du'i la'edi'u cu nolraixli gairki'e co'a cpana le sraki'e mulno ju'o =.i ro go'i cu se vreta le ni'o le nolrainanla goi ko'a nolraixli goi fo'a ca'o le nicte co'a speni fo'a =.i ko'a seki'u ni'o co'i le cerni cu preti fo djuno ledu'u vo'a kansa le mulno fo'a fe leli'i fo'a capu31 sipna be loka nolraixli =.i le dembi ge'ekau32 ba se punji fi la larku'a [tosa'a =.i ®lu .!oicairo'o [seisa'a remoi pinka toi] =.i caji'a selsku be fo'a] =.i mi go'i35 =.ijo noda capu vimcu su'eso'uroi .!uu ga'orga'i le .!iacu'i tu'u ni'o di'u jetnu kanla ca'o piro le nicte =.i ?ma lisri .!uo.ui za'anai ?pausai nenri le ckana33 tu'u =.i mi puca'o vreta le raktu jdari ni'oni'o di'e pinka =.i piro lemi xadni ri'a bunre joi =.i pamai le lujvo po'u zo blanu =.i to'e zdile .!oisai cucyzbi cu satci te fanva fe li'uЇ ®zoi.dy. Naesen paa Skoen .dy.Ї =.i seni'ibo co'i djuno ledu'u =.i mi nelci le di'u bangrdanska fo'a nolraixli je'a mulno ki'u tanru =.i remai [tu'e la larku'a po'u ____________________ ®la'o .dy. Kunstkammeret .dy.Ї cu 31Lojbab: John Cowan has expressed ga'orbi'o ca le nanca be li the opinion that, under the rules pabirepa gi'eseri'abo ca'a teke as interpreted by his tense paper, carmi morji caze'u le lisri =.i cmavo compounds based on "ca" no le'i ca'a jmaji noi selzda le longer have perfective intent. tolci'o ke nolraitru ckusro dinju 32Nick: This remains a clever use cu selcmi so'i vrici ne mu'u lo of "kau", and should get mentioned prucedra lisri ku ce lo naiske in any write-up about it. By the lisri ku ce lo rarske cizra tu'u] way, from my reading, it does seem =.i di'u se krasi le pinka ne bau that lambda calculus is the best la dansk. fo la xans. briks. jo'u way to explain "kau". For those la .anker. iensn. unfamiliar with it: lambda calculus explains math at a deep Colin's translation: level. 'LAMBDA(x.x+x)' is the function taking x as an argument The Princess on the Pea and returning x+x. Lambda(x.x+x) There was once a prince, who 1 is a function application to 1, wanted a princess for himself, but and evaluates to 2. The lambda she had to be a real princess. So expression itself is a function he went all round the world trying waiting for an argument. Lojban to find one, but there was always selbri aren't lambda function; some hindrance: there were plenty their arguments are filled with of princesses, but whether they "zo'e", or explicit values. In "I were real princesses, he could know who did it", though, the never be sure - there was always predicate "did it" is crying out something that wasn't quite right. for an argument to fill in x1: So he went home and was sad, (LAMBDA "zo'ekau"."zo'ekau gasnu ri"). For that matter, a lot of ____________________ the elliptical places, as John 34Nick: I think you need a "kei" Cowan has mentioned, get explained before "ki'u": her feeling the by it: Being a parent is diffi- pea does not cause her to be a cult - not being a parent of John, princess, but causes them to know or of Mary, but (LAMBDA it. "zo'ekau"."mi rirni zo'ekau"). 35Nick: I don't know about "go'i" 33Nick: I don't like "ga'orga'i", - what is true now is that the pea but that's a matter of taste. I remains there, not that it is rather like the "za'anai ?pausai". still being placed there. 92 because he so much wanted a gen- Sylvia Rutiser, of the DC-area uine princess. Lojban group, attempted her own One evening there was a independent translation, though frightful storm. There was she did not complete it. Since lightning and thunder, the rain Sylvia is a moderately skilled poured down, it was dreadful! Lojbanist, her effort is a There was a knocking on the town reasonable standard for a learning gate, and the old king ordered it Lojbanist to strive for. opened. Significant differences between It was a princess standing the following and Colin's version outside. But God how she looked of what he intended, are areas in the rain and the storm! The where either Colin wasn't clear, water ran down her hair and her or used a construct that even clothes, and went in at the toes Sylvia could not figure out of her shoes and out at the heels. (Sylvia admitted having some unan- And she said she was a real swered questions when she princess. completed the translation; in some "We'll see about that!" thought cases, the wording may be strange the old queen, but she said due to these questions). nothing. She went to the bedroom, took off all the bedclothes, and "The princess and the bean" put a pea on the base of the bed. names this that was invented by Then she took twenty mattresses Hans Christian Anderson. and put them on top of the pea, This is a story of the prince. and then twenty eiderdowns on top He desires a princess. She is of the mattresses. complete in the quality of And that's where the princess "princessness" if and only if she was to lie that night. is approved by him (I question In the morning, they asked her this). Therefore, he travels how she had slept. everywhere and seeks such a "Oh, terribly!", said the princess. However, there are princess. "I hardly closed my always problems. To be precise, eyes the whole night! God knows there were enough princesses, and what there was in the bed! I was he was not certain if they were lying on something hard, and I'm all princesses. Always something black and blue everywhere! It's was not correct. Therefore, he quite horrible!" went home and was sad about not So they could see that she was a being able to get a complete real princess, since she had felt princess. the pea through twenty mattresses (Set time) One evening it was and twenty quilts. Nobody but a stormy. Lightning and rain and real princess could be that intense wildness. Something hits sensitive. the city gate. The old king The prince took her for his therefore commands that the door wife, for now he knew that he had be opened. The outside thing is a a real princess, and the pea was princess. She was pitiful seeming put into the Kunstkammer, where it because of the rain and storm. is still to be seen, if nobody has Water flowed off her hair and taken it away. clothing. You see, it's a true story! "Surprise! Test. Intent" is Note (from Blix & Jensen): The said to herself by the old queen. Kunstkammer ("art chamber") closed And she said nothing and goes to in 1821 and was therefore fresh in the sleeproom and removes all the memory at the time of the tale. bed-cloth and puts one bean on the The collection was housed in the bed-frame. She then takes twenty old Royal Library, and contained mattresses and sets them on the many different things: old sagas, bean. Each respectively twenty ethnographic tales, curiosities of duck-feather cover cushions upon natural history, and so on. the mattresses. All of this is 93 reclined on by the princess whereas ".ause'inai" means "I want through the night you to have it". This function In the morning she is questioned obviously conflicts with using about the experience of her ".ause'inai" to mean "You want sleeping (emotion unspecified) it". "Ouch! she said I my eyes all There exists a general mechanism night. Why? I observe ( question for expressing complex attitudes: follows) in the bed. I "sei" followed by a bridi with continuously reclined on the limited syntax. With this troubling hard thing. All of my machinery, "You want it" becomes body (therefore) is brown mixed "sei do djica". However, it is with blue. Not funny. often hard to decide exactly which Complaint!" selbri should be used to express a Therefore it is known that she particular attitude, and for the is a princess truly complete, case of attributing feelings to because (reason) the event that another, some additional support she (through 20 mattresses and 20 may be useful. coverlets) felt the bean. Some natural languages support ... this feature to a limited degree. I am told that in Swedish the word "uffda" signifies ".oiro'o in Empathy in Attitudinals - A empathy" - you say it not when you Proposal by John Cowan stub your toe but when you observe someone else do so. [This proposal deals with an issue discussed in footnotes from the [The proposal was formulated as: last technical article on "kau", we propose "dai" as an attitudinal though the proposal arose indicating "speaker empathy", separately.] secondarily allowing someone to As part of reviewing the cmavo attribute attitudinals to others list for inclusion in the in speech or text. The former dictionary, I have been thinking meaning of that cmavo (in selma'o about the current uses of at- KOhA), which has seen no actual titudinals. As originally use, has been assigned to "do'i".] specified, the attitudinal indica- tors of selma'o UI were solely to Nick Nicholas: specify the speaker's attitudes. The empathy attitudinal is Thus ".ui" expresses the speaker's something whose time has come: do happiness. it, John, do it! However, there has been an increasing pull toward allowing Jim Carter: attitudinals, suitably marked, to I have found it useful for express other people's feelings as attitudinals to describe the atti- well. In particular, "se'inai" tude of the subject of the bridi has been employed as an which the attitudinal is in. In attitudinal modifier for this the most common usages this will purpose. be the speaker, and a fair number I find this use objectionable of other-person usages are also for two reasons: 1) It conflicts subsumed automatically. with the original purpose of Of course this was all worked "se'i"/"se'inai" as described in out for Old Loglan. Some of the the attitudinal paper; 2) support new UI's in Lojban may be more for emotional empathy should not speaker-tropic than the old ones - be done with a negated cmavo. and in fact I was very tempted to The original purpose of "se'i" make a blanket exception that .ua- was to indicate that the object .ue-.ui-.uo-.uu always referred to (not the subject) of the feeling the speaker, not the subject. was oneself rather than another. Also there was a strong Thus, where ".au" means "desire", distinction between "discursives" ".ause'i" means "I want it" and "attitudinals", and the item 94 related by the discursives was paper, for those who track such usually or always "the previous things: discourse" rather than "the "lu'a" (loosely speaking) was speaker". (Example: le bi'u based on "kluza", a malglico cribe = the bear which is absent metaphor; it has been replaced by from the previous discourse, not "sa'e" (based on "satci") with the bear which the speaker is not meanings reversed. familiar with.) The point of "jo'a" was introduced as the these weaselwords is that we opposite of "na'i": it specifies should specify with each UI a that the text is correct as default argument selected from written, like English "[sic]". speaker, subject or previous "na'inai" would mean the same discourse. thing, but seemed too confusing as an affirmation. Lojbab: "pau" is an optional signal at I accept the idea, most the beginning of a question, and especially for narration, such as was omitted from the attitudinal Ivan's translation (in JL17), paper in error. "paunai" signals where the attitudinals expressed a rhetorical question. are those of the characters, and "kau" is attached to the focus not of the author. I suggest that of an indirect question: it does a combination of "sei" not connote knowledge metalinguistics and the proposed particularly. "dai" could be used to indicate "e'e" was changed to "competence whose point of view is indicated - incompetence". in freely inserted attitudinals. "re'e" was added as a new Or a long scope attitudinal category modifier, parallel to the attached to "dai" at the beginning "ro'V" series; it means of a story like Ivan's, merely "spiritual" and takes the place of leads to the obvious old "e'e". interpretation that all attitudes "vu'i" (virtue - sin) was expressed in a story are those changed to "vu'e" to match the new attributed empathically by the gismu "vrude". speaker to the characters. "se'a" is a new attitudinal On the other hand, I will modifier meaning "self-sufficiency strongly encourage the emphasis on - dependency", based on empathy, and not that you are in demonstrated need in Japanese and any way claiming an attitude on other cultures. the part of another person. We "be'u" is a new attitudinal never really know what another modifier meaning "lack - sat- person is thinking, or feeling; we isfaction - satiation". can only empathically identify "ta'u" and "ta'unai" were with them. hence an empathic switched in meaning. attitude is still the speaker's The former term "observational" attitude, and the Lojban attitu- has been replaced with dinal system remains consistent. "evidential", to agree with Note that there are cultures where linguistics norms, and to avoid it is taboo, or even impossible in confusion with "observative". the language, to express the "se'o" is a new evidential thoughts/feelings of another meaning "I know by internal person, on the grounds that this experience (dream, vision, or is either impossible or an personal revelation)". invasion of personal space. "ka'u" is a new evidential meaning "I know by cultural means". Summary of cmavo Changes in "su'a" is now both an evidential selma'o UI and a discursive, displacing the old discursive for "in general - Here is a list of changes to in particular". "selma'o" UI since the attitudinal 95 "ju'a" is a new vague the official interpretations evidential: "I state"; [should there be contradiction]. particularly useful in "ju'apei" = "How do you know?" Chris Handley: "bi'u" signals new information: I tend to agree with John, but "lebi'u cribe" is a newly more strongly. In any situation mentioned bear, as distinct from where there are two ways of "lebi'unai cribe" which is a bear specifying something (structure, we've heard about before. relationships, dates, whatever) "dai" newly assigned to indicate one of them will be wrong empathic identification of sometime. How many times have you another's feelings. seen a notice of a meeting that "po'o" has been proposed as a said something like "Tuesday, 1 discursive for the sense of "only" March 1993" and then missed the meaning exclusively, or uniquely, meeting because it was on the within a context. There is some Monday? debate about this addition, since there is no way to specify the Nora LeChevalier: context using the UI grammar. I am opposed to structure markings, because these break audio-visual isomorphism. All Punctuation proposals from Nick other optional punctuation marks Nicholas in the language appear with a specific words that correspond, To the current list of optional and hence are 'read off' by punctuation symbols, used to reading the associated bracket highlight sentence structure, I word. consider worthy of attention: If brackets are needed in "!" for UI words. Given the writing these cases, what corre- presence of "." before VV UI- spondingly distinguishes the words, maybe limit his to CVV UI- grouping in speech? words. "!ca'e", ".ui" or ".!ui" "{","}","[","]" to highlight structure of tanru and of various le lojbo se ciska grammar constructs like POI- clauses. "le cmima {bele [{vofli Nick's Second ckafybarja Text bo minji} jeva'i vinji] jenmi be'o} {poi vitke loi xendo} cu I have to admit that Nick bebna" Nicholas's proposals to use John Cowan has reemphasized the bracketing to make it easier for a need for a symbol to indicate the reader to figure out a complex start of a sentence, given that text structure might be useful, or ".i" is not distinctive enough. even necessary, for Nick's The most appropriate such mark writings. The following is Nick's would be a section-symbol or a submission for the ckafybarja paragraph-symbol (respectively, project, an elaborate and the two interlocking S's on top of stylistically complex character each other, and the reversed study. filled-in P ). Neither of these I said that I would print all is ASCII. I don't see why we ckafybarja submissions so they can don't revive John Hodges's be evaluated by the community. proposal, in JL10, that we revive Unfortunately, I have to admit the "=" for that purpose. If we that I could not read the Lojban, need something chunkier, perhaps a even with the bracketing that Nick "@" or a "#". inserted 'to make it easier'. Unfortunately for Nick, I agree John Cowan comments: with Nora that Lojban's These [use of "{","}","[","]"] audiovisual isomorphism requires are OK, but anyone using them must that the grammar be understandable be warned that they never affect based on what is supplied in the 96 words themselves. Lojban's design Lojbanists do not know what to do presumes that all 'punctuation' is with it.] spoken. As such, punctuation that This issue, I had to check to is inserted to make a text easier make sure any lujvo were properly to read must be algorithmically formed, and update them to the new derivable from the text structure rafsi list. Irregular cmavo itself. The bracketing that Nick compounding made this work more included in the following text difficult. When I see a compound occasionally violated the like "na'igo'i" that counters grammatical structures of the grammatical sense, I have to rule language. For many of his out the possibility that it might markings, I saw no obvious be a mismade lujvo or a typo, explanation that allowing me to omitting the hyphen 'r' that would predict what bracketing he felt to make it valid. Since many rafsi be useful, and what he felt it was represent gismu that are related unimportant to include. in meaning to the cmavo of the In addition to bracketing same form, it is plausible that an explicitly, Nick tends to write irregular compound will be seem many cmavo as compounds when there semantically plausible as a is neither a grammatical link erroneous form for a lujvo. I am between the words, nor a common thus coming to believe that Lojban English word as translation. He does not have the redundancy to and I clearly have different ideas support significant cmavo as to what should constitute a compounding. Even fluent speakers Lojban 'word'. In one case he of a language make typos when wrote "na'igo'i", which in a side writing, and learning Lojbanists comment he says is patterned after (which all of us are) make even "nago'i". But "na'igo'i" is in more typos, but also grammatical error if he wishes the "na'i" to and lujvo-making errors, that apply to go'i, so this kind of irregular word forms can hide. compounding must not be allowed to Thus, I removed all of Nick's creep into the language. markings, and expanded most of his [My own policy, rather compounds, prior to inserting my utilitarian, is that a compound is own efforts to structure the text. a single word if it forms a I then inserted those markers that gestalt image in the mind that is I could come up with simple more than the components. To the algorithmic rules for (I did this extent that the gestalt differs manually, so there may be some from the components, the word inconsistencies). New sentences needs to be put into a dictionary. are marked with an equals sign If the compound is not made of (=), per Nick's suggestion, and I words linked grammatically, a also left 3 spaces before the dictionary cannot define the word mark. I added quotation marks, as having a single meaning - parentheses (and brackets for violating the Lojban design - and parentheses marked as editorial), you may need to break the compound and question marks for question down into components in order to words and exclamation points for figure out what the role of the attitudinals. I figured any more individual words is. A secondary marks would make the text simply factor is that automated too punctuated, and indeed in processing of Lojban text, places it seems to have exceeded including the spelling checker I reason already. use in preparing JL and the Lojban Nick's text unfortunately gave glosser Nora is writing has few clues for paragraphing. The trouble dealing with irregular unfortunate result was a block of compounds. It seems likely that Lojban that was extremely hard to learning Lojbanists will have the read, even with (or especially same problem - if a word is not with) the forest of punctuation found in standard word lists, many marks. 97 Nick's style of quotation made words they follow, whereas Nick it impossible to try to follow generally writes them as English-like practices of starting compounds. new quotations in a new paragraph. Until someone convinces me He has quotations in the beginning differently, I am going to take a of sentences, in the middle of hard-nosed attitude towards text sentences, at the end of structure. I need people to keep sentences. In one place he has a their style simple enough that the series of alternating quotes and rules of the language convey what names in a single sentence with no they are supposed to. I hope Nick clue for the Lojbanist as to how and everyone else forgives what I to link the two (we have did to his text. I hope this metalinguistic structures specifi- effort, if nothing else, leads to cally designed to communicate the some agreements for the future on 'he said'/'she said' of standards for text submission and conversation, but Nick did not use for editing. these. Nick's character sketches are Nick's parentheses are certainly interesting, even if you especially confusing - a paren- need to read the English text. thetical note attaches Good luck and encouragement to grammatically as a free modifier those who try the Lojban! to the previous word, and Nick's All footnotes are by Lojbab, placements often made no sense by except where marked otherwise. this rule. If a parenthetical needs to be broken into a separate thought, as in Nick's long kafybarja #2 digression near the end of his story, it must be separated from pamo'o the previous word by an ".i" ®lu go'e =.ibaboke'u ko'u (using Lojban metalinguistic bacru ®lu ko seljde loi mabru markers to refer to the outside li'uЇ li'uЇ text as needed). =.i lei puze'a tirna cu milxe ke I decided to double indent se cfipu cmila =.i la paul. paragraphs, and to single indent bacru ®lu mabru tcini .!u'iru'e new sentences that were li'uЇ gi'e cevni melbi co dasni lo immediately followed by a start of xekri birtu'ucau .!i'ero'u quotation mark or which nercreka =.i ge lerci tcika vi immediately followed after a le barja gi carmi melbi co xekri quotation ended. This seems fa le tsani za'a loi selca'o nenri something an automatic algorithm prenu =.i so'o ve barja mo'u can do, and it helps a little in cliva =.i la lizbet. na'e go'i making the text easier on the cadykei be le xekri tedykre36 be eyes, if not on the brain. la paul. kalsa be'o se mlifanza Nick's compounds are expanded cisma no'e zanru le xajmi unless they are compounds that =.ivu.!u'esaibo ti'e xekri kalsa would be joined by the lexer tu'a loi juntytri .!ii poi vlipa component of the Lojban parser joi vlile joi ke daspo joi finti (and sometimes I expand those, vau .!u'e =.i ki vive'i kamjikca since lexer compounds can be simsa go'i .!i'unai arbitrarily long), or unless they no'i la liz. dasni lo grusi are of patterns that have notcreka (to le no'a cu se kanla traditionally been written as loi danmo blanu za'a toi) be ®lu compounds in Loglan/Lojban lenu prami cu ca'e nu nelci carmi writings like "lenu" and "lemi", se trina lo prenu ju nakni ju and "leca" (which usually means ____________________ that they have a simple English 36Nick translates this as "chaos", word or phrase in translation that for which he used the gismu makes it easy to think of the "kalsa" elsewhere in the piece; I compound as a unit). I generally get nothing from the metaphor separated indicators from the "earth-hair". 98 fetsi vau !pa'ero'a li'uЇ ne loi =.i ®lu =.i mi du'eroi lerfu co xekri =.i mi (to lego'i .!u'anaizo'o se gletro =.i mi cu se kerfa loi na'e kalsa za'a purlamcte39 seku'i go'i la liz. toi) cairmau me leli'i grusi =.i .!oinai .!u'i li'uЇ ®lu =.i ?xu grusi fa lemi plokarlycreka .e le purpla40 go'i zo'o li'uЇ ®lu palku .e le kosycreka noi jgena se =.ipe'i .!ianai snuti li'uЇ ®lu dasni ru'u le xadmidju =.i su'o =.i la paul. jikfazgau ?.iepei doi prenu cu ba'anaika'uta'o sanga liz. .!u'iru'e li'uЇ ®lu =.i bacru ®lu =.i RUSpre ce RUSta'u carmi jikfazgau ju'o .!iu =.i ko ce rusxirXEMkla li'uЇ co'u xlapre .!u'i li'uЇ ®lu =.i na'i go'i sa'e =.i {lu'e =.izo'o tu'a ko bapli .!e'inai ry. ce'o .ubu ce'o sy.}37 cu ka'u li'uЇ (to bu'a .!o'e fi leka drani se basti {lu'e xy. ce'o. ebu smaji ke lamji prami joi pendo noi ce'o ky. ce'o ry. ce'o .ybu} su'anai se mupli na'ebo lecaca'a =.ita'ocu'i su'u xekri kei vi le seltra .!i'o toi) ®lu =.i mi kafybarja le'o go'i li'uЇ ni'oremo'o su'o bevri cu =.i la paul. ce la liz. co'a .!a'acu'i masno kasydzu zo'i loi cisma simtipyda'a ni'a le jubme ve barja =.i la paul. cu tavla =.i la liz. (to gasta bo demxa'e (to le no'a mebri cu jurja'o =.i ce margu bo jamfu ce xamsi bo le laurxampre pu'i vlipa kanla vau .!io toi) certu lezu'o .!i'e.i'onai cei bu'a38 toi) fi ca'arcau damba =.i mi se leli'i gletro mliburna ctacarna co na'eke ca'arcau damba certu gi'e zgana le ____________________ barja ni'o le paltylu'i41 ku jo'u 37These strings could have been le jukpa puza cliva =.ija'ebo le done more clearly using the Mex barja cu tatpi smaji =.iji'a le grammar, which allows you to talk trixe be le barja be'o noi di'i about strings of letters and krasi leka to'e cando gi'e kurfa numbers as strings. "me'o kei ki'u lepu'u re ru vi ri ry.ubusy." and "me'o zdidabysnu (to ®lu =.i do te xy.ebukyry.ybu" would be the sluji le birka lo mleca be la'e mi corresponding string expressions. .!o'a li'uЇ ®lu =.i .!e'u mi'o Since lerfu used as sumti (as is cipra .!a'e birvrajvi =.i .!ai the case in this text) are le pritu =.i do djuno .!o'ocu'i presumed to be anaphoric ledu'u le zunle pe mi tsame'a le abbreviations, rather than literal pritu birka doi paul. li'uЇ ®lu text, this version really isn't =.i ?xu purpla go'i zo'o li'uЇ correct, though it can be figured toi) tigni fi loi ve barja cu ca out. malmliselgu'i ke dukri'a kunti 38This usage is wrong. "bu'a" is =.i la paul. jinga fi la liz. fe one of the existential predicate lenu birvrajvi =.i la liz. go'i variables, equivalent to "da" for fi mi fu'i (to ba'e dukri'a kunti sumti. Acting like "goi" does for toi) =.i lerci tcika vi le barja sumti, "cei" is the selbri =.i mi'a pu'o jbuboikei assignment marker used to assign values to the unbound selbri ____________________ variables of the brodV-series. 39The lujvo-scoring algorithm The latter series corresponds to given with the rafsi lists this "ko'a" series for sumti, and not issue would give a slight for "da" series, and is clearly preference to "prulamcte" over what Nick intends in this usage, "purlamcte". since he anaphorically repeats the 40The lujvo-scoring algorithm bridi of this sentence in the next given with the rafsi lists this parenthesis by back reference to issue would give a slight "*bu'a". preference to "prupla" over On the other hand, the mechanisms "purpla". available for defining or re- 41I would have used the more stricting bu'a series variables general "ctitcilu'i" for "dish- are relatively undefined. washer". 99 ni'ocimo'o le jatna ®lu =.i doi paul. do pu nupre lenu mi'o .!a'o do joi le pendo be do cu clira sipna =.i mi cu'urzu'e co xaufri ca leca vanci li'uЇ mi ®lu bavlamdei li'uЇ la paul. ®lu =.i go'i .!io =.i ca pamoi zu'o =.i .!u'i ?xu purpla go'i li'uЇ mi mi vitke le barja ca lo ®lu =.i .!ua mi se sitna li'uЇ relmoicte42 =.iza'a .!u'eru'e [tosa'a lemu'e sitna na dunli lei ve barja cu clira cliva ca le lemu'e xusra =.i la paul. cu cabdei li'uЇ nalri'i bacru do'i44 pe zo =.i le re jibni be mi depcni ®simfraЇ gi'u xusra =.i loi catlu le jatna =.i le jatna ®lu cmavo be zo ®zo'oЇ na'o banzu lenu =.i go'i ki'u leka lei cibdei na'o lo te sitna lo se xusra cu frica cabdei lenu mutce gunka kei vi =.i lemu'e mi se sitna cu te ciste levi tcadu =.ita'o do noi ta'e lo pemci joi kelci jenai xusra klama le barja ca lei xavycte cu plitadji be la paul. bei le bangu punai pe'i penmi la xiron. noi vi bei lenu jikca pluja =.i na sidju li'uЇ nibli fa le nunsitna lenu morna =.i la paul. ce la liz. smaji sinma =.i na nibli na'ebo le casnu lenu ri jo'u ra ba litru sego'i .!u'i =.i mi mutce la'e le merko =.i le jatna cu mezo®toЇ tavla =.i ?xu !se'izo'o degji jarco le clani ke blabi purpla go'i toi] creka xadyti'e be le cnino be mi la liz. ®lu malxlu zo'o li'uЇ gi'e cisma bacru ®lu =.i .!ai mi =.i lerci tcika vi le barja bazi benji ri do ge'e li'uЇ gi'e =.i mi'a puba'o jbuboikei =.i cliva =.i la liz. bacru ®lu lei bevri cu .!a'acu'i masno bo =.i do li'a selxagmau43 mi'a tu'a kalsydzu fa'u sutra bo kalsydzu le bangu .!o'o li'uЇ fa'u cando =.i casnu loi =.i le re se cimei na lojbo sancrfrikative .e loi relcinpampre =.i mi ®lu =.i nu vlipa jivna girvlici'e .e loi nalzva pendo zo'o =.i mi jitro joi seltro ca'o le nicte noi sruri be lo ba'a li'uЇ la paul. ®lu =.i ca ro nu vu trene co pelxu gusni nenri za'u prenu cu simfra cu nu vlipa pamei ke sirji darno xemkla zmitra jivna ru'a =.i go'i cu'u la ke snura grusi nalkalsa kunti be'o djen. vecu'u le samsnuci'e .!uo xekri =.iseni'ibozo'o. .!iecu'i go'eje'u li'uЇ mi ®lu =.i ?xu Translation of Nick's Coffeehouse purpla go'i zo'o li'uЇ la paul. Text ®lu le xaupre za'ota'e bacru ®lu ?xu purpla li'uЇ li'uЇ mi ®lu I =.i ?xu purpla go'i zo'o li'uЇ la "That's right. And then he liz. ®lu =.i co'a lerci =.i says, 'Beware of the mammals.'" ____________________ Those who have been listening 42This one lost me for a little smile with mild confusion. Paul bit, since the names of the days says "So, it's a mammal kind of of the week do not include the situation!", and is godlike- rafsi for "moi", and Nick did not beautiful in his black tank-top use "moi" elsewhere in the story (mmm...). It's late in the cafe, for "Saturday night". (Actually, and the night is pitch-beautiful the English translation doesn't dark to those inside, on the other mention it being night, but the side of the window. A few cafe previous sentence mentions patrons have already left. evening. Since we worked hard to Lizbet, who hasn't, toys with the give Lojban culturally neutral chaos of Paul's hair, smiling definitions for the parts of the slightly annoyed in disapproval of day, word choice here could be the joke. Far, far away, I hear, significant to some.) there are black chaoses of 43The lujvo-scoring algorithm ____________________ given with the rafsi lists this 44This is "dai" on older cmavo issue would give a slight lists; see "dai" in the list of preference to "selxaumau" over new members of UI elsewhere in "selxagmau". this issue. 100 gravity, that strongly and "Yeah? Let's test them! Arm- violently both destroy and create! wrestle. The right! You know my Right here and now, social-wise, left is weaker than my right, something similar is happening... Paul!" "On purpose? :) " ) Now, Liz is wearing a grey T- - amusement, is now ill-lit, and shirt (her eyes are smoky blue, I anguishingly empty. Paul beats see), saying "Love is an intense Liz at arm-wrestling. Liz beats fondness and attraction to a me, surprise surprise. person whether male or female!" in (Anguishingly empty.) It's late at black letters. I (her hair is not the cafe. We're about to play a chaos) am more into greyness. pool. Grey are my shirt and my pants and my sweater tied around my waist. III It has been sung, I recall, in my The Manager: "I hope you and culture: "For grey he was, and your friends are enjoying the grey he wore, and grey too was his evening?" Me: "Indeed, sir. This steed." Actually, not precisely is the first time I've been at the so. The string "G.R.E.Y." should cafe on a Tuesday. I see the be replaced with the string patrons are leaving early today!" "B.L.A.C.K.". My two neighbors patiently look at To sum up (or to expand!), the manager. The Manager: "That's there's a blackness going on in because Wednesdays get quite busy the cafe. in this town. By the way, since you usually come into the bar on II Saturday nights, you will not have Waiters, I suppose, are ambling met Xiron45, who has been helping slowly past the patrons. Paul is out here." talking (his brow looks serious. Paul and Liz are quietly talking The loud joker has been known to about their trip to the States. show strength - how I envy!) on The Manager points out to me the topping. "I get topped too often, long, white-shirted back of I'm afraid. But I did top Liz someone new to me and smiling last night! Hehehe!" "On purpose? says: "I'll (hm...) send him to :) " "Oh, I think it was an acci- you later", and leaves. dent!" "Paul is being a pest, Liz says "You... clearly have don't you think so, Liz?" "Quite a the advantage of language over pest! Stop being a bastard, love!" us." Two of the threesome do not "Oh yeah? Make me!" (... he has speak Lojban. been known to show strength in a Me: "It's power conflict! I top quiet, close love/friendship - and am topped." which is not exemplified by this Paul: "At any time more than one behavior in particular!) "I will!" persons interact, there is a power Paul and Liz start smilingly conflict. Jen says so on the kicking each other under the electronic news, so it must be table. Liz (fists of steel, legs true!" of mercury, eyes of the sea...) is Me: "On purpose?" an expert in self-defence. I, not Paul: "Our good man here has being an expert in self-defence, been saying 'On purpose' a bit too turn around in slight long." embarrassment and observe the ____________________ cafe. 45The Lojban is obviously a The dish-washer and the cook reference to the character have left. As a result the cafe proposed by Veijo, and described is tired-quiet. Also, the back of in JL17. Apparently Nick votes in the cafe, normally the source of favor of Xiron (though he bustling and comfort because of inexplicably spelled it 'Chiron' the two of them debated there for in his version of this English our - translation). Nick appears to add ("Your biceps are smaller than the stipulation that Saturday is mine! Ha!" Xiron's regular day off. 101 Me: "... On purpose?" structures), or have I missed Liz: "It's getting late. Paul, something? you promised we'd get to bed citka le nanmu le cripu early. I'm busy tomorrow." le cripu se citka le nanmu Paul: "On purpose?" Also, if these are correct, are Me: "Aha! I've been quoted!" there any other variants on the [Editorial digression. Quotation sentence that are grammatical? is not equivalent to assertion. (And yes, I am aware that the Paul informally utters the event described in these sentences "Interacts" sentence, independent is rather unlikely, but I wanted of whether or not he is asserting to keep this simple, and there it. My being quoted is part of appears to be no gismu for the poetic, or playful, rather "bicycle".) than assertional usage of language by Paul to make his social inter- Lojbab responds: actions complex. The quotation In each case: almost, but not does not imply emulation. Nor quite, equivalent. does it imply non-emulation! I use Starting with "le nanmu cu citka parentheses a lot. On purpose? :) le cripu". This is identical to ] "le nanmu le cripu cu citka", and Liz: "You're a bad influence. both have the same x1 and same x2. smile" To put both sumti after "citka", It's late at the cafe. We have you must mark the first, because been playing pool. The waiters, I Lojban assumes that if there is no suppose, are ambling slow and sumti before the selbri "citka" ambling fast and idling. We're that you have omitted the x1. You talking fricatives and bisexual must thus mark the x1 place with politics and absent friends during "fa" which says that the following a night that, surrounding a is the x1 place: distant putative train, lonesome citka fa le nanmu le cripu yellow lit interior / direct Using "fe", the marker for the distant vehicle automaton / secure x2 place, you can derive even more grey unchaos empty, is (THE END) forms basically mixing "fa le black. nanmu" "fe le cripu" and "citka" in all combinatoric orders, inserting a "cu" if either of the More Usage Questions sumti is before the "citka". All of these are equivalent in a Following are essays on usage broad sense, the difference being questions that are perhaps less one of emphasis: the thing at the technical, and have not led to front of the sentence is typical significant proposals for change. the thing of highest emphasis, and In most cases, they are further the thing at the end of secondary explanations of usage issues emphasis. The rules for emphasis discussed in earlier publications. are pragmatic mostly, and are based on our experiences rather Dean Gahlon asks a simple question than a formal prescription. If you insert "se", the result This is a very basic question; is a 'conversion' and 'equivalent' hopefully, the answer will also be becomes a trickier proposition. simpler. The canonical form of a le cripu cu se citka le nanmu Lojban sentence seems to be (note that "cu" is needed) something like this: expresses the same relationship as le nanmu cu citka le cripu the above sentences, but there is The man eats the bridge. a minor difference in that the My question is: are the following labels 'x1' and 'x2' are reversed, two forms equivalent to this (as I and you have to use "fa" and "fe" think they should be, given my appropriate to the new numbering understanding of place to rearrange the terms, but all of the options listed above are still 102 possible, with "se citka" as the "the bridgish eaten-thing"); central selbri. that's another bit of hairy There is some question whether a semantics. I like to consider it conversion 'means the same thing', quite the same as "le nanmu cu though, because the other things citka le cripu", but even I, like you can do to a converted most others, often consider a SE- predicate have different meanings: converted selbri somehow to have a "le citka" (the eater) is different semantic loading than an different from "le se citka" (the unconverted one. So, when I hear thing eaten) in a later back "se citka" I think "is-eaten", and reference to the above sentence thus would get a different meaning relationship. for "le cripu cu se citka [zo'e]" There is some question whether as opposed to "[zo'e] citka le "le nu citka" and "le nu se citka" cripu", even though both have the have the same meaning, with or same brivla (citka), and the same without the x1 and x2 filled in. sumti ("zo'e" [elliptical "it"] in Again, they abstract the same the eater position (so to speak), relationship, and the resulting and "le cripu" in the eaten 'event' being described is the position). same event. But pragmatically, we 'Course, you may not have gotten would often construe different up to this yet, but there are meaning to the use of one over the other ways to mangle the word- other. order in a Lojban predication. There's selma'o FA, which allows Mark Shoulson gives his answer: totally free reorganization In Lojban, the order of sumti (basically, the chief words in FA with respect to selbri is fairly are "fa", "fe", "fi", "fo", & free. The usual way of doing "fu", which mark the next things is, as here, in "SVO" form following sumti as belonging in (scare quotes because it's not the x1, x2, x3, x4, & x5 places of really applicable in Lojban): x1 the current bridi, respectively. place, then selbri, then remaining Following a FA-marked sumti, sumti. The other common form is subsequent unmarked sumti are "SOV" form: "le nanmu le cripu cu considered to continue se- citka". This is also fine. quentially from the point Presumably, with many sumti, specified by the FA.) Needless to there's nothing wrong with putting say, this allows you to construct the selbri anywhere among them truly confusing sentences, put (but see below). So, "mi le briju more than one sumti into the same cu klama le zdani" ("I to the- place with no conjunction, etc. office go from the-nest") is OK, too. SVO Order in Lojban Using "VSO" form, "citka le JCB's Rationale, with commentary nanmu le cripu", is quite by John Cowan, Colin Fine, Lojbab grammatical, but poses a different problem. By current usage, since During a computer network VSO is not a common word-order in discussion of word order in many languages, the "selbri-first" constructed languages, the word-order is reserved for rationale for the predominant SVO "observative" sentences - ones (subject-verb-object) order used with the x1 place ellipsized. in Loglan/Lojban came to be Thus, the above sentence would discussed. This article probably be understood to mean summarizes that discussion. For "(something) eats the man ??? the those unfamiliar with the bridge" - since "citka" only has 2 grammatical word-order termi- places, it would be unclear how nology, with regard to the bridge related to it all. Loglan/Lojban it is generally pre- As to using "le cripu cu se sumed that the selbri is the citka le nanmu" (the "cu" is "verb", the first sumti is the necessary here, otherwise we get "subject", and all other sumti are 103 the "object". The reasons for One form of the argument then this will come out in the article. hinges on the management of Note that Colin's 'proposal' is imperatives.2 one that is proposed quite often, and the commentary may thus help John Cowan: Both Loglan and people better understand the Lojban have to some extent rationale for the current design. withdrawn from the original Any such discussion must start rejection of case marking, and with the original rationale for have created a set of optional Loglan, which was that of James case tags. However, neither form Cooke Brown (JCB). The following of the language uses them much. text was originally written by JCB In Lojban, the argument about in 1967-68, published as part of "imperatives" which follows must Chapter 6 of his book Loglan 2: be replaced by an exactly parallel Methods of Construction, and argument about "observatives", reprinted in The Loglanist 1:2, p. since Lojban interprets a V-first 54ff. These publications are long sentence as an elliptical subject out of print and hard to find. without imperative coloring. I have added bracketed comments to John Cowan(JC): the next paragraph giving the It provides an interesting Lojban, as distinct from the insight into the mind of a lan- Loglan, viewpoint. guage designer at work. JCB (cont.) JCB: Now imperatives [Lojban: [JCB begins by defending SVO as observatives] are almost the order of choice because of invariably short forms; there is its prevalence in Chinese, apparently little scope for English, Russian, Spanish, long-windedness in giving French, and German, 6 of his 8 warnings or commands [Lojban: source languages.] drawing the hearer's attention "There was a time, however, to things in the environment]. when [VSO] order was seriously, Moreover, the first argument of if briefly, considered for an imperatively [Lojban: Loglan. This order has a observatively] used predicate is certain traditional charm for almost always the hearer logicians - witness the standard [Lojban: understood from con- schematic notation 'Fxy' for a text], and as the omission of two-place predicate, for example any constant feature of a - and for certain purposes of message cannot reduce its manipulation it has undeniable information content, first ar- advantages. But for a spoken guments are nearly always and, at the same time, [Lojban: always] omitted in the uninflected language the VSO or- imperative [Lojban: der turns out to be quite observative] mode (e.g. as in unsuitable. The argument which English 'Go!' - [Lojban: discloses that result may bear 'Delicious!']). But if we omit repeating here. the first argument from the form We note first that, on the PAA (Predicate-Argument- most fundamental grounds, Argument) - for arguments, note, arguments are not to be are to be taken as distinguished except by word or- indistinguishable - we obtain a der in Loglan. Thus we result that does not differ from entertain no "case endings", or the result of omitting a second other marking devices, by which argument, or a third. Therefore "Subjects" can be intrinsically the adoption of the PAA schema distinguished from "Objects".1 as the standard order for the ____________________ ____________________ 1I leave the argument behind this 2It could as well be based on remark, however, to the reader. specified descriptions; see below. 104 Loglan sentence deprives us of a spoken language they are far good way of defining imperatives more frequent than unabbreviated [Lojban: observatives]. In forms - the predicate can no fact, it deprives us of the only longer be treated as a prefix or way of defining imperatives that a suffix of its uninflected is consistent with the other arguments ('Fxy' or 'xyF') but patterns of an uninflected must be treated as an infix language. ('xFy'). It is only of such initially infixed arrangements John Cowan: Lojban resolved this that the fragments left by the by making use of a special removal of uninflected arguments "imperative 2nd person pronoun" (e.g. 'xF' and 'Fy') remain which may appear as any argument, reconstructible and, hence, thus permitting more complex grammatically clear.3 imperative forms while remaining "uninflected". This enabled us to Colin Fine then commented on JCB's use a missing argument to indicate rationale: an observative. It is remarkable how weak these arguments are, from the JCB (cont.): perspective of 25 years later. Similar difficulties arise Consider the following. with specified descriptions. - 1. The major justification Thus if 'He gave the horse to was in terms of imperatives. John' is to become something This was a strong argument as like 'Gave he the horse John', long as "the only way of how do you say 'the giver of the defining imperatives that is horse to John'? A form like consistent with the other pat- 'the give the horse John' will terns of an uninflected not do, since it is the language" was to omit the designation of the giver, not leading argument. But as John the gift, which normally follows points out, we have an elegant the predicate. Only by and flexible alternative method. introducing some sort of dummy (JCB's original argument about argument into the 'Fxyz' form, imperatives stressed the e.g. 'F-yz', can we keep the importance of minimal meaning clear. But this is morphological material in them, awkward. These seemed good and gave examples from natural reasons not to use the VSO form, languages; but in fact there are especially as the SVO form does plenty of contrary examples with not suffer this disaster. Thus, more morphology in them, such as the schema APA yields an polite imperatives in German unmistakable PA in the "gehen sie!".) imperative [Lojban: observative] mood. ____________________ Incidentally, the SOV order 3In these analyses, by the way, we ('He the horse John gave') may have isolated the ambiguity- collapses into the same kind of avoidance mechanism behind one of ambiguity under the pressure of Greenberg's most interesting abbreviation. (Is 'The horse universals, namely that all SOV John give' an imperative, or an languages have case systems (his incomplete declaration?) Thus, Universal 41). I am surprised curiously enough, and that the principle does not hold independent of any facts about for VSO languages as well. If it the distribution of these did, we should then have strong arrangements among languages, we evidence for the even more would have been forced to interesting converse principle abandon the logicians' nota- that only SVO languages can be tional convention anyway. For analytic: a fact we suspect once incomplete or abbreviated anyway, but we would then know forms are considered - and in a why. 105 - 2. Given that the omitted rules as filling the Xn place, first place now signals an ob- S fills the X(n+1) place. servative rather than an b) if no sumti precedes, S imperative, the argument becomes fills the x1 place except in feeble. Even if observatives the case of an observative had continued to be used as when it fills the x2 place. apparently intended, statements - iv) (a stylistic or discourse such as "there is apparently observation) a syntactic ob- little scope for long-windedness servative (with x1 unstated) is in ... drawing the hearer's often appropriate for uses that attention to things in the might be referred to environment" are highly dubious. stylistically as observatives, It is true that there are short such as "kukte" ("Delicious!"). observatives ("Delicious!") but But it is equally useful where equally there are long and the x1 is omitted because tortuous ones ("A man on a pragmatically reconstructible unicycle eating cream cakes!"). (for example in narrative: "la Furthermore, I observe that maik. mu'o klama .i rinsa mi'a" 'observatives' are not in ("Mike arrived. [He] greeted practice limited to this use in us.") ) or for structural current Lojban writing and reasons to do with clause weight speaking, but that lojbo feel ("cumki falenu loi xarju cu free to omit the x1 in just the vofli da'i" = [it is] possible same way as they do any other that pigs might fly). argument. Indeed, constructions like Lojbab: There are stylistic and "cumki falenu ..." (it is pragmatic uses for the possible that ...) "observative" word-order/x1- where the x1 is postposed by an omission other than spontaneous, explicit x1 marker ('fa'), are brief observation ("Delicious!"). syntactically equivalent to But the latter was the justifi- observatives, and not unusual cation for providing the short with words like 'cumki'. form. I would analyze the current situation in Lojban thus: Colin: - i) A bridi consists of a Thus, while observatives string consisting of zero or currently exist as a distinct more terms (optionally tagged grammatical structure in Lojban, sumti) and one selbri. The sel- they are distinguished only by a bri may occur first, last, or special rule of default between any two terms. interpretation. The argument - ii) The case where the selbri originally advanced in respect of comes first has some special imperatives really does not seem properties of interpretation to have any weight once (below), and is therefore transposed. treated as a special The second argument advanced was construction, called, for in respect of selgadri (specified historical reasons, descriptions) [ed. note: sumti of 'observative'. the form "le {selbri} be {x2 - iii) An untagged sumti S is sumti} bei {x3 sumti ...} be'o"]. interpreted as follows (ignore Remarkably, this argument is all terms tagged with BAI, tense actually stronger in respect of or FIhO in this): Lojban than it was for Loglan (at a) if the preceding sumti is least when I knew it, in the late tagged with an explicit 70's) because Loglan then had a positional marker (FA) series of words that meant "befe, indicating the Xn place of the befi, befo, befu" i.e. the links selbri, or is interpreted by indicated the place of the recursive application of these following argument. (There was no 'bei' equivalent). Given this, 106 his argument that "the give the sumti - except that it would be horse John" could not be inter- simpler, because there are only preted as "The giver of the horse following sumti. to John" because there was an In short, a VSO version of omitted argument, is simply false. Lojban could be created by making two changes to interpretation, and Lojbab: Actually, Lojban "be" no changes to syntax, viz.: is the exact equivalent of the 1) In a bridi, the first first of these, and "bei" the untagged sumti is always the x1, second of these, provided that whether it precedes or follows the there is no use of the fa/fe/fi- selbri; series of tags. Loglan 2) In a selbri with linked eliminated the higher-numbered sumti, the first untagged sumti is places in the early 1980s, the x2, and the meaning of the combining them into "bei", as selbri as a taurpau or selgadypau part of the development of the (tanru or description component) unambiguous machine grammar, as is the x1. To specify the x1 part of the recognition that (meaningless in a selgadri), FA sumti numbering need not be a must be used. function of the syntax (i.e., The first removes a complexity that the grammar should not be from the current rule, the second counting the number of sumti in inserts it back in elsewhere. a bridi - in other words, that The effects on usage would be: you did not need separate grammar structures for 2-place Current VSO bridi, 3 place bridi, etc.). This was still in the 70s, I 1. Normal bridi with leading think, but it might ave been 80- sumti would not be affected: 81. Older versions of Loglan mi viska ta viska mi ta rarely made use of omitted sumti or mi viska ta (at least partially because so little text of any complexity or 2. True observatives with no naturalness was written), so it positional sumti would not be was never analyzed in the 70s affected: version, how, for example, you kukte kukte would skip the x2 sumti in a carvi vi lei bartu carvi vi specified description. You lei bartu could not merely leave out the or vi lei bartu ku carvi or "befe" equivalent term and jump vi lei bartu ku carvi to the "befi" term. So older Loglan is really the same as Lojban with regard to the argu- ment that follows. Colin (cont.): In current Lojban, the argument does have some weight, since "be"/"bei" are merely syntactic glue, and do not specify the role of the following term. However, it is not convincing, for the following reason: At present, as sketched above, there is a rule of inter- pretation which says that if the first unmarked sumti in a bridi follows the selbri, it is to be taken as the x2, not the x1. There is no a priori reason not to apply the same rule to linked 107 3. True observatives with an observative, and interpreted following arguments would require according to the observative rule, a FA: i.e.: batke le gerku batke fe le gerku ne'i le purdi ga'a mi mu'i leza'i or batke ta le gerku birti kei cu preti ta mi or ta batke le gerku means In the garden, watched by me, in 4. bridi with omitted x1 would order to be certain, (something require a FA: was) a question about that to me. .i suksa bacru di'e .i suksa rather than bacru fe di'e ... that was a question about me. or .i suksa bacru ri di'e Thus my account above is not or .i ri suksa bacru di'e complete. 2. Thus the observative rule 5. selgadri with linked sumti applies when there are no untagged would not be affected: or FA-tagged sumti preceding the le batke be le gerku le batke selbri. This is a different rule be le gerku from that for "cu": "cu" is per- mitted if and only if there is at Of the two patterns which would least one preceding term, of any require change, I believe 3. is kind. I have more than once very rare. 4. is undoubtedly tripped over this rule - I don't common in current writing; but it see why you should not be is also very common to omit the permitted to use "cu" with an x2, even when there is an x3 - we initial selbri if you wish - but are used to using FA a great deal. as it stands there is a rule, and I am not actually advocating these two rules which you might this change. But I think it would have expected to coincide in their be perfectly workable, as well as application do not. (On the other slightly more elegant. But the hand, one is purely syntactic, and arguments against it are very weak the other interpretive, so there indeed. is no a priori reason why they should agree). John Cowan on this proposal: Not really enough. Consider the Lojbab: The reason is that CU very common form: is grammatically a separator - it le prenu poi klama le zarci cu comes between leading terms and blanu the selbri. If there are no the man who goes to-the store is- leading terms, there is nothing to blue 'separate'. Under a VSO interpretation, "le There really is no relation zarci" would be the x1 place of between the two rules. The "klama", not the x2 place. By interpretation of how sumti are to the way, this goes literally be counted in complex sentences is into 4th-edition Loglan as: a semantics convention - one which le pernu jao godzi le marte ga probably could have gone either blanu way. It is not covered by the and so we see that JCB isn't formal grammar, whereas the even consistent: within a locations where CU is permitted is relative clause, omitting x1 has specified by the grammar. We no imperative sense. chose to make the language totally transparent to tagged sumti in Colin (cont.): counting regardless of where, or Some further observations on what, they are, as an aid to current Lojban: teaching. (Note that a sumti 1. I assume that a bridi which marked with a case tag is has tagged terms (but not FA) automatically not a numbered preceding the selbri, and untagged sumti, even if the case is merely ones after, is still technically marking a semantic role normal 108 carried by a sumti in the bridi. context, I can see why people Thus, in: would not. Therefore it is safe bau la lojban. mi [cu] tavla to say that at this point it is In language Lojban, I talk. not yet clear whether "seljerna" untagged "mi" is still x1, even is limited only to monetary wages, though the language (which is x4 but that Colin probably does not of "tavla" when unmarked) is want the value to be as broadly specified first, because the case construed as "se jerna" might tag is present. By comparison, if allow. the x4 sumti is tagged with the x4 In this case, I tend to rely on marker "fo", you need to use "fa" my English instincts: if what I (marking x1 on "mi", or the latter am translating is a single word in would be understood as (the English, I am more likely to use a undefined-for-"tavla") x5: "seljerna" lujvo, whereas if it fo la lojban. fa mi [cu] tavla takes a phrase to say it in In language Lojban, I talk. English, and the Lojban isn't exactly a paragon of trailblazing eloquence, I am more likely to And Rosta on "se", "te", & lujvo leave the "se" separate. The fact that not all concepts that might jerna x1 earns x2 for work x3 be thought of as "se jerna" will "le se jerna" can mean anything also be "seljerna" is a natural that is earned. Suppose one consequence of the fact that a new wanted a lujvo specifically word has been created. "seljerna" meaning "wages": could "seljerna" of course exists because there are be such a lujvo? (i.e. does it times when you want to make a have to be synonymous with "se lujvo in which it is important to jerna"?) make it clear what aspect of a If "seljerna" needn't be selbri modifying another. For synonymous with "se jerna", then, train travel, I wonder, is there a way of "selkla stana" (destination forming a lujvo that yields the x1 station) is clearly different from place of the source gismu, but "terkla stana" (origin station). isn't synonymous with the source For such longer metaphors, you gismu? Put another way: if "le don't want to be stuck with the se jerna" doesn't equal "le length of a tanru expression for seljerna" then "le jerna" doesn't everyday usage, and you don't want equal ________? (what to be stuck with the place corresponding lujvo) structure of the final lujvo term. If "le se jerna" = "le So you need to be able to make seljerna", then why is Colin al- "se"-based lujvo. ways using seljerna-type lujvo? Any restriction from "se jerna" to "seljerna" is vague. And's Lojbab replies: question seems to be whether we "le se jerna" need not be have a similar short lujvo form identical semantically to "le sel- that makes a vague restriction on jerna", but it will probably be the gismu itself. The answer is close and nearly always inter- that we do not, since no one has changeable, probably an idealized suggested why such would be value. A good example is Mark useful. Most often, when you make Shoulson's "selpinxe" (beverage) a lujvo, you have a specific vs. "se pinxe" (something drunk). concept in mind, and are going to For "seljerna", I would presume choose a word that conveys that that if one wanted to be specific concept clearly, but briefly. that it was money that was earned, "seljerna" does convey some you could add "jdini" (money) or information, that it is making a "pegji" (pay) to the compound, but relationship involving something given the stylistic bent people that is also the x2 of a similar have these days for omitting such relationship involving "jerna". info where it is obvious from If you want to make a word that in 109 some way restricts the concept of this essay discusses that "jerna", you will naturally make a decision.] lujvo that suggests something Free modifiers (and about what kind of restriction you attitudinals) were never have in mind. considered the equivalent of sumti The only other reason for And's for Lojban because they inherently suggestion, which came up in modify the previous structure ensuing discussion of this topic, (except at the beginning of the seems to have been that a symmetry sentence). They are thus more is lacking without such a form. like the attitudinals, which we We really don't want to use up keep distinct and grammar free - cmavo and rafsi space for the sake more on this in a moment. Free of idealized symmetries. modifiers include subscripts, and there are innumerable reasons in Lojban to use subscripts On the Grammar and Range of Free metalinguistically in ways that a Modifiers sumti attachment would simply not support. The grammatical free ['Free modifiers' (the rule modifiers are those with suffi- labelled "free" in the E-BNF) are ciently complex grammar to require the grammar structure which parsing, and hence cannot be includes discursives, vocatives, totally free, but we remove as subscripts, metalinguistic many constraints as possible comments. Put briefly, free (Loglan IS about removing unneeded modifiers work like attitudinals, constraints). and modify the previous word of On the whole, though, Jim will the sentence, or modify the whole find these grammatical free sentence if found at the beginning modifiers to be not all that of the sentence. Free modifiers unlike sumti in their grammatical would be as entirely free as location - but they group attitudinals as to where they lie differently in the sentence than in a sentence, except that they sumti. have internal grammar (sometimes Attitudinals are intended to be quite complex), and that grammar grammar free expressions because can interact in complicated ways for the most part they are with the grammar in the intended to be at the subliminal surrounding sentence. Thus, in level. Like the hesitation noise, the Lojban design, we had to limit .y. and the English "you know" the places where free modifiers (Lojban pei?), these are to be could occur to specifically stuck in where they fit, where you enumerated places (The list gets feel the intuitive need to express occasionally extended because them. Unlike Carter, we do not someone thinks of a new place they feel these are abbreviations for want to use a free modifier, and claims; they are expressions. John Cowan is able to successfully They are the equivalent of tone of get YACC to accept free modifiers voice, which in English and most in that situation. This type of other languages is controlled down change has been a substantial to the word level or even more fraction of the grammar changes refined. (The Joy of Yiddish approved in the last few years.) starts off with a sentence with At one point, free modifiers were contrastive stress applied in much simpler and more restrictive, something like a dozen different and included the set of attitu- places in the sentence to get dinals, which now can be located different semantic interpretations anywhere in a sentence. Jim of the sentence. Each Lojban Carter proposed making free attitudinal has that power. modifiers the grammatical Try an experiment. Take any equivalent of sumti. We chose the short Lojban sentence that you can attitudinal model instead, and understand the grammar of. Take say 3 or 4 different attitudinals 110 expressing a variety of emotions. I, today, give this to you. For each attitudinal, and for each (Another day, someone else?) word position, insert the mi dunda ca le cabdei ti do attitudinal and try to figure out I GIVE today this to you. what it means. (Another day I might take it?) Here try: mi dunda ti ca le cabdei do mi dunda ti do I give THIS today to you. I give this to-you. (Another day something else?) with attitudinals chosen from .iu mi dunda ti do ca le cabdei (love) .oi (complaint) .ui I'm giving this to YOU today (happiness) .uu (pity) .u'u (Another day someone else?) (regret) .ue (surprise) .auro'u It's trivial to change the (sexual desire) sentence to one where this isn't For each attitudinal, there are so: five positions. Try interpreting mi dunda le xunre cukta do the effects in the sentence of one I give the red book to you. or two of these attitudinals. A where a free modifier/sumti brave soul can try two inserted after xunre would violate attitudinals in different places Carter's proposed constraint. in the sentence, which is also (But I want to say how much I love permitted. e.g. books that are red when I tell you .ui mi dunda ti do about my gift. Who are you to Happily, I give this to you. tell me I'm not allowed to do so?) mi .ui dunda ti do I'm so happy it was ME who gave this to you. Comments on the Tense System mi dunda .ui ti do by Greg Higley I'm GIVING this to you, and happily (Did you think I could Below are a few short comments charge you for it?) on the tense system. But I would mi dunda ti .ui do first like to congratulate John I'm giving THIS (my dream gift for Cowan and any others who worked on you) to you. it. It is brilliantly designed, mi dunda ti do .ui flexible, and fascinating! It I'm giving this to YOU (who makes took me no time at all to me so happy) understand it, with one exception (This exercise is a good way to which I have noted below. practice and learn attitudinal One thing that I think should be words, if you limit yourself to a pointed out more clearly is that small number at a time.) the new usage of selma'o VA is Now of course in this sentence, going to alter the way it is used all positions in the sentence as sumti tcita. (I am not would allow you to grammatically assuming you don't already realize add a tagged sumti. A tagged this: I just think it should be sumti in an odd position can add made more clear to those who might emphasis to other adjacent words not.) Remember that it is no too, and by convention often seems longer the spatial analog of to emphasize the previous word selma'o PU. FAhA is the proper like an attitudinal does. But spatial analog of PU, while ZI is this added emphasis is quite the analog of VA. As you well minor, and open to a wider know, "zu'avi" means "a short variation of interpretation than distance left": "vi" means "a the corresponding English, since short distance [from the origin, other reasons besides emphasis can in the direction specified, if justify where a tagged sumti is any]". Therefore, "vi le tcadu" inserted: doesn't mean "in the city" but "a ca le cabdei mi dunda ti do short distance from the city". Today, I give this to you. The spatial relation analogous to mi ca le cabdei cu dunda ti do "ca" is "bu'u", which, along with 111 "ne'i" is probably best for How the hell do you use "zo'i", "in/at": "ze'o", and "fa'a", by the way? "bu'u le tcadu" They all appear to represent "in the city"; orientation. Am I right in "bu'uvi le tcadu/vi le tcadu" assuming that "zo'izu'a" means "to "a short distance from the city"; the left of a place oriented "bu'uva le tcadu/va le tcadu" towards me" and "zu'azo'i" means "a medium distance from the city"; "on my left, oriented towards me"? etc. Just wanted to be sure. just as "ca le djedi" means "in Is it possible to bind a the day" temporal and spatial tense more - in all of these examples we tightly together so that we can could have used "ne'i" as well as indicate position at a certain "bu'u", although they aren't time? In the sentence always interchangeable. la ivan. pu ti'a zutse le stizu One thing that you may consider Ivan sat behind me in the chair changing is "te'e" "bordering". I does "ti'a" refer to where you suggest putting this in selma'o were at the time, or to where you VA, where it might prove more are now, or even where you will useful. (Although I could be be? Is "ti'a" tied to "pu"? misinterpreting its meaning.) Can Maybe a word order convention "te'e" be used to mean could be useful here. A temporal "touching/in contact with"? There construct appended to the end of a is currently no cmavo assigned to spatial construct would link them indicate when two things are in time, and a temporal construct actually in contact except for placed before a space construct this one. The problem with it is would be independent. Thus "ba that it only indicates that they ti'a pu zutse" would mean "will are bordering, and not where they sit behind where I sat". We can are bordering. As a member of VA, still have our vagueness if we we could then have such constructs like: "pu ti'a" with no following as "ni'ate'e" "bordering below, time marker makes "ti'a" vague as i.e. on (/in contact with) the to time. "pu ti'a ca" would mean, bottom of", or "ga'ute'e" - "on of course, "behind me then". top of". (Leaving it "as is" Is there another way to do this really doesn't help. "ni'ate'e", that I've overlooked? Logical in the current definition means connectives won't do it, perhaps "[origin] [down] [bordering]": "bo" will. I think my suggestion "bordering a place below ...", is more flexible. In the case of which could mean "on the bottom a logical connective, there is of", but probably doesn't in most exactly that: logical connection, cases.) This, to my mind, would which is usually independent of complete VA very nicely. We would time. "pujeti'a" says nothing have: "te'e" "in contact about the "time" of "ti'a", it with/touching"; "vi" "a short just says "both before in time and distance from"; "va" "a medium behind in space" - not necessarily distance from"; "vu" "a long simultaneously. distance from". Perhaps a new, shorter cmavo could be chosen for [Lojbab tackles some of these this function, if any are left. questions:] I'm having a little difficulty I believe that "vi" still works using logical connectives with as well as it has in the past. It tense constructs, especially long is true that "bu'u" is the ones. To solve my problem: Which counterpart of "ca", but most of- binds more tightly, the ten when we say "at" in reference connectives or the modifiers of to space locations, we do not the words connected, e.g. in strictly mean coincident in "pujeba zi do" we have "®pu je baЇ location. "vi" means a short, zi" or "pu je ®ba ziЇ"? possibly very short distance (i.e, approximating 0), and can 112 therefore be translated as "at" as la .ivan. pu zutse ti'a mi easily as "near". It doesn't Ivan sat behind me. necessarily mean that you are where the fact that "ti'a" appears adjacent, but context will usually after the "pu" means that you are include this as a plausible already set into the past. For interpretation. In fact, "va" is sitting behind where I am now, I probably a better word for "near, would want to be more explicit but not at". "zi" and "ze'i" and about the tense contrast: "ve'i" also work to indicate very la ivan. ti'a mipeca pu zutse small distances and/or Ivan, behind the present me, sat. areas/intervals. "bazi" can therefore mean "immediately", when referring to an impending action. ko'a stizu When you are dealing with something of significant size, [A comment on a usage issue, from like a city, there is always the Lojbab:] question of where you measure John Cowan had labelled the use from. If from the city center, of "ko'a" in such a sentence as then places technically "in" the ko'a stizu city are merely "near". Tense as being 'incorrect' where "ko'a" information is, of course, vague, has not been assigned. This is and if you want greater accuracy, misleading, since we teach such you need a separate predicate. usage in introductory lessons It is true that some of the before relative phrases with "goi" members of FAhA may be more exact have been taught. about location than "vi" or "va", If "ko'a" has not been defined, and some of your alternatives then using "ko'a" risks confusion. would work quite well in place of The appropriate answer then is "vi". There are several members "ko'a ki'a stizu", which for of FAhA that are more specific novices has to be answered with analogs of "vi", including "ne'i", "ko'a du ti". We would prefer "pa'o", "ne'a", "te'e", "re'o" people to use the vague usage (which includes touching), as well "ko'a stizu" than to overuse "du" as "bu'u". But "vi" works fine, as "ko'a du le stizu" which new if a bit more vaguely. Lojbanists will (and do) quickly Logical connectives have the acquire the malglico and very largest scope within tense incorrect non-Lojbanic "du" = constructs, so that "pujebazi" English "is". will group as "pu je bazi". So I favor people using "ze'o" and "fa'a" and the like undefined "ko'a" at the start. It are pure directions, and generally is a relatively unserious error intended to be associated with that is easily correctable and motions as well. As a sumti usually communicative. As opposed tcita, of course, "fa'a" can to the alternative, which if indicate a direction without theoretically more correct is motion: "fa'a le zdani" (over risky of bad pedagogy. towards the house), "mo'ifa'a le Hmmm. Perhaps "zo ko'a sinxa le zdani" (while moving towards the stizu" is within a lesson 1 or house). lesson 2 student's grasp, in which As I just said above, the tense case it should replace the sloppy system is not intended to express form. extremely complex ideas. If it is But "ko'a stizu" is always critical to you to distinguish grammatical, and there's the between where I am now and where I possibility that the speaker was in the past, in deciding defined it before the listener whether something is "behind", came in, in which case "ko'a ?ki'a then you need at least two term stizu" is still the appropriate phrases, and shouldn't be trying response. to load all of it onto the selbri tense. Try something like 113 Questions On Logical Connection [John Cowan replied:] Hitherto this point has been Colin Fine: discussed but not settled. I A simple question of semantics: believe that pragmatics dictates In a logical connection with an the 'independently unspecified' unspecified sumti, are the interpretation, and that to get branches of the connection to be the same value an explicit "da" is construed with the same value for needed. the sumti or are they I think this example shows independently unspecified? i.e. If clearly why not. "klama" actually mi klama la lidz. .e la has five places, so bratfrd. mi klama la lidz. .e la bratfrd. I go to Leeds and Bradford. means is true, it follows that mi klama la lidz. e. la bratfrd. mi klama la lidz. zo'e .ije zo'e zo'e zo'e mi klama la bratfrd. If this is construed as zo'e mi klama la lidz. da de di .ije mi I go to Leeds from somewhere. klama la bratfrd. da de di And I go to Bradford in order to be sure that the from somewhere. origin (da) is the same in both but does the stronger claim follow bridi, then we are put in the that silly position of insisting that su'oda zo'u mi klama la lidz. the route ("de") must also be the da .ije mi klama la same for both destinations! bratfrd. da? Thanks for providing this example. For some (place) x, I go to Leeds from x. And I go Mark Shoulson: to Bradford from (the Lately I have taken to trying to same) x. think of how to translate English expressions that I hear on the radio into Lojban's structure (not necessarily the words; my vocabulary isn't that big and I can't flip through lists whilst driving.) One struck me this morning and led to a little thought about some of Lojban's connectives. This is a pretty basic question and I'm positive it's been dealt with before (I can't remember reading about it anywhere in Lojban's literature, but I think it's there somewhere). Anyway, it was a commercial for some clothing sale, and it was saying how they have "clothes for men and women". Now. Do they mean "clothes for men as well as clothes for women" or "clothes which may be worn both by men and women"? I think these are plausible ways of handling these readings in Lojban: lo taxfu be lo'e nanmu .e lo'e ninmu clothes for men and clothes for women; not necessarily that the same clothes be for both. lo taxfu be lo'e nanmu ku jo'u lo ninmu 114 unisex clothes, for both sexes. "lo ninmu joi nanmu" imply that Is this a legitimate distinction there are members of both sexes in between ".e" and "jo'u"? ".e" is the group? a logical connective, and I imagine it as asserting the Lojbab: Well, actually, I think relevant bridi twice, as it were, more that it implies a once for each of its arguments, hermaphrodite human mass; i.e. it with no connection in between. exhibits properties of both "mi .e la djan. klama" means that genders simultaneously, as per a "I and John go/come, not mass (with "lo" as the gadri, the necessarily that we do so together thing itself need not be a mass). or at the same time or having any- Compare the classic Loglan example thing to do with one another", (translated into Lojban while "mi jo'u la djan. klama" vocabulary) "lo xunre joi xekri implies more of a connection, bolci", "a red-and-black ball", while "mi joi la djan. klama" which is neither red, nor black, implies that we worked on it as a but a combination of the two. It team, so the action could really would not be correct to call only be said to have been accom- something a "red-and-black ball" plished by both of us in concert. in English unless there was some I realize that this example is element of both colors on the open to other methods, including ball. relative clauses and the like. Also, note that you could argue that unisex clothes are not for Causality in Lojban "men AND women" but rather for "men OR women", and require the [A discussion between Lojbab, And use of ".a", the inclusive-OR or Rosta and Jim Carter led to the some such. What are the opinions following formulation of a of you folks out there? significant and cohesive portion of Lojban semantics.] lo taxfu be lo'e nanmu .e lo'e Lojban embeds several varieties ninmu of expressions of causality. JCB seems to me be equivalent (modulo originally analyzed Loglan existence) to causality as being of four types. da poi taxfu lo'e nanmu .e lo'e Further analysis during the ninmu development of Lojban has identi- which expands to fied other expressions of da poi ge taxfu lo'e nanmu gi causality that are embedded in the taxfu lo'e ninmu language design. i.e. something which is clothing 1. rinka (ri'a) is principally for men and is clothing for women. physical causation, but has This seems to me to mean strictly pragmatically tended to be a catch unisex clothing. I think '.a' all for causations that don't fit will do quite happily for clothing other categories. This is that will do for a man, a woman or historical, because JCB used both. rinka's equivalent for general I am not yet familiar with the causation. See below for our non-logical connectives (I'm solution. suddenly assimilating two or three (I push) rinka (Jack falls). years' worth of language 2. sarcu (sau) is 'necessary', development in a very short time 'rinka' implies nothing about .ue), but I would have thought necessity. that the "jo'u" example would mean 3. mukti (mu'i) deals with what more like what you said for motives and their (potentially) ".e". resulting actions. I have a question: are "joi" mukti = x1 motivates activity x2 and "jo'u" permissible when there on the part of agent x3 group/mixture in fact contains We've decided that English has only one of the connectands? Does no good word for the x2 of mukti. 115 It is the motivated action. The be curmi (permit/allow) or banzu activity may or may not take place (sufficient). Of course, the but is at least achievable in the entailment of nibli covers logical mind of the agent x3. sufficiency, a fairly limited va- (I want money) mukti (I work) riety. 4. krinu (ri'u) is explanatory Note that the Lojban logical causation; the x1 is the reason equivalent of "if...then", unlike and the x2 is the thing explained. the phrase in English, does not (giraffes eat from trees) krinu imply causality (Example: "if you (therefore) (giraffes have long water the plant, then it will necks) grow"). In Lojban, it is unde- 5. nibli (ni'i) is logical sirable to infer causation from entailment. S entails T when such a statement. In Lojban, such there is a logic (a list of an if-then is represented as "not logical transformations or theorem a or b", from which causation is steps or applications of simply not inferable. The Lojban definitions of words) that starts sentence ends up being equivalent with S and ends with T. to: 6. jalge (ja'e) indicates Either you water the plant, or the "result". It is a reversed direc- plant does not grow. tion causal that serves as the Since logical OR is reversible, generic of causation, thus freeing this means the same as rinka for its more limited Either the plant does not grow, or meanings. you water the plant. x1 is the result of x2 (x2 is the cause of x1) 7. zukte (zu'e) helps On le and lo and Existence distinguish motives from goals x1 acts at x2 to achieve x3 [Another Lojban List discussion Note that the basic claim of led to the following explanation "zukte" is that an action is taken by Lojbab:] in order to achieve the goal. 'le' relations or abstract "mukti" operates in the world of events are specific products of mental reality, and implies a the speaker's mind and hence must relation between a motive and a exist only in that mind. The de- motivational result. There is a scription is a label and need not weaker inference that the moti- be accurate. vational result actually takes 'lo' and 'loi' claim only that place; the person motivated might the described thing/event is be unable to do what he is moti- something that actually fits the vated to do. description, but doesn't claim 8. By contrast, for simple that any such thing exists. agentive causation, use gasnu le ninmu cu nanmu (gau) "The woman is a man." might be a x1 is agent in action x2 statement about a male "gasnu" is closely related to transvestite. "zukte" but does not imply any "lo ninmu cu nanmu" would not purpose or goal on the part of the apply to a male transvestite agent. unless you assert that a male can [Another contrast with mukti, actually be a woman. zukte and gasnu might be troci You thus can make statements ("try"), which implies an agent 'le' and 'lo' about 'non-existent' and an activity. The activity may things like unicorns. Want(x,y) not take place, but is at least in English makes no implication attempted. It is not clear with about existence of either x or y; troci that there is any motive or e.g. The unicorn wants a maiden, goal beyond the attempt itself. where x is non-existent but y is 9. sarcu mentioned above, can (potentially) existent. express "necessary conditions". In Lojban you assert or reject "sufficient conditions" may either existence through the use of 116 quantified variables (da, de, di) expression. The same with a which implicitly or explicitly Lojban expression: invoke a prenex: mi klama da zo'u da djica lo broda I come/go. For some x, x wants a maiden is incomplete. In Lojban, you "da" presumably excludes unicorns, yearn for a destination, de- since they do not exist in our parture, path, and means. universe ... With or without a prenex, you can Art Protin comments and Bob use a restrictive relative clause: Slaughter responds in italics: da poi danl,iunikorni cu djica lo I hate to have to say this so ninmu strongly, (and Bob please don't be which is false, because the x1 is offended,) but I find to be the empty set. totally without merit, bogus, the "lo x" can thus be taken as comments offered [above]. equivalent to "if x exists, then While I can easily accept that some x". we need a far different model to But this formulation has a think about Lojban than the one we problem. By the rules of symbolic use for thinking about English, I logic, any conditional statement reject any suggestion that with a false antecedent is true. mi klama And thus a statement using "lo" is in any way incomplete. The where the referent is a image that I construct in my mind nonexistent x will be a true is small corresponding to the statement, including the con- small amount of data provided, and tradictory: it has "hooks" where I might lo danl,iunikorni cu zasti attach additional data like the Unicorns exist. destination. Alas, all attempts to analyze Then obviously you haven't "lo" run into some such problems, learned to think in Lojban. :) but the result is a useful Perhaps the phrase "is not fully shorthand regardless. Thus, we completed" instead of retain "lo" as a useful part of "incomplete" might make more the human Lojban, while realizing sense here. You may not yearn that good 'logical' usage would be for them, but you know there are to use "da poi ...". unanswered items, because the If there is a way out, it is to "hooks" are far more explicit in state that something exists Lojban than English. because we can conceive of it, and Other dialog/monolog is required it has the properties we attribute to elevate that "slot" to any to it in our conception. This greater prominence. If that piece approach works around the of the whole picture becomes both conditional aspect of "lo", but no important and unspecified, I will doubt is unsettling inquire as I would for any other philosophically. Of course in the data I need to satisfy my view of world of logic, things often that picture. 'exist' that don't apply in the Bingo!! The unladen "hooks" are 'real world', so this might be the meant to be filled, or best approach. questioned. Lojban is a dialog- based language, rather than a monolog-based language like A Heated Exchange? Standard Written English. I can see where a speaker of English Lojbab: "sees" "I come" as a fully If I write: completed sentence with no 2 + unknown information, but all you know there is something speakers will know the speaker missing ... you yearn for another of "mi klama" could've said number, to complete the something but consciously 117 didn't. Hmmm, imagine what that might wish to avoid distinguishing means for Lojbanistani recipients from destinations and politicians..... treat them as the same thing; I I see no reason to provide any might want to treat possession as members of any relation a kind of location, say. (predicate) that are not relevant to the discourse. That the In Lojban, we want to remove provided members can/do have the metaphysical bias when possible. designated role in some instance It isn't always. The examples of the relation is all that the you have selected are examples language can express. We might, that we will be trying to with sufficient dialog and eliminate (at least in experience, be relatively certain translation to Lojban), because that we know exactly which they are English biased figures instance is being described, but of speech, and it is not there can be no guarantees. (This necessarily universal that all is not a property of just Lojban cultures consider "high" spirits but of human communication in gen- to be better than "low" ones, or eral.) that the 'mind as queue' But I might see a need for me to metaphor is superior to the know something you said, so I 'mind as stack' one. will ask. But, it is the assumption of accurate and I follow the cognitivist inaccurate assumptions that doctrines of George Lakoff and his Lojban brings to the front of colleagues, of Jackendoff and of its conversation mode. By Langacker. (These are very simply knowing there is unspecified expounded in Jackendoff's review data, and emphasizing it, we article of Lakoff's new book in change the form of the June 1991 Language.) This communication. Rather than doctrine maintains that certain pontification and counter- things are conceptualized only pontification discourse, we metaphorically. Metaphors whose should have fully interactive vehicles are space and the body dialog discourse. predominate, and are used to conceptualize more abstract things. Some of these metaphors Language Goals are claimed to be grounded in universal human cognition, and Following are essays related to others to be dependent on culture. the goals of the language, most of We therefore could, maybe, draw them dealing with aspects of the the following conclusions: application of Loglan/Lojban to (1a) Lojban's aim (of removing the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. How- metaphysical bias) is doomed to ever, for the computer-inclined, fail. we include a report on a new project using Lojban for The goal is to 'minimize' it, artificial intelligence/natural not remove it. For situations language processing. where one or more roughly equivalent methods exist to Lojban and Metaphysical Bias express something, but each is (a discussion between And Rosta biased in some way, we try to [not-indented] and Lojbab allow all of them. If we must [indented]) be arbitrary among several choices, we choose a single way, Does one necessarily wish to but are prone to choosing a non- avoid metaphysical bias? I would English way to counter the ten- always wish to be able to say that dency for English biases to something is at the "back" or creep in. "front" of my mind, or that I am in "high" or "low" spirits. I 118 (1b) Lojban's aim flies in the possible more or less to define face of the way we really think what is taking place using English and is therefore a hindrance to words, I think it accurate to say thought. that most of them have no English equivalent in any meaningful This we will find out. The sense. problem is that certain concepts For example, "loika melbi" are always metaphorized because translates as "Beauty" the we have no primitive non- abstract concept and "leka lemi metaphor to express them in NLs. speni cu melbi" more roughly as Thus we have a chicken and egg "my wife's beauty" but more problem. Lojban will try for a accurately as "the properties that different egg. make it true that my wife is Now even if metaphorless Lojban beautiful [by some standard to is possible, why is one supposed some observer]". But with most to avoid metaphor? My English- predicate words, there is no biased conceptual metaphors are English equivalent for the the way I think. property abstract. For example, "loika klama" would translate as Not if you are trying to "Going-ness" if that were an communicate to someone from English word - already hard to Thailand who does not know your grasp, while its counterpart: metaphors. In an earlier book, leka mi klama le zarci Lakoff noted that not all the properties that make it true cultures shared the same that I go to the store metaphors (e.g. "up" is "future" conveys no sense of exactly what or "up" is "past", I think was sort of properties these might be one dichotomy). I prefer a - we would tend in English to language that says that future start thinking in terms of causes, is future and makes no links which is not what the Lojban with 'up' or 'down'. means, because "Going-ness" is (Remember that the goal of just not an English concept. But Lojban involving Sapir-Whorf constructs like this are rather means that as much as possible easy to express in Lojban, and in we must reduce and/or identify some cases are virtually all sources of bias that would obligatory. A particular "Going- affect 'world-view' - which to ness" for example is the property me is a very similar concept to that is being compared when we say 'metaphysics'.) that I go to my local Safeway more than you do. Sapir-Whorfian Thoughts? Whether use of statements like this in Lojban means that anything In response to a question from new and different in human James Meritt, Lojbab said the thinking will arise as a result of following: this implication, is what is still There is no evidence yet of not clear. Lojban providing thoughts that are Going beyond this, I can say unthinkable in English, but the that there are a lot more perhaps constraints of English syntax do more obscure things that can be tend to make thinking in certain easily said in Lojban, but which ways more difficult. It would be defy English translation. Lojban a long time before we truly came does after all, allow and almost up with an example that encourage the expression of unambivalently is uniquely "grammatical nonsense", of the Lojbanic. "green ideas sleep furiously" Hmm. I'll have to amend this. variety, but even weirder. People In our discussions of the last can indeed wrap their minds around week or two regarding Lojban such nonsense (for this English property abstracts, it has become example, I have seen proposed pretty clear that while it is places where it might actually be 119 meaningful), but it can reasonably of what natural language is be said that the Lojban equiv- capable of expressing in tense. alents go far beyond what anyone 3) Lojban separates the will ever understand in English speaker's emotional attitudes from translation. Whether a Lojbanist the statements being expressed, thinking in Lojban will and all "emotion-loaded" words are 'understand' such statements in marked. the sense that we can understand 4) Lojban has a grammar for "green ideas sleep furiously" is metalinguistic discussion which is also presumable, but as yet distinct from the regular grammar, unverifiable. allow you to express metalinguistically relevant information, again separate from Metacognition-friendly Languages the main statement. 5) Lojban has a set of On the conlang mailing list, Zack evidentials, again distinct from Smith asked: the main grammar, which allows you Has anyone heard of any to succinctly indicate how you languages that specifically come to make a statement support and facilitate (deduction, hearsay, definition or metacognitive thought? assumption, etc.) Or, put differently, 6) Most of these markers that Has anyone designed a convey metalinguistic information language for critical, self- can be attached/focused at the effacing thinkers, for the sentence level, phrase level, or facilitation of processes which individual word level, as lead to success in thought? appropriate. For those who are unfamiliar 7) Lojban handles certain with this topic, metacognition constructs commonly associated is essentially "thought about with logic in the manner that thought". It's what most predicate logic does; thus we have successful thinkers do to remove no confusion between OR and XOR, biases, limitations of thought, and distinguish clearly between mistakes due to the failings of causal if-then and implicational human memory systems, etc. With if-then (we also have embedded in metacognition comes many the language several kinds of freedoms in thinking, living, causality). Quantification and feeling, creating, etc. negation work as they do in predi- cate logic, hopefully reducing the Lojbab: types of errors that can result I'd like to think that Lojban from misapplying these features of has many of the things Zack is logic. looking for in a language for 8) Lojban deals clearly with metacognitive thought. We multiple levels of abstraction, as certainly have a lot of the are often involved in even simple features he mentioned in his post- natural language expressions, with ing. So perhaps he might like to each level being clearly investigate Lojban. Specifically: distinguished from the others, and 1) Lojban has a predicate specific constructs for "raising" grammar, and rephrasing your objects from one level of sentence thoughts in a predicate formation abstraction structure to another. tends to require you to think a little more carefully about what Ralph Dumain commented: you are trying to say. [#8] is the only feature you 2) Lojban has an extremely mention that particularly im- powerful and flexible tense presses me as significant for system, stretching rather beyond dealing with questions of "world- what natural languages do in our view". Could you give a few desire to encompass the full scope examples or refer me (us) to the proper locations in the Lojban 120 literature that explain this agree that some features will fail feature? to get into -any- language because [Lojbab: This is the entirety they're too unusual, too expensive of what we call "sumti-raising", to use, or too difficult to learn dealt with extensively in JL16.] to use. For example, I wanted at one In further discussion, Jeff point to expand the number of Prothero commented [in italics] auxiliary pronouns (this, that) and Zack responded: from three or so to about 8. The My basic conclusions are more or idea was that eventually, using less: them would translate to the (1) One could do a measurably speaker/thinker having one better job on a language for conceptual chunk in short-term thinking type purposes, but the memory, into which the speaker pay-back doesn't justify it for would reference whichever items he an individual or small group... needed. Without going into the details, I don't accept this assertion, the problems were that (A) I for several reasons. couldn't get anyone to even try to 1. I believe that the human learn my language, (B) the feature mind can always use a little itself was unusual, (C) the exercise. feature required a considerable I subscribe to the idea that the shift in thinking, and (D) I mind is like the muscular system: estimated that the feature The individual should exercise it wouldn't be used often enough to regularly, and not miss any major justify its existence. areas.. My tools to this end are self- (3) The syntactic stuff isn't analysis and a language oriented all that interesting, most of toward clarity and self- the important design decisions (re)directing thought; though I do are in the conceptual vo- other things as well. cabulary. Working on this is 2. The mind makes mistakes, way beyond the current ca- either because of emotional pabilities of any small group factors, various and sundry ... but if one thinks about it, conditionings, sociological fac- finding/fashioning an effective tors, or because the human memory set of concepts for un- system just isn't very reliable. derstanding Hence, a continual untangling of self/thought/universe is more or memories and thoughts is less what the entire necessary. Freud suggested that international scientific machine dreams fulfill this purpose to an is working on. extent. I'm no Zen master, but I prefer to not leave things up to The first sentence is right on dreams alone. There is no free the money, but the rest I think is lunch when it comes to mental incorrect. Metacognition, the aim health, clarity of mind, or of my language, is the idea that clarity of ideas. The more one one can improve on thought itself, borrows, the more one accepts not thought about any given topic. blindly, the worse one is. The reason is that there are My language exists to aid me in considerable similarities in the performing such clarification reasoning that a stock-broker does work. in his life and that reasoning that any other person does. The (2) Most of the really high- points I'm expressing are key to payoff ideas fail due to human the topic of creating a limitations... metacognitive language. They are: 1. Patterns of successful I've definitely encountered thought are universal, regardless trade-offs with my language, and I of who is thinking them, where, 121 when, or what the topics of of possible languages is much reasoning are. [Lojbab comments: larger than the little volume I'm not even sure that the they cluster in, and one can standard of what constitutes have languages which make it 'successful thought' is universal. possible to think thoughts one Nora adds: As a critical thinker, wouldn't come up with in natural Zack should take another look at language, thoughts which can't his assumptions. For example, on even be expressed in natural the job I am very good at language. analyzing details, but I sometimes At least one such language has have problems with the 'big been fashioned... we call it picture'. These two levels of "mathematics"... an easy point reasoning can give different to giggle and dismiss, but answers on the same topic, and yet worthy of more serious attention either can be successful given the than that... appropriate situation.] On a more mundane level, I 2. The same holds for mistakes think you might find Jim of reasoning, be they biases, Carter's 'Guaspi' the best laid mental sets, etc. No one is out conlang aimed in the general immune from ignorance, fear, direction you're going. Loglan stupidity, etc. has (imho) an excess of hair. 3. And, because the mechanisms Jim's language strips out most of successful thought are of the irrelevancies, not too universal and identifiable, the far in spirit from some of my basic concepts on which they are own efforts. based can be coded and regularly I suspect if you put some time used. in studying, you'll come to The work is in finding the share my conclusion that if one concepts, like you suggested. strips out the uninteresting For instance, imagine going restrictions and syntax hacks through a dictionary, word by from a language, there's nothing word, and working out the precise interesting left at the syntac- semantic structure of each word, tic/superficial level... one is then trying to identify core left with more or less the concepts are strategies for spoken equivalent of Lisp, with constructing words and phrases out a simple universal parsing of those core concepts, and still mechanism that doesn't commit have it be nice to hear and easy one to anything, and all the to use. Yikes. interesting content relegated to However, a scan of an entire the selection of dictionary isn't necessary. I concepts/functions to use in the think that the examination of a vocabulary. small group of words can provide considerable food for thought. I took my first gander at a The question is, what is the Loglan manual today, and I think essence of natural phenomena? that you're assertion that Loglan What do the processes of creating has much unnecessary fluff could art, writing papers, brokering be correct. For instance, why stocks, running a business, being encode colors? In my language, I a responsible politician, being a permit the speaker to import con- corrupt politician, or making text-relevant data such as names toast for oneself all have in of colors. I want to give the common? The answer, I think, lies speaker/thinker the stuff of in the studies of psychology, thought, not the fluff. I'm not evolution, formal logic, problem creating culture here. [Nora solving, etc. comments: This is OK for indi- vidual thought, but not if you (4) While natural languages tend want to be understood by others, to be uninterestingly different especially those of a different clones of each other, the space culture.] 122 but I see it as one part of a As far as the Lisp argument larger process. above goes, I'll have to study Then again, I've considered some more. I don't understand how making my language only an you envision language being used, extension to other languages, and how a non-fuzzy logic language perhaps it's more like Objective-C e.g. Lisp could usefully serve a than C++. ... sentient organism or machine. I don't agree that all verbal expressions (in any language) break down into logic, unless perhaps it's fuzzy logic. Even if they do, that's like proving 1+1=2 in logic - it takes several hundred pages - so why bother... [Nora rebuts: Because the very fact of doing so shows the questioning/examining of as- sumptions - the very thing Zack professes to want.] It's like talking about Hitler's taste in clothing rather than his crimes against humanity. Different subjects, different purposes, no? Also - I'm not interested in taking out all of the hacks of a language - shortcuts and approximations are fine by me, so long as the language forces the speaker to note their existence in some way. A Lisp-like conlang is an extreme, impractical solution, especially for those of us who dislike Lisp. The middle-road solution is to allocate one's semantic in- formation as usefully and well as possible. I want to allocate it for the metacognitive information - e.g., the estimations of utility or arguability, the estimations of linkage between expression and goals, the assessments of a speaker's emotional state, the protocol for cooperation between speakers, the statements of problems and tentative solutions, the acknowledgement and removal of bias or limitations of thought, the estimation of correlation, etc. In terms of computer languages, I'm going for C++ rather than Lisp. I want the core concepts to be related to actions, events, objects, abstractions, scripts; not merely relations or predicates. Logic is essential, 123 [On further questioning as to his ignore some important data goals, Zack replied:] (repression), and certainly mis- My project is still in its files other important data (hence initial stages, compared to dreams and sudden recollec- Loglan. The goals have evolved to tions/ideas as means of bringing include... misfiled or repressed data to 1. Choices of basic concepts consciousness). which propitiate human thought. Any serious metacognitive Here I ask, how do humans think, language must take these effects i.e. what basic data types does into account, because they are the brain appear to process? For psychological phenomena which instance, some AI'ers assert that affect the arguments and ideas all thought is, or should be, presented by the speaker. based on predicate knowledge. I By the same token, biases, find this inaccurate and limiting. mental sets, and other phenomena By "basic concept" I refer to a must be identified through the notion which is semantically language. They affect any such atomic, a sort of original or root system. class of semantic notions. These C. Means of forcing the speaker concepts would be used to form to think before he expresses more complex words and sentence himself, in particular, to structures. translate his concepts into terms For example, if "market" and of the workings of his own "protection" are basic concepts, psychology. then the word "democracy" would be This is a critical point; here based on both of those words, is an example argument for such a since democracy is the protection feature: Suppose a boy hits his of a market in which the brother without provocation. commodities are variations on Ask yourself, what is the most kinds of government. useful means of teaching that boy Note that my objective is not to the error of his action? rewrite Webster's, but to get Besides using basic operant critical words pinned down, then conditioning (no TV for You!), I import context-specific words suggest the following: verbatim by attaching a prefix and You ask him to explain his own suffix. experience in choosing to act as 2. Choices of basic concepts he did. Don't just ask for which propitiate self-examining justification; ask for self- thought. This essentially would examination, then push him toward include the ideas of : self-modeling, to cause him to A. The encoding of realize that he himself is a metacognitive information, e.g. collection of feelings and people, for the objective assessment of that he is responsible for all of arguments between speakers. it. B. The identification of I'm not suggesting that one information which describes the force him to identify his "evil functioning of information side"; rather, the phenomenon that processing systems such as humans causes a behavior, e.g. and mammals. insecurity, rivalry, etc. For instance, it's easy to This language must force the assert that Freud's "repression", speaker to look within himself for or "setting aside and ignoring" the causes of his making (that was the original German expressions or the content of meaning) is not only likely, but those expressions. The reason is necessary. Any information simple: This is the path toward processing system (e.g. the human clarification of one's own mind) which must interact thoughts and toward metacognition. constantly with its environment I'm not certain, but I think whilst juggling multiple con- that Loglan doesn't force this flicting goals certainly must analysis. It permits prefixing of 124 phrases to improve discourse - background information to between speakers (e.g. it has indicate what area of knowledge prefixes for "suppose that", "for the speaker is dealing with, what example", "is it that", etc.), but knowledge he expects his audience causes aren't characterized. to know, and to help those in the D. Evolutionary processes, and audience less acquainted with the the phenomena which determine or subject. found them, must be tightly coded. - new knowledge that he wishes Considerably more real phenomena to impart. can be explained with evolutionary - a summary of what he has just logic (or simulated with genetic explained in detail. algorithms, probably) than meets - a summary of what he is about the eye. Evolution is critical to to explain in detail. who we are, why we are here, what - an informal description we will become... intended purely to convey informal E. Basic logic, or fuzzy logic, insight, rather than a precise should be supported (tightly statement. coded). - smalltalk (utterances whose literal meaning hardly matters at ...[Later, Zack expanded upon his all, the starter motor of social earlier statement: "... a intercourse, not to be confused mechanism for expressing tense with the main engine). information"] - a question to which a definite This is neither critical, nor answer is required, in contrast did I intend it to seem so. It is to... important, though. - a question which is part of a I've found that of all places, conversation, which the hearer lack of clarity in tense in- need not rigidly stick to in formation is the most contagious, formulating a response. i.e. it affects to other types of There's an interesting book by information in one's expressions. Deborah Tannen, called That's not Once tense becomes unclear, it's what I meant!, suggesting that a all lost. One can't speak about lot of miscommunication is due to events, actions, activities, what people being unaware of the have you, with any precision if different modes of communication tense info is imprecise. that they and others are using. Perhaps mechanisms encouraging the Richard Kennaway responded with explicit marking of such modes some ideas: would help. One of the main faults I find I have only glanced through her with woolly writing or speaking, later book, called (I think) You especially in technical talks at just don't understand!, in which conferences, is a lack of she claims to correlate these attention by the speaker to making different modes with gender. I clear the reason that he is saying suspect that it is just a what he is saying. It seems to me repackaging of old wine in a that it is impossible to trendy new gender-polarised understand an utterance unless one bottle. understands the reasons for making it. Lojbab comments: Thus I would like to see means Per Richard's comments. I think provided in the language for that a language used for solely easily expressing such meta- for introspection, whether information throughout one's metacognitive or otherwise, is speech. Off the top of my head, going to be significantly here are a few communication modes different from one used for inter- that might be worth expressing ex- action. So much of the problems plicitly, rather than leaving them of communication between people unspoken as is usually done: stem from things such as what Richard mentions (all of which I 125 believe are covered in the Lojban =.i do vi le cange cu !ba'a zgana design, but optionally). But few lenu ko'a me mi li'uЇ are really relevant to the ni'o ca le bavlamdei ke clira problems Zack seems to refer to in clira la xrist. joi la pacrux. self-analysis of his own thought. klama le cange po ko'a gi'e se The philosophers in the Lojban mipstu loi stani =.i le kakpa cu community (most of whom are not on !ba'e sutra klama gi'enai kruce the computer nets), may have jdaxanmu'u gi'e lasna le bakni le something useful to say about te plixa gi'e co'a renro lei tsiju Zack's ideas, and what (if =.i ®lu .!e'o ko zgana .!u'a anything) Lojban has to support (to'i la pacrux. bacru toi) =.i his ideas. ko'a cu !sai me mi =.i ko'a ni'i le !da'i nu ko'a me do cu jdaxanmu'u pu lenu co'a gunka le lojbo se ciska (cont.) li'uЇ ®lu le kakpa cu !ja'o to'e depcni fi lemu'e mulgau lenu I (Lojbab) don't have many tsise'a =.i ko denpa lemu'e complaints about Nick's work in midydo'i =.i ca ri ko'a co'a the following two stories. They citka =.i do ca zgana lenu ko'a were not passed by an independent jdaxanmu'u li'uЇ editor, but Nick indicated that =.i midydo'i =.i ko'a co'a they had been reviewed on the citka gi'enai jdaxanmu'u computer nets a couple of times, =.i ®lu .!e'o ko zgana .!u'a and that he had made changes (to'i la pacrux. bacru toi) =.i appropriately. Alas, he had not ko'a ni'i le !da'i nu ko'a me do checked the text with a parser cu jdaxanmu'u pu lenu citka =.i (only some minor errors), and he do caki na ji'u darlu =.i ko'a had two non-existent gismu in the me !cai mi li'u Ї ®lu .!e'o ko second tale, one of which rquired denpa =.i go ko'a mo'u citka guesswork to figure his intent gi'enaicabo jdaxanmu'u gi ko'a me since it was not a simple typo. do .!e'a li'uЇ =.i ko'a mutce But the texts are readable, and my citka gi'e mutce pinxe formatting rules that failed to gi'enaiba'obo jdaxanmu'u gi'eji'a handle Nick's coffeehouse text are .!uero'a cladu gaxykafke =.i la probably satisfactory for this xrist. bacru ®lu ko'a .!ainai ca text. All comments are from me. .!e'a me do li'uЇ =.i la pacrux. cu bacru ®lu .!ienai na go'i =.i ko'a .!ainaicai me ko li'uЇ Two Greek Folk Tales translated by Nick Nicholas Neither Christ nor the Devil wants I. melu la xrist. na.enai la him. pacrux. seljdadji da li'u Once the Devil went to Christ =.ika'u la pacrux. klama la and said "Pray tell, do you think xrist. gi'e bacru ®lu ?pe'ipei ?xu that plougher is a Christian?" "I do jinvi ledu'u leti cange do." "You're wrong", the Devil bakplixa goi ko'a xriso li'uЇ answered, "the plougher is all =.i ®lu !pe'i go'i li'uЇ selba'u mine. If you don't believe me, la xrist. let's go to his farm next dawn =.i ®lu do srera (to'i la when he's ploughing. There you'll pacrux. spuda toi) =.i le kakpa see he's mine." cu me !cai !ba'e mi !sa'e =.i Very early the next day, Christ mi'o fau lenu do na krici lenu and the Devil went to the go'i cu .!e'u klama ca le cermurse plougher's farm and hid in some leko'a cange poi ko'a tsise'a49 branches. The plougher hastened ____________________ __________________________________ 49I would probably use "tsipe'a" insert", though my knowledge of (seed-spread) or "tsifai" (seed- farming is not particularly distribute) rather than "seed- noteworthy. 126 to the farm, didn't make the sign Christ was told this and responded of the cross, attached the bulls "I'll go." So, at noon Christ, to the plough and started sowing. accompanied by all his student, "See?" said the Devil. "He's came there. The man's wife, upon mine. If he was yours, he'd make seeing them, said: "Oh, there the sign of the cross before won't be enough bread!" Christ working." said: "I think there will. This "The plougher is impatient to is the bread we've got, so this is finish sowing. Wait for midday. what we'll eat." The table was Then he'll eat. You'll see him spread, and they sat to eat. making the sign of the cross Christ blessed the bread. It was then." It became midday. The enough - more than enough for plougher started eating and didn't those present! make the sign of the cross. "See?" said the Devil. "If he was yours, he'd make the sign of the cross before eating. You can't argue anymore. He's all mine." "Wait. If he finishes eating and doesn't make the sign of the cross, he's yours." The plougher ate a lot, drank a lot, didn't make the sign of the cross, and to top it all off, let off a huge fart! Christ said "Now, you can have him." The Devil said "No, you have him!" II. (untitled) =.ika'u pukiku le prenu goi ko'a cu mutce nelci lenu kelci loi kelkarda =.i ko'a ze'i cusku fi leko'a speni fe ®lu .!e'u vi'ecpe la xrist. mu'i lenu friti lo midydo'i sanmi ra li'uЇ =.i la xrist. cu te cusku le sego'i gi'e frasku ®lu mi .!ai klama li'uЇ =.ike'unai ca le midydo'i la xrist. noi se kansa ro leri tadni cu klama =.i leko'a speni bazi lenu viska ri joi ra cusku ®lu le nanba na banzu .!u'u .!oiro'a li'uЇ =.i la xrist. cusku ®lu .!i'a ja'a go'i =.i ti cavi nanba =.iseni'ibo ti .!o'o bazivi se citka mi'o li'uЇ =.i nicygai le jubme =.i zutse mu'i lenu citka =.i la xrist. cestoldapma le nanba =.i ri banzu tu'a lei citka gi'e .!u'a dukse Once there was a man who loved playing cards. One day, he said to his wife, "Invite Christ here so we can offer him lunch." 127 no'i la xrist. ba cpacu loi said "The kingdom of heaven." vanju mu'i lenu pinxe kei gi'e te Christ said "As you wish, so it preti fo ko'a fe lenu ko'a djica will be done." Christ left, later lenu la xrist. dunda dakau ko'a on, and the man started playing =.i lei tadni cu cusku ®lu dunda cards. He won over everyone he tu'a .!e'usai le cevzda li'uЇ played with. Christ was =.i ku'i ko'a cusku fi la xrist. crucified, and the man kept on fe ®lu mi ponse lo plisytricu noi playing! se klama zo'e ja'e lenu citka lei plise =.iseki'ubo mi djica lenu ni'o la xrist. klagau lo ro klama .!i'anai be le tricu cu notcrida noi cusku fi ko'a fe ®lu se lasna fi ri li'uЇ la xrist. klagau mi ti mu'i lenu =.i la xrist. cusku ®lu ledo mi lebna do =.i lenu do kelci cu seldji ca'a !do'a mansa li'uЇ banzu .!u'i =.i lenu do jmive cu =.i la xrist. ba cpacu le remoi sisti .!uo li'uЇ kabri =.i cusku ®lu do djica =.i ko'a cusku ®lu .!i'a go'i lenu mi dunda ?ma do li'uЇ =.i .!!e'odo'a ko citka su'o plise =.i lei tadni cu cusku fi ko'a =.ibabo mi klama li'uЇ fe ®lu ko bacru .!e'ucai ®lu dunda =.i le notcrida cu klama mu'i tu'a le cevzda li'uЇ li'uЇ lenu citka kei gi'e se lasna =.i =.i ko'a cusku ®lu .!ai na'e lego'i cu cpesku ®lu ko .!e'ocai go'i =.i mi djica lenu mi jinga klama ja'e lenu to'e lasna mi fo ro nu mi'a kelci loi kelkarda li'uЇ li'uЇ =.i ko'a cusku ®lu mi klama do =.i la xrist. cusku ®lu ledo punaijeca .!ai.u'i .!ionairu'e seldji ca'a !do'a mansa li'uЇ lenu mi !ga'i djica li'uЇ gi'e =.i la xrist. ba cpacu le cimoi di'i kelci =.i ko'a ca lenu mo'u kabri =.i ®lu do djica lenu mi se cinri lenu kelci cu klama le dunda ?ma do li'uЇ notcrida gi'e cusku ®lu mi ca to'e =.i ko'a bazi cusku ®lu tu'a le lasna do gi'e .!i'a klakansa do cevzda li'uЇ li'uЇ =.i la xrist. cusku ®lu ledo =.i ko'a joi le notcrida cu seldji ca'a !do'a mansa li'uЇ klama fo le daptutra gi'e viska la =.i la xrist. baza cliva =.i xades. noi se kansa pare se ko'a co'a kelkarda kelci =.i jdadapma =.i ko'a cusku ®lu ko'a jinga fi ro kelkansa =.i la .!e'u mi'o velji'a kelci =.i xrist. kucyga'a se sfacatra .!e'u ge mi te jinga gi'o roroi vi =.ipujecajebabo ko'a kelci stali gi mi jinga gi'o cpacu leti .!ue.i'enairu'e se jdadapma li'uЇ =.i la xades. zanru =.i ri joi Christ then took wine to drink, ko'a co'a kelci =.i ko'a ba and asked the man what he wanted cusku ®lu li ci pi'i mu du li pamu Christ to give him. The students =.i li pamu su'i pa du li paxa said "Ask for the kingdom of .!u'a =.iseni'ibo .!e'o ko dunda heaven!" But he said to Christ: le se jdadapma mi li'uЇ "I have an apple tree, which =.i ko'a lebna le se jdadapma people always come and eat apples gi'e klama le cevzda from. So I want anyone who goes to the tree to get stuck onto it." Christ sent an angel, who told Christ said "As you wish, so it him "Christ sent me to take you will be done." Christ took a away. You've played enough! Your second cup, and said "What do you life is over." He said "Fine. Do want me to give you?" The go and have some apples. Then students told him "Say 'Give me I'll come with you." The angel the kingdom of heaven!'" He said went to eat, and got stuck. He "No; I want to win every time I begged the man: "Please come and play cards." Christ said "As you get me off here!" He said "I'll wish, so it will be done." Christ come to you, but not before I feel took a third cup. "What do you like it!", and kept on playing. want me to give you?" He then When he got bored of playing, he 128 came to the angel and said, "I'll get you off the tree, and will Nick: come along with you now." They The problem I have now is: how went past Hell, and saw Hades with do I shoehorn this project, which twelve damned people. He said could go on forever (especially "I'll gamble with you! If you with tanru) into something I can win, I stay here forever; if I spend at most 80 hours on (and I'd win, I get these damned people." prefer 60)? We will need to Hades approved, and they started decide what domains of the lan- playing. He then said "Three by guage we'll have to leave out: five makes fifteen, plus one makes this will need to work on a subset sixteen! So give me those of the language. Of course, I damned." He took the damned and could continue work on the project went to heaven. after this semester. no'i la xrist. ca lenu ko'a John Cowan: joi le drata cu klama ra cu cusku I think that you should simply ®lu mi cpedu lenu do noi pamei cu not worry about the internal klama mi =.i do mo'ifa'avi semantics of tanru, or indeed klagau .!ue lo du'emei li'u anything about selbri internals =.i ko'a cusku ®lu mi !si'a ca except possibly a place-structure- lenu mi do vi'ecpe mu'i lenu mi affecting SE [essentially, one friti le midydo'i sanmi do cu that converts the last component cpedu lenu do noi pamei cu klama of the tanru at whatever level of mi =.i do klagau ku'i lo pacimei nesting, the .!oiro'a =.i mi ne pa'a ca ter(ter(ter...tertau]. Here's a .!o'inai klagau lo pacimei li'uЇ very sketchy draft of something I =.iseni'ibo!zo'o la xrist. zanru wrote once; it actually does stop tu'a ropaci klama in the middle of a sentence - I got dragged away to do something When the man and the others else and never went back - that came, Christ said "I asked you, should give some idea of what can one person, to come to me. You've be done. brought too many people here!" He said "And when I invited you to offer you lunch, I asked you, one person, to come to me. But you brought thirteen! So I'm bringing you thirteen too." ERGO, Christ let all thirteen in. A Lojban-to-Prolog semantic analyzer by Nick Nicholas [For an extended class project related to his Masters degree work in Cognitive Science, Nick Nicholas has undertaken a project in natural language understanding of Lojban. This is a significant undertaking with great potential for Lojban's credibility given his likely success. Nick and John Cowan contributed ideas to his final project statement, included here. Also included are the reports on preliminary results that Nick has thus far presented. 129 Preliminary Notes for A Lojban specifies which (numerical) Canonicalizer Draft 1.0 argument of the selbri is involved by John Cowan or indicates a "modal" sumti outside the regular argument 1. Introductory structure; bare tags with Lojban is a predicate language; unspecified sumti; and negation that is, Lojban utterances are for boundaries. In addition, there the most part predications. Tools can be a "prenex" which specifies exist in the computer world to the quantification of bound process rules and facts expressed variable sumti. in the form of predications, and Argument order standardization to answer queries based on those will rearrange every bridi to get rules and facts. A well-known the sumti into a fixed order, example is Prolog. Prolog is iso- either x1, x2, x3, ... selbri or morphic to a small subset of x1, selbri, x2, x3 ... A look-up Lojban, but relatively simple will be done against the processing techniques would dictionary database to determine suffice to render a much larger how many sumti this selbri should set of Lojban utterances Prolog- have; any missing sumti will be compatible. replaced with the Lojban place- A Lojban Canonicalizer (LC) filler sumti, "zo'e". Modal sumti program would manipulate Lojban will be moved to the end of the utterances, previously parsed by bridi and placed into a canonical the standard Lojban parser, to order (perhaps alphabetical by produce other Lojban utterances tag; the set of tags is belonging to the Prolog-isomorphic potentially unbounded). A prenex subset. The basic techniques will be created with appropriate employed include: default quantifications, and all stripping of metalinguistics negations will be moved to it. argument order standardization 4. Semantic Transformations semantic transformations Like other natural languages, expansion of logical connectives Lojban possesses a "deep and others to be defined (or structure", in the sense (without thought of) later. The rest of prejudice to any particular this document details the linguistic theories) that some techniques above. utterances with very different grammar "mean the same thing", 2. Stripping of Metalinguistics with differences of emphasis and This is the easiest topic. the like. The argument-order Lojban allows for a variety of standardization discussed above methods for adding metalinguistic involves applying certain comments to mainstream text. transformations which affect There are UI indicators, SEI sumti. The type discussed here, comments, and TO/TOI parenthetical however, involves the "redundant remarks. All of these can simply structures" of Lojban. be removed from the parsed text. In pursuit of linguistic It is forbidden for text at a neutrality, Lojban features cer- lower metalinguistic level to tain pervasive schemas of refer to text at a higher level, grammatical alternatives. The so removal cannot lead to loss of most pervasive by far is the information (although it may lead afterthought vs. forethought to loss of context). opposition. In such structures as 3. Argument Order Standardization possessives, logical and non-logi- The Lojban predication, or cal connectives, bridi, is delivered by the parser as a predicate, or selbri, Nick: preceded and/or followed by This is the final draft of my "terms". There are four kinds of project proposal: terms: arguments, or sumti; tagged sumti, where the tag either 130 Project Proposal for 433-603: A Most of the semantic issues Lojban-to-Prolog semantic complicating logic-based knowledge analyzer. representation of NL remain in Lojban: higher-order predicates; In this project, we propose metalinguistic comments and developing a semantic analyzer attitudinals; the ambiguous such that, given a text in a semantic relationship between head subset of the artificial language and modifier in word compounds; Lojban, the analyzer will extract the representation of numbers, information from the text, store prepositional phrases, relative it as Prolog clauses, and be asked clauses, non-logical connectives, simple questions on the text negation, tense and modality; the content (the questions and answers distinction between "the" and "a" will both be in Lojban, rather (echoed in the language's than explicit Prolog veridical and non-veridical queries/clauses). To make the determiners); the distinction analyzer useful for non-Lojban between individual and collective speakers, output will also be plurals; subject-raising; and so provided in a pidgin English, and forth. phrase markers to the text In effect, a Lojban-to-Prolog syntactic structure may also be semantic analyzer would be displayed, time allowing. addressing many of the current Lojban is an artificial language issues in NLP knowledge intended for human use, of the representation, though biased type exemplified by Esperanto and towards predicate logic in the way Interlingua. It differs from most it does so. The use of a such languages, in that it has simplified model of NL, and the been explicitly based on predicate way the model falls short of logic. Predicates serve the role capturing NL nuances, will help of verbs, predicates with preposed the analyzer cover much ground determiners serve the role of quickly, and provide insights in nouns, and predications serve as similar analysis of NL proper. sentences. (It is claimed that the subset of There is a number of reasons why Lojban implemented would fall this project is of interest. short; the author believes the Lojban is a simplified model of a language itself, if it acquires a natural language (NL), using speech community, will match NL predicate logic as its modelling adequately in most usages of lan- mechanism. Predicate logic also guage). Less attention would need underlies the Prolog into which to be paid to syntactic issues Lojban text will be transformed by than would be the case with NL. the analyzer. Therefore the task Given how Lojban grammar is of transferring such information structured, modular subsets of across from Lojban to Prolog will Lojban grammar can be implemented be considerably simpler than doing in stages in the analyzer. This so for an NL. Lojban has already means that results for simple been shoehorned into a context- phrases will become available a free grammar using YACC (this has very short time into the project. involved some imaginative use of To keep the project manageable, error recovery, but LALR(1) nature a subset of the language will have was retained). Thus the task of to be considered; this is in line parsing Lojban text into with the Lojban Canonicaliser identifiable grammatical proposed by John Cowan (see Enclo- constituencies has already been sures. The Canonicaliser will dealt with: problems in resolving need to be implemented as a syntactic ambiguity need not preprocessor to what text the distract the analyzer programmer analyzer actually sees). Lexi- from the more important semantic cally, the subset of Lojban to be issues. implemented will include roughly 500 predicates. 131 Grammatically, the subset is 8. Prepositional phrases (other described as follows, to be than tense and location); e.g. "mi implemented in incremental, naumau do nelci ko'a" --> "mi independent stages: zmadu do leni da nelci ko'a" - 1. Simple predications with a EXCEEDS(i, you, quantity: known predicate, and with LIKES(X, x1)): "I like him more arguments without internal than you do.", e.g. "lo catra ne structure (Proper names, logical sepi'o lo mrudakfu" --> "lo catra variables). No quantification noi pilno lo mrudakfu" - EXISTS X other than existential; e.g. "mi EXISTS Y: KILLS(X, _) & USES(X, prami da" - EXISTS X: LOVES(i, X). Y, event: KILLS(X, _)) & 2. Non-veridical arguments (cf. HAMMER_KNIFE(Y): "an axe-mur- English "the") based on derer".1 predicates, with internal 9. Attitudinals; e.g. "mi .ui arguments; e.g. "mi catra le prami sidju do" --> "mi sidju do .ije mi be le pulji" - KILLS(i, x) & gleki mi va'o lenu mi sidju do": LOVES(x, y) & POLICE(y): "I kill HELP(i, you) & HAPPY(i, i) & the lover of the policeman." CONTEXT((state: HAPPY(i, i), Note: strictly speaking, the non- event: HELP(i, you)): "I (smile) veridical determiner indicates will help you; I am happy to help that the entity the speaker has you." 'in mind' is described by the 10. Tense (including location), predicate it precedes, but not and prepositions of tense uniquely specified by it (cf. (including location). Also veridical determiners). Given the includes modality and event con- absence of pragmatic content at tours; e.g. "mi ba'o tavla" --> this early stage of the analyzer, "lenu mi tavla cu ba'o zei balvi making this distinction will be zo'e": AFTERMATH(event: talk(i, problematic (it is, after all, _, _, _), _): "I have spoken." inherently ambiguous); it will be 11. Masses and sets as dealt with here exactly as NLP arguments; e.g. "loi remna cu deals with the "the"/"an" sipna": "the mass of humans distinction. sleep" (Though it is not true at 3. Veridical arguments (cf. any given moment that: FORALL X: English "an") based on predicates, HUMAN(X) => SLEEPS(X)) with internal arguments. e.g. "mi 12. Non-logical connectors. catra lo prami be lo pulji" - e.g. "la gilbrt. joi la salivn. cu EXISTS X EXISTS Y: KILLS(i, X) & finti la mikadon." - INVENT(X, LOVES(X, Y) & POLICE(Y): "I kill mikado) & JOINT_MASS(X, gilbert, a lover of a policeman." sullivan): "G & S (as a joint 4. Resolution of logical unit) wrote The Mikado." connectives; e.g. "mi nelci do .e 13. Quantification (including ko'a" --> "mi nelci do .ije mi numerical, as well as subjective nelci ko'a" - LIKES(i, you) & quantifiers such as "enough" and LIKES(i, x1): "I like you and "most"); e.g. "mu le ze mensi cu him." cucycau": "five of the seven 5. Anaphora and cross-indexing. sisters are barefoot". e.g. "le prenu\i cu prami ri\i" - ____________________ PERSON(x) & LOVES(x, x): "The 1Iain Alexander: person loves him/herself." (Really picky:) If you really 6. Restrictive and non- want the "ka mrudakfu pilno" to be restrictive relative clauses; e.g. part of the "nu catra", I think it "mi nelci le prenu poi do xebni ought to be bound into the selbri ke'a" - (EXISTS x: HATES(you, x)) with "be": & LIKES(i, x) & PERSON(x): "I lo catra be sepi'o lo mrudakfu like the person you hate." Otherwise it could just as easily 7. Higher order predicates; be e.g. "lenu mi cadzu cu nandu" - lo te zgike pesepi'o lo grana DIFFICULT(event: WALKS(i)): "My The musician who uses a stick (for walking is difficult." walking) 132 14. Negation. Contradictory Well, ladies and germs, this is and scalar. Use of prenexes; e.g. what I can get my Lojban-PROLOG "mi naku ro prenu cu prami": processor to do so far: NOT(FORALL X:PERSON(X), LOVES(i,X)); "mi ro prenu na Input text: }mi nelci le klama be prami": FORALL X:PERSON(X), le zarci be le ckafi be'o bei le NOT(LOVES(i,X))2 pulji bei le berti 15. Vocatives, imperatives, interrogatives, and speech protocol words; e.g. "doi skami la sinderelan. mensi ma fe'o": "O Computer: Cinderella is sister to whom? (End of transmission)." Sections of Lojban Grammar not anticipated to be included in the model: 1. The mathematical subgrammar of Lojban. 2. Any analysis of word compounds. 3. Metalinguistic comments. The detail of coverage of some sections, particularly tense, will probably have to be curtailed due to time constraints. It is anticipated to have this project take at most 80 hours of work. John Cowan: One thing I would suggest is supporting universal quan- tification as well as existential, since Prolog directly handles universal quantification, whereas existential quantification (except when appearing only in the antecedent of a rule) has to be kludged by skolemization. On a different note, I think you should consider supporting two additional things: universal quantification a la simple Prolog variables, and imperatives. It would be way cool if a "ko" triggered a look-up so that "ko ciska le broda" came out "print(le_broda)." or the like. That way actual Prolog programming in Lojban would be possible! Progress Report 1 ____________________ 2Iain: mi ro prenu na prami: I think this is naku zo'u mi ro prenu prami i.e. the same as the previous example. You need mi ro prenu naku prami 133 Parser output, after going through LEX: brivla nelci brivla klama brivla zarci brivla ckafi brivla pulji brivla berti end_of_lex_list mi nelci le klama be le zarci be le ckafi ku beho ku bei le pulji ku bei le berti ku beho ku vau PROLOG output [q(suho(1), _FIPFN, q(suho(1), _FIREF, q(suho(1), _FISES, ckafi(_FISES, _FISZG, _FISZH, _FISZI, _FISZJ), [], zarci(_FIREF, _FISES, _FITIV, _FITIW, _FITIX)), [], q(suho(1), _FIUAD, pulji(_FIUAD, _FIUUR, _FIUUS, _FIUUT, _FIUUU), [], q(suho(1), _FIVID, berti(_FIVID, _FIWCR, _FIWCS, _FIWCT, _FIWCU), [], klama(_FIPFN, _FIREF, _FIUAD, _FIVID, _FIWRT)))), [], nelci(mi, _FIPFN, _FIPFO, _FIPFP, _FIPFQ))] Translation Branched quantifiers: E X : broda(X) ; brode(X) => su'o broda ku poi brode There exists a broda, which brode's, such that... (These are preferred in Linguistics to the normal plain "E X". q(E,X,A(X),B(X),C(X)) = (E X: broda(X) ; brode(X)) (C(X)) There exists an A, which Bs, such that C. E X: E Y: E Z: ckafi(Z); [] (zarci(Y,Z)) ; [] ( E W: pulji(W) ; [] ( E V: berti(V) ; [] (klama(X,Y,W,V)) ) ) ; [] (nelci(mi,X)) Progress Report 2: Further Lojban->Prolog: relative clauses At the moment, if "ke'a" isn't there, it isn't assumed; it's pretty certain that, if I don't find "ke'a" there, I'll shove it into the first free place in the relative clause predication. I've gotten numbers working too, but that's not that spectacular. I'm about to implement the "lo"/"le" distinction. mi prami le prenu ku poi ke'a citka le cakla brivla prami brivla prenu brivla citka brivla cakla end_of_lex_list mi prami le prenu ku poi keha citka le cakla ku vau kuho vau 134 [q(suho(1), _FIODG, prenu(_FIODG, _FIPZL, _FIPZM, _FIPZN, _FIPZO), q(suho(1), _FIRXG, cakla(_FIRXG, _FITTL, _FITTM, _FITTN, _FITTO), [], citka(_FIODG, _FIRXG, _FIRXH, _FIRXI, _FIRXJ)), prami(mi, _FIODG, _FIODH, _FIODI, _FIODJ))] Translation: E X: prenu(X); (E Y: cakla(Y); [] (citka(X,Y)) (prami(mi,X)) 135 Progress Report 3: Lojban->Prolog: conjunctions mi .e ko'a cu prami ro lo nanmu gi'e xebni ro lo ninmu Note: c(C,X,Y) means C(X,Y), where C is some binary conjunction. Here it is ".e", meaning AND. [c(e, q(la, mi, [], [], c(e, q(ro, _FIPVD, nanmu(_FIPVD, _FIRSQ, _FIRSR, _FIRSS, _FIRST), [], prami(mi, _FIPVD, _FIPVE, _FIPVF, _FIPVG)), q(ro, _FISRZ, ninmu(_FISRZ, _FIUPM, _FIUPN, _FIUPO, _FIUPP), [], xebni(mi, _FISRZ, _FISSA, _FISSB, _FISSC)))), q(la, koha, [], [], c(e, q(ro, _FIPVD, nanmu(_FIPVD, _FIRSQ, _FIRSR, _FIRSS, _FIRST), [], prami(koha, _FIPVD, _FIPVE, _FIPVF, _FIPVG)), q(ro, _FISRZ, ninmu(_FISRZ, _FIUPM, _FIUPN, _FIUPO, _FIUPP), [], xebni(koha, _FISRZ, _FISSA, _FISSB, _FISSC)))))] Translation AND( AND( All x (man x) loves(mi,x) , All y (woman y) hates(mi,x)), AND( All x (man x) loves(koha,x) , All y (woman y) hates(koha,y))). Note that I'm using iota quantification for names and anaphors; this is left in for ease of anaphor resolution later, and can be stripped out. Progress Report 4: Prolog: event abstractions mi nelci lenu ko'a banli ro lo xelso ku poi ke'a prami le gugde kei ku poi ke'a cafne .e la kserkes. gi'e zutse le stizu (Takes 16 seconds to parse). c(e, c(e, q(suho(1), _FJKVW, nu(_FJKVW, q(ro, _FJLAZ, xelso(_FJLAZ, _FJLGI, _FJLGJ, _FJLGK, _FJLGL), q(suho(1), _FJLKF, gugde(_FJLKF, _FJLPO, _FJLPP, _FJLPQ, _FJLPR), [], prami(_FJLAZ, _FJLKF, _FJLKG, _FJLKH, _FJLKI) ), banli(koha, _FJLAZ, _FJLBA, _FJLBB, _FJLBC) ), _FJLSS, _FJLST, _FJLSU), cafne(_FJKVW, _FJLWO, _FJLWP, _FJLWQ, _FJLWR), nelci(mi, _FJKVW, _FJKUU, _FJKUV, _FJKUW) ), nelci(mi, [kserkses], _FJKUU, _FJKUV, _FJKUW) ), q(suho(1), _FJMDN, stizu(_FJMDN, _FJMID, _FJMIE, _FJMIF, _FJMIG), [], zutse(mi, _FJMDN, _FJMDO, _FJMDP, _FJMDQ) ) ) AND( AND( {E X nu(X, A Y xelso(Y): 136 {E Z gugde(Z); prami(Y,Z)}; banli(koha, Y) ): cafne(X); nelci(mi, X) }, nelci(mi, [kserkses]) ), E W:stizu(W);zutse(mi,W) ) LOJBAN MACHINE GRAMMAR, E-BNF VERSION, dated 12 June 1993 2nd baseline as of 23 June 1991, which is original baseline 20 July 1990 incorporating technical fixes 1-28. This version includes change proposals 1-32 to that baseline, excluding changes 21 and 28 which are assumed annulled. Prepared by The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031 USA [email protected] 703-385-0273 In accordance with the Logical Language Group, Inc. policy, this material constitutes Lojban language definition materials and is hereby placed irrevocably in the public domain. Signed: Robert LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. We request the following when this material is used in derived works: state that derivation and that the material baseline is preliminary, and provide the name and address of the Logical Language Group, Inc. as a source of further bonafide information about the material and about Lojban. We ask that all users of this material verify to ensure that they are using the latest material. Barring unexpected major problems there will be no change to this material prior to completion of the Lojban dictionary later in 1993, whereupon a 3rd baseline will declared. Explanation of notation: All rules have the form: name<number> = bnf-expression which means that the grammatical construct "name" is defined by "bnf- expression". The number cross-references this grammar with the rule numbers in the YACC grammar. The names are the same as those in the YACC grammar, except that subrules are labeled with A, B, C, ... in the YACC grammar and with 1, 2, 3, ... in this grammar. In addition, rule 971 is "simple_tag" in the YACC grammar but "stag" in this grammar, because of its frequent appearance, and rule 32 is "free_modifier" in the YACC grammar but "free" in this grammar. Conventions: 1) Names in lower case are grammatical constructs. 2) Names in UPPER CASE are selma'o (lexeme) names, and are terminals (i.e. they have no internal grammar, but are replaced by any of the Lojban words in that "selma'o". 3) Concatenation is expressed by juxtaposition with no operator symbol. 4) "|" represents alternation (choice). 5) "[]" represents an optional element. 6) "&" represents and/or ("A & B" is the same as "A | B | A B"). 7) "..." represents optional repetition of the construct to the left. Left-grouping is implied; right-grouping is shown by explicit self- referential recursion with no "..." 8) "()" serves to indicate the grouping of the other operators. Otherwise, "..." binds closer than &, which binds closer than |. 9) "#" is shorthand for "[free ...]", a construct which appears in many places. 10) "//" encloses an elidable terminator, which may be omitted (without change of meaning) if no grammatical ambiguity results. text<0> = [NAI] [(CMENE ... #) | (indicators & free ...)] [joik-jek] text-1 text-1<2> = [(I [jek | joik] [[stag] BO] #) ... | NIhO ... # ] paragraphs paragraphs<4> = paragraph [NIhO ... # paragraphs] paragraph<10> = paragraph-1 [I [jek | joik] # [paragraph-1] ... paragraph-1<11> = paragraph-2 [I [jek | joik] [stag] BO # paragraph-1] paragraph-2<12> = utterance | [prenex | tag] TUhE # text-1 /TUhU#/ utterance<20> = ek # | gihek # | quantifier | NA | term ... /VAU#/ | prenex | relative-clauses | links | linkargs | sentence prenex<30> = term ... ZOhU # sentence<40> = bridi-tail | sentence-1 sentence-1<41> = term ... [CU #] bridi-tail | gek sentence-1 gik sentence | prenex sentence bridi-tail<50> = bridi-tail-1 [gihek [stag] KE # bridi-tail /KEhE#/ tail-terms] ... bridi-tail-1<51> = bridi-tail-2 [gihek # bridi-tail-2 tail-terms] ... bridi-tail-2<52> = bridi-tail-3 [gihek [stag] BO # bridi-tail-2 tail- terms] bridi-tail-3<53> = selbri tail-terms | gek-bridi-tail gek-bridi-tail<54> = gek bridi-tail gik bridi-tail-3 | tag KE gek- bridi-tail /KEhE#/ | NA # gek-bridi-tail tail-terms<71> = [term ...] /VAU#/ term<81> = sumti | (tag | FA #) (sumti | /KU#/) | termset | NA KU # termset<83> = NUhI gek term ... /NUhU#/ gik term ... /NUhU#/ | NUhI term ... /NUhU#/ joik-ek # term ... /NUhU#/ sumti<90> = sumti-1 [(ek | joik) [stag] KE # sumti /KEhE#/] ... sumti-1<91> = sumti-2 [joik-ek sumti-2] ... sumti-2<91> = sumti-3 [(ek | joik) [stag] BO # sumti-2] sumti-3<93> = sumti-4 | gek sumti gik sumti-3 sumti-4<94> = [quantifier] sumti-5 [relative-clauses] | quantifier selbri /KU#/ [relative-clauses] sumti-5<96> = (LAhE # | NAhE BO #) [relative-clauses] sumti /LUhU#/ | KOhA # | lerfu-string /BOI#/ | LA CMENE ... # | (LA | LE) sumti- tail /KU#/ | LI mex /LOhO#/ | ZO any-word # | LU text /LIhU/ # | LOhU any-word ... LEhU # | ZOI any-word anything any-word # sumti-tail<111> = [sumti-5 [relative-clauses]] sumti-tail-1 | relative- clauses sumti-tail-1 sumti-tail-1<112> = [quantifier] selbri [relative-clauses] | quantifier sumti relative-clauses<121> = relative-clause [ZIhE relative-clause] ... relative-clause<122> = GOI term /GEhU#/ | NOI sentence /KUhO#/ selbri<130> = [tag] selbri-1 selbri-1<131> = selbri-2 | NA selbri selbri-2<132> = selbri-3 [CO # selbri-2] selbri-3<133> = selbri-4 ... selbri-4<134> = selbri-5 [joik-jek selbri-5] ... selbri-5<135> = selbri-6 [(jek | joik) BO # selbri-5] selbri-6<136> = tanru-unit [BO selbri-6] | [NAhE #] guhek selbri gik selbri-6 tanru-unit<150> = tanru-unit-1 [CEI # tanru-unit-1] ... tanru-unit-1<151> = tanru-unit-2 [linkargs] tanru-unit-2<152> = BRIVLA # | GOhA [RAhO] # | KE selbri-3 /KEhE#/ | ME sumti /MEhU#/ [MOI] # | (number | lerfu-string) MOI # | NUhA mex-operator | SE # tanru-unit-2 | JAI [tag] tanru-unit-2 | any- word (ZEI any-word) ... | NAhE # tanru-unit-2 | NU [NAI] # [joik-jek NU [NAI] #] ... sentence /KEI#/ linkargs<160> = BE term [links] /BEhO#/ links<161> = BEI term [links] quantifier<300> = number /BOI#/ | VEI mex /VEhO#/ mex<310> = mex-1 [operator mex-1] ... | FUhA rp-expression mex-1<311> = mex-2 [BO operator mex-1] mex-2<312> = operand | [PEhO] operator mex-2 ... /KUhE#/ rp-expression<330> = rp-operand rp-operand operator rp-operand<332> = operand | rp-expression operator<370> = operator-1 [joik-jek operator-1] ... operator-1<371> = operator-2 | guhek operator-1 gik operator-2 operator-2<372> = mex-operator # | KE operator /KEhE#/ mex-operator<374> = SE # mex-operator | NAhE # mex-operator MAhO mex /TEhU#/ | NAhU selbri /TEhU#/ | VUhU operand<380> = operand-1 [(ek | joik) [stag] KE # operand /KEhE#/] ... operand-1<382> = operand-2 [joik-ek operand-2] ... operand-2<383> = operand-3 [(ek | joik) [stag] BO # operand-2] operand-3<385> = quantifier | lerfu-string /BOI#/ | NIhE selbri /TEhU#/ | MOhE sumti /TEhU#/ | JOhI mex-2 ... /TEhU#/ | gek operand gik operand-3 | (LAhE # | NAhE BO #) operand /LUhU#/ number<812> = PA [PA | lerfu-word] ... lerfu-string<817> = lerfu-word [PA | lerfu-word] ... lerfu-word<987> = BY | any-word BU | LAU lerfu-word | TEI lerfu-string FOI ek<802> = [NA] [SE] A [NAI] gihek<818> = [NA] [SE] GIhA [NAI] jek<805> = [NA] [SE] JA [NAI] joik<806> = [SE] JOI [NAI] | interval | GAhO interval GAhO interval<932> = [SE] BIhI [NAI] joik-ek<421> = joik # | ek # joik-jek<422> = joik # | jek # gek<807) = [SE] GA [NAI] # | joik GI # | stag gik # guhek<808> = [SE] GUhA [NAI] # gik<816> = GI [NAI] # tag<491> = tense-modal [joik-jek tense-modal] ... stag<971> = simple-tense-modal [(jek | joik) simple-tense-modal] ... tense-modal<815> = simple-tense-modal # | FIhO selbri /FEhU#/ simple-tense-modal<972> = [NAhE] [SE] BAI [NAI] [KI] | [NAhE] time & space & CAhA [KI] | KI | CUhE time<1030> = ZI & time-offset ... & ZEhA [PU [NAI]] & interval-modifier time-offset<1033> = PU [NAI] [ZI] space<1040> = VA & space-offset ... & space-interval & (MOhI space- offset) space-offset<1045> = FAhA [NAI] [VA] space-interval<1046> = ((VEhA & VIhA) [FAhA [NAI]]) & FEhE interval- modifier interval-modifier<1050> = interval-property & ZAhO interval-property<1051> = number ROI [NAI] | TAhE [NAI] free<32> = SEI # [term ... [CU #]] selbri /SEhU/ | SOI sumti [sumti] /SEhU/ | vocative selbri [relative-clauses] /DOhU/ | vocative relative-clauses sumti-tail-1 /DOhU/ | vocative CMENE ... # [relative-clauses] /DOhU/ | vocative [sumti] /DOhU/ | (number | lerfu-string) MAI | TO text /TOI/ | XI number /BOI/ | XI lerfu- string /BOI/ | XI VEI mex /VEhO/ vocative<415> = (COI [NAI]) ... & DOI indicators<411> = [FUhE] indicator ... indicator<413> = (UI | CAI) [NAI] | Y | POhA | DAhO | FUhO The following rules are non-formal: word<1100> = [BAhE | PEhA] any-word [indicators] any-word = "any single word (no compound cmavo)" anything = "any text at all, whether Lojban or not" null<1101> = any-word SI | utterance SA | text SU FAhO is a universal terminator and signals the end of parsable input. 06/01/93 Lojban baseline rafsi list The Logical Language Group, Inc., 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 email: [email protected] In accordance with the Logical Language Group, Inc. policy, this material constitutes Lojban language definition materials and is hereby placed irrevocably in the public domain. Signed: Robert LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. We request the following when this material is used in derived works: state that derivation and that the material baseline is preliminary, and provide the name and address of the Logical Language Group, Inc. as a source of further bonafide information about the material and about Lojban. We ask that all users of this material verify to ensure that they are using the latest material. Barring unexpected major problems there will be no change to this material prior to completion of the Lojban dictionary later in 1993, whereupon a 3rd baseline will declared. Lojban lujvo-MAKING 1. Long-form rafsi for gismu are derived directly from the gismu-form: the gismu itself for final position, and the gismu with final vowel replaced by 'y' for non-final position; cmavo have no long-form rafsi. As you will note below, many gismu have no short-form rafsi and must use the long forms in both initial and final positions. Short form rafsi are derived from a limited set of possibilities: C1V1C2C3V2 gismu have1 CVC forms from C1V1C2 or C1V1C3 CVV forms from C1V1V2 (C1V1'V2) CCV forms from C2C3V2 or rarely C1C2V1 C1C2V1C3V2 gismu have CVC forms from C1V1C3 or C2V1C3 CVV forms from C1V1V2 (C1V1'V2) or C2V1V2 (C2V1'V2) CCV forms from C1C2V1 2. Any cmavo or other word may be incorporated into a lujvo independently of the rafsi system using the cmavo "zei": 'any-word' zei 'any-word' forms a brivla 3. All forms of lujvo built out of exactly the same component words/rafsi have identical meanings. There is no stigma attached to use of long forms, which can be especially useful when your audience is not familiar with the rafsi, and is not likely to be looking up words in a word-list. Long-forms also may be preferred to guessing when you are too lazy to use a list yourself, and you suspect that your audience will be using one - there is nothing like trying to interpret a lujvo when the unambiguously resolved components resolve into something totally strange. 4. The rules for building lujvo-forms are fairly simple. - Rules for Lojban word forms - The lujvo must be formed according to Lojban's word-formation rules. The constraints of Lojban word forms ____________________ 1Note: C and V in abbreviations of this sort stand for any Lojban consonant and vowel, respectively. The apostrophe is the Lojban "'", which is considered neither a consonant nor a vowel.) 2 forbid any lujvo from ending in a consonant, so that words most commonly found in the final position of a tanru have been prioritized to have a rafsi that ends in a vowel. However, words found in initial positions often form better sounding combinations if their rafsi end in a consonant. (Also, because we usually recognize words by the consonants in them rather than the vowels, the rafsi of form CVV and CV'V are harder to memorize. Certain sounds are forbidden to occur next to each other (so-called 'impermissible medial' consonants), and must be separated by a 'hyphen'- sound, the "uh" of "sofa", represented in Lojban by the letter 'y' (this letter is found only as a hyphen, in lerfu, the words for letters of the alphabet, and along to represent the hesitation noise. It is thus not normally considered a 'V' is the C/V convention scheme. Indeed, "CyC" is considered a consonant cluster in Lojban morphology, albeit a hyphenated one). In addition, a CVV or CV'V rafsi at the beginning of any lujvo must either carry the penultimate stress, it must be 'glued' to the remaining rafsi with a syllabic 'r' or 'n' sound, or the rafsi falls off into a separate word, a cmavo. (In addition, a CVV or CV'V rafsi followed by another CVV or CV'V rafsi in a 2-term lujvo must have the 'r' or 'n' added, or the consonant cluster mandatory in any brivla in not present, and the rafsi break up into two separate cmavo.) - Multiple rafsi to choose from - Because of these rules, there is usually more than one rafsi usable for each gismu. The one to be used is simply whichever sounds best to the speaker/writer. There are many valid combinations of the possible rafsi. Any rafsi for a given word is equally valid in place of another, and all mean the same thing. There is an optional scoring component to the lujvo-making algorithm which attempts to systematically pick the 'best' one; this algorithm tries for short forms and tends to push more vowels into the words to make them easier to say. The Japanese, Chinese, and Polynesian speakers will prefer this; Russians have a different aesthetic, since they are used to saying consonant clusters. But these are not necessarily the criteria you will wish to use. - lujvo have ONE meaning - While a tanru is ambiguous, having several possible meanings, a lujvo (one that would be put into the dictionary) has one meaning. Just like gismu, a lujvo is a predicate which encompasses one area of the semantic universe, with one set of places. Hopefully this is the most 'useful' or 'logical' of the possible semantic spaces. A known source of linguistic drift in Lojban will be as Lojbanic society evolves, and the concept represented by a sequence of rafsi that is most 'useful' or 'logical' changes. At that time, it might be decided that we want to redefine the lujvo to assume the new meaning. lujvo must not be allowed to retain two meanings. So those that maintain the dictionary will be ever watchful of tanru and lujvo usage to ensure this standard is kept. One should try to be aware of the possibility of prior meanings of a new lujvo, especially if you are writing for 'posterity'. If a lujvo is invented which involves the same tanru as one that is in the dictionary, and is assigned a different meaning (including a different place structure), linguistic drift results. This isn't necessarily bad; it happens in every natural language. You communicate quite well in English even though you don't know most words in the dictionary, and in spite of the fact that you use some words in ways not found in the dictionary. Whenever you use a meaning different from the dictionary definition, you risk a reader/listener using the dictionary and therefore misunderstanding you. One major reason for having a standard ____________________________________________________________ 3 lujvo scoring algorithm is that with several possible rafsi choices to consider, a dictionary is most efficient by putting the definition under the single most preferred form. You may optionally mark a nonce word that you create without checking a dictionary by preceding it with "za'e". "za'e" simply tells the listener that the word is a nonce word, and may not agree with a dictionary entry for that sequence of rafsi. The essential nature of human communication is that if the listener understands, then all is well. Let this be the ultimate guideline for choosing meanings and place structures for invented lujvo. - Zipf's law and lujvo - This complication is simple, but is the scariest. Zipf's Law (actually a hypothesis), says that the length of words is inversely proportional to their frequency of usage. The shortest words are those which are used more; the longest ones are used less. The corollary for Lojban is that commonly used concepts will tend to be abbreviated. Speakers will choose the shortest form for frequently expressed ideas that gets their meaning across, even at the cost of accuracy in meaning. In English, we have abbreviations and acronyms and jargon, all of which are words for complex ideas used with high frequency by a group of people. So they shortened them to convey the often-used information more rapidly. The jargon-forming interpretation of Zipf's Law may be a cause of multiple meanings of words in the natural languages, especially of short words. If true, it threatens the Lojban rule that all lujvo must have one meaning. The Lojbanist thus resigned accepts a complication in lujvo-making: A perfectly good and clear tanru may have to be abbreviated when made into a lujvo, if the concept it represents likely will be used so often as to cause Zipf's Law to take effect. Thus, given a tanru with grouping markers, abstraction markers, and other cmavo in it to make the tanru syntactically unambiguous, in many cases one drops some of the cmavo to make a shorter (incorrect) tanru, and then uses that one to make the lujvo. This doesn't lead to ambiguity, as it might seem. A given lujvo still has exactly one meaning and place structure. But now, more than one tanru is competing for the same lujvo. This is not as difficult to accept or allow for as it might seem: more than one meaning for a single tanru was already competing for the 'right' to be used for the lujvo. Someone has to use judgement in deciding which one meaning is to be chosen over the others. This judgement will be made on the basis of usage, presumably by some fairly logical criteria. If the lujvo made by a shorter form of tanru is already in use, or is likely to be useful for another meaning, the wordmaker then retains one or more of the cmavo, preferably ones that clearly set this meaning apart from the shorter form meaning that is used or anticipated. In Lojban, therefore, shorter lujvo will be used for a less complicated concept, possibly even over a more frequent word. If two concepts compete for a single rafsi sequence, the simpler concept will take a shorter form, and the more complex concept will have some indication of its more complex nature added into the word structure. It is easier to add a cmavo to clarify the meaning of a more complex term than it is to find a good alternate tanru for the simpler term. A good lujvo-composer considers the listener, and a good lujvo interpreter remebers the difficulties of lujvo-making. If someone hears a word he doesn't know, decomposes it, and gets a tanru that makes no sense for the context, he knows that the grouping operators may have been dropped out, he may try alternate groupings. Or he may try using the verb form of the concept instead of the first sumti, inserting an abstraction operator if it seems plausible. Plausibility is key to learning new ideas, and evaluating unfamiliar lujvo. 4 SHORT FORM OF THE LUJVO-MAKING ALGORITHM The rules for the lujvo-making algorithm are stated formally. This may cause it to appear intimidating to a casual reader, and to seem harder than it really is to use. The following brief form, is more practical to learn. 1. Find all rafsi forms for the component words. 5-letter forms can only occur in final position; 4-letter+y form, and CVC short forms can only occur in non-final positions. Make all possible combinations of the rafsi for the component words, keeping the order of the component words. 2. Between any two impermissible medial consonants (see 5c of the formal algorithm), stick a y. 3. Where there is a consonant triple formed where two rafsi join, if it is impermissible (see 5d of the formal algorithm), stick in a y where they join. 4. If you have a CVV rafsi at the beginning, add in an r hyphen after it. An n is used instead if the letter after the hyphen is also an r. However, in a tanru with only 2 parts, do not add a hyphen when the second rafsi is a CCV-form. 5. Always stick in a y hyphen after a 4-letter form, which is the gismu without its final letter. 6. Perform the "tosmabru" test. Starting from the left, look for a sequence of 2-or-more CVC rafsi ending with (the first) hyphen 'y', or one-or-more CVC rafsi followed by an end-of-word CVCCV full word rafsi with a permissible medial as the CC. If either case occurs, look at each consonant pair, and if all of them are permissible initial consonant pairs, insert a 'y' hyphen between the first consonant pair. THE lujvo-MAKING ALGORITHM The following is the official algorithm for generating Lojban lujvo (complex brivla, or predicate words), given a known tanru (metaphor) and a complete list of gismu (Lojban primitive roots) and their assigned rafsi (affixes). Note that Lojban does not require use of the optimal, or "best" form of a word. Poetic usage allows any of the valid word forms created by this algorithm to be used under appropriate circumstances. Given an n-term tanru and the instruction to find the highest- scoring lujvo: 1) For all terms except the final term, look up or generate all of the rafsi (3- and 4- letter forms). Three-letter forms will be of the structure CVC, CCV, CVV, or CV'V (the apostrophe is not counted as a letter in any Lojban rule). A standard gismu list gives the three- letter rafsi for each gismu and for each cmavo with an assigned rafsi. You can memorize the list also. This is not difficult if you use the language much: the set of possible rafsi for each word is limited, and because almost all possible rafsi have an assigned meaning, the more you know, the easier it is to learn the rest by elimination. 5 - Given a CCVCV gismu C1C2V1C3V2, the CVC rafsi, if any, will be C1V1C3 or C2V1C3. The CVV/CV'V rafsi, if any, will be C1V1(')V2 or C2V1(')V2. The CCV rafsi, if any, will be C1C2V1. Very few gismu have both a CCV and a CVV/CV'V assigned. - Given a CVCCV gismu C1V1C2C3V2, the CVC rafsi, if any, will be C1V1C2. The CVV/CV'V rafsi, if any, will be C1V1(')V2. The CCV rafsi, if any, will be C1C2V2, or rarely, C1C2V1. - The rafsi for cmavo is assigned more arbitrarily. A CVV/CV'V form cmavo will often be its own rafsi, but when this isn't possible, the final letter is changed. A single letter, usually an arbitrary consonant, is added to a CV cmavo to make its rafsi. - The four-letter rafsi form for any gismu is formed by dropping the final vowel from the gismu (which is then effectively replaced by "y" in the lujvo). 2) For the final term, look up or generate all of the three-letter rafsi, omitting any CVC-form rafsi since a lujvo cannot end in a consonant. Then, for this position only, add in the full gismu itself as a '5-letter rafsi'. 3) Since most cmavo with rafsi have CVC rafsi and none has a 5-letter form, few cmavo can occur in the final position of a tanru used as the basis of a lujvo. cmavo in those positions are rare anyway, the exceptions being PA+MOI numbers. If a cmavo in any position has no rafsi, then it cannot be incorporated into the lujvo. Consider rephrasing or using "zei" to form an 'any-word' compound. 4) Form all of the ordered combinations of these rafsi, one rafsi per corresponding term ordered in the sequence of their corresponding terms. 5) Audible 'hyphens' may be necessary between some adjacent rafsi to make the word pronouncible, understandable, well-formed, and not prone to breaking up into two-or-more smaller words. Hyphens are never optional; they are not permitted in-between rafsi unless they are required. Right-to-left testing is recommended for reasons discussed below: a) If there are more than two terms, an initial CVV or CV'V rafsi will fall off and be heard as a separate cmavo. It must therefore be glued on with the letter 'r', which nominally stands in a syllable by itself. For example sai + zba + ta'u becomes sairzbata'u (syllabized as sai,r,zba,TA'u). If the initial rafsi is a CV'V, the 'r' may be joined onto the second syllable. Thus sa'i + zba + ta'u becomes sa'irzbata'u (syllabized as sa,'ir,zba,TA'u). If the first consonant of the second syllable is an 'r', the gluing 'hyphen' must be the letter 'n', instead of 'r' because doubled consonants are not permitted in Lojban. Thus sai + rai + ta'u becomes sainraita'u (syllabized as sai,n,rai,TA'u and NOT sain,rai,TA'u). 'n' is NOT permitted unless the adjacent 'r' forces it. If there are exactly two terms, and the initial term is a CVV or CV'V rafsi AND the final term is a 5-letter rafsi, an 'r' hyphen is needed as described above to prevent the initial rafsi from falling off into a separate CVV or CV'V cmavo. As above, an 'n' is used as glue if and only if an 'r' cannot be used. Thus sai + taxfu needs hyphen 'r' to become sairtaxfu (sai,r,TAX,fu). sai + ranji needs hyphen 'n' to become sainranji (sai,n,RAN,ji). 6 If there are exactly two terms, and the initial term is a CVV or CV'V rafsi AND the final term is a CVV or CV'V rafsi, an 'r' hyphen is needed, because the lujvo is not well-formed, lacking a consonant cluster, and will fall apart into two CVV or CV'V cmavo. As above, an 'n' is used as glue if and only if an 'r' cannot be used. Thus sai + ta'u needs hyphen 'r' to become sairta'u (sai,r,TA,'u). sai + rai needs hyphen 'n' to become sainrai (SAI,n,rai). Note that hyphen in a syllable by itself is not counted in determining penultimate stress. However, if joined onto a vowel syllable as when ta'u + sai forms ta'ursai, the vowel syllable is counted and is stressed if penultimate (ta,'UR,sai). If there are exactly two terms, and the initial term is a CVV or CV'V rafsi AND the final term is a CCV rafsi, no hyphen is needed, because the lujvo is well-formed, having a consonant cluster, and penultimate stress falls on part of the CVV/CV'V rafsi, preventing it from falling off into a separate word. Thus sai + zba needs no hyphen 'r' to form saizba. b) Put 'y' after any 4-letter rafsi form (e.g. zbasysai). Do not count a syllable centered on this hyphen in determining penultimate stress. (e.g. ZBAS,y,sai or ZBA,sy,sai). c) Put 'y' at any proscribed C/C joint (impermissible medial consonant pair, e.g. nunynau). The following are the rules summarizing proscribed medials: Given that the consonant pair is defined as C1C2, that b, d, g, j, v and z are voiced consonants, c, f, k, p, s, t, and x are unvoiced consonants, and l, m, n, and r are nasal/liquid consonants. 1. C1 cannot be the same as C2. e.g. *kk 2. If C1 is voiced, then C2 must either be voiced or nasal/liquid. If C1 is unvoiced, then C2 must be either un- voiced or nasal/liquid. *bf 3. Both C1 and C2 cannot be among c, j, s, or z. *cs 4. *cx, *kx, *xc, *xk, and *mz are not permitted. Do not count a syllable centered on this hyphen in determining penultimate stress. (e.g. NUN,y,nau or NU,ny,nau). d) Put y at any proscribed C/CC joint (e.g. nunydji). The following are the rules for proscribed triples: The first two consonants of a consonant triple in a Lojban brivla must be restricted as for permissible medial consonant pairs per the above. The second pair within the triple must be a permissible initial consonant pair. Since you cannot get a triple in a lujvo unless the latter two consonants are part of a CCV rafsi, testing the first two consonants per c) is sufficient for this part of the test. In addition, there are a few triples that meet the above conditions but are still not pronounceable so as to be easily and uniquely resolvable from other combinations. Hence they are also not permitted, and require a hyphen. These triples are: n,dj n,dz n,tc n,ts Do not count a syllable centered on this hyphen in determining penultimate stress. (e.g. NUN,y,dji or NU,ny,dji). 7 e) Test all forms starting with a series of CVC rafsi for "tosmabru failure", which means that the first CV will fall off into a separate cmavo, leaving the rest a valid lujvo. ("*tosmabru was a trial word that was found to so break up, and is used as the archetypal example of an invalid lujvo according to this rule.) This is a tricky rule, but not that common a circumstance, because the CV falls off only if a valid lujvo remains. The following are a set of simple short cuts to test for and correct all "tosmabru" situations. (The same situation with an apparent le'avla form remaining does not break up simply because such forms are forbidden to le'avla. This is the so- called "*slinku'i" rule for le'avla: if you stick a CV cmavo on the front of a le'avla and it forms a valid lujvo, then the le'avla is NOT valid.) If a series of rafsi has the pattern 'CVC ... CVC + X' , where no 'y' hyphens have been installed between any two of the CVC, there may be a "tosmabru" problem. - If X is a CVCCV long rafsi with a permissible initial as the consonant cluster, then even a single CVC rafsi on the front requires a "tosmabru test" (as in tos + mabru which would break up into to + smabru). You are specifically testing here to ensure that the CV on the front does not fall off, leaving a lujvo composed of a series of CCV rafsi. - If X is any rafsi or partial-lujvo that causes a y hyphen to be installed between the previous CVC and itself by one of the above rules, and there are at least two CVC rafsi preceding, you must also test for "tosmabru" break up (as in tos + mab + bai which would have added a 'y' hyphen between the last two terms, and would break up into to + smabybai, where "smab" is a hypothetical 4-letter rafsi form). You are testing here to avoid the initial CV falling off to leave a lujvo with a spurious CCVC 4-letter rafsi form just before the X component. NOTE THAT THE RULES DO NOT DEPEND ON THERE ACTUALLY BEING RAFSI THAT WOULD MAKE THE BROKEN UP WORD POSSIBLE (smab- is not the 4-letter form for any gismu currently assigned, but the rules do not presume that the listener knows which rafsi are real - they are based ONLY on the forms if the words.) The "tosmabru" test is: Examine all the C/C joints between the CVC rafsi, and between the last CVC and the X term. If the ALL of those C/C joints, as well as the CC in X, if we are dealing with the CVCCV case for X, are "bridged" by permissible initials, listed in Section III or the back of the gismu list, then the trial word will break up into a cmavo and a shorter brivla ("tosmaktu" would thus be valid, unlike "tosmabru"). If any C/C joint is unbridged, i.e., is impermissible as an initial CC, the trial word will not break up. It has passed the "tosmabru test". Only the first joint in a trial word needs to be unbridged in order to ensure resolvability. Thus: Install y as a hyphen at the first bridged joint if the "tosmabru" test fails (e.g. tosymabru). The 'lazy Lojbanist' "tosmabru test" is to add a hyphen any time you have a CVC rafsi followed by a CV... of 5-or- more letters, where the first C/C joint forms a permissible initial. This is NOT a correct algorithm - it will put in hyphens that are not necessary, thus resulting in words that are technically invalid. However, for nonce lujvo-making, if 8 an unnecessary hyphen is present, the word can be successfully and unambiguously analyzed. On the other hand, if a "tosmabru" hyphen is omitted, the word is likely to be incorrectly analyzed. Note that the 'tosmabru test' requires all hyphens based on other rules to have been determined before conducting the test. This is why this step occurs last. 6) Evaluate all combinations and select the word with the highest score, using some algorithm. SCORING ALGORITHM This algorithm was devised by Bob and Nora LeChevalier in 1989. It is not the only permitted algorithm, but it usually gives a choice that people find preferable. This is the algorithm encoded in the lujvo- making program sold by la lojbangirz. The algorithm may be changed in the future. Note that the algorithm basically encodes a hierarchy of priorities, preferring short words (counting an apostrophe as a half of a letter), then words with fewer hyphens, then words with fewer syllables and/or more vowels. Values are attached to various properties of the lujvo. The score is the sum of these values. 1. Count the number of hyphens (h), including 'y', 'r', or 'n'. 2. Count the number of vowels (v) not including 'y'. 3. Count the number of apostrophes (a). 4. Count the total number of characters including hyphens and apostrophes (l). 5. For each rafsi component, find the value in the following list. Sum this total (r): Cvv (sai) 8 CCVC (zbas) 4 CCV (zba) 7 -CCVCV (-zbasu) 3 CV'V (ta'u) 6 CVCC (sarj) 2 CVC (nun) 5 -CVCCV (-sarji) 1 The score is then 32500 - (1000 * l) + (500 * a) - (100 * h) + (10 * r) + v In case of ties, there is no preference. This should be rare. The following examples use the rafsi: CVC = nun CCV = zba Cvv = nau, sai CVCCV = sarji CCVC- = zbas- CV'V = ta'u Stress is shown explicitly using capitalization in these examples. Being algorithmic (always penultimate), it does not have to be explicitly shown when these words are actually used. zba + sai ZBAsai 32500 - (1000 * 6) + (500 * 0) - (100 * 0) + (10 * 15) + 3 = 26653 nun + y + nau NUNynau 32500 - (1000 * 7) + (500 * 0) - (100 * 1) + (10 * 13) + 3 = 25533 sai + r + zba + ta'u sairzbaTA'u 32500 - (1000 * 11) + (500 * 1) - (100 * 1) + (10 * 21) + 5 = 22115 zba + zbas + y + sarji zbazbasySARji 32500 - (1000 * 13) + (500 * 0) - (100 * 1) + (10 * 12) + 4 = 19524 9 10 gismu berti ber nort briju bij offi or h ce cmavo CVC CCV CVV besna ben brai brito rit Brit English keyword n ish betfu bef be'u abdo broda rod pred bacru ba'u utte men icate var 1 r betri bet trag brode bo'e pred badna banana edy icate var 2 badri dri sad bevri bev bei carr brodi predicate bajra baj run y var 3 bakfu baf bund bi biv 8 brodo predicate le bi'i biz unor var 4 bakni bak bovi dered interval brodu predicate ne bidju bead var 5 bakri chalk bifce bic bee bruna bun bu'a brot baktu bucket bikla bik whip her balji bulb bilga big obli bu bus bu'i word balni balcony ged to lerfu balre ba'e blad bilma bi'a ill bu'a bul some e bilni bil mili selbri 1 balvi bav futu tary budjo buj bu'o Budd re bindo bid Indo hist bancu bac beyo nesian bukpu buk bu'u clot nd binra insure h bandu bad defe binxo bix bi'o beco bumru bum fog nd me bunda bud poun banfi amphibian birje beer d bangu ban bau lang birka bir arm bunre bur bu'e brow uage birti bit cert n banli bal ba'i grea ain burcu bru brus t bisli bis ice h banro ba'o grow bitmu bim bi'u wall burna embarrass banxa bax bank blabi lab whit ed banzu baz suff e ca'a caz actu ice blaci glass ally is bapli bap bai forc blanu bla blue cabna cab now e bliku bli bloc cabra ca'a appa barda bra big k ratus bargu bag arch bloti lot blo lo'i cacra hour barja bar boat cadzu dzu walk barna ba'a mark bo bor short cafne caf ofte bartu bar out scope link n basna emphasize bolci bol boi ball cakla chocolate basti bas repl bongu bog bo'u bone calku cak shel ace botpi bot bo'i bott l batci bat bite le canci vanish batke button boxfo bof bo'o shee cando cad idle bavmi barley t cange cag farm baxso Malay- boxna bon bo'a wave canja caj exch Indonesian bradi enemy ange bebna beb fool bratu hail canko ca'o wind ish brazo raz Braz ow bemro bem be'o Nort ilian canlu cal ca'u spac h American bredi red bre e bende bed be'e crew ready canpa cna shov bengo beg Beng bridi bri pred el ali icate canre can sand benji bej be'i tran brife bif bi'e bree canti gut sfer ze carce cart bersa bes be'a son 11 carmi cam cai inte ciksi cki expl ckini ki'i rela nse ain ted carna car turn cilce cic wild ckire kir grat cartu cat char cilmo cim mois eful t t ckule kul cu'e scho carvi cav rain cilre cli lear ol casnu snu disc n ckunu ku'u coni uss cilta cil thre fer catke ca'e shov ad cladu lau loud e cimde dimension clani cla long catlu cta look cimni infinite claxu cau with catni ca'i auth cinba kiss out ority cindu oak clika mossy catra kill cinfo lion clira lir earl caxno cax shal cinje cij wrin y low kle clite lit poli ce cec in a set cinki insect te with cinla thin cliva liv li'a leav ce'i cez perc cinmo cni emot e ent ion clupa cup loop ce'o ce'o in a cinri ci'i inte cmaci mathemati sequence with resting cs cecla cel ce'a laun cinse cin sexu cmalu cma smal cher al l cecmu cem ce'u comm cinta paint cmana ma'a moun unity cinza tongs tain cedra era cipni cpi bird cmavo ma'o stru cenba cne vary cipra cip test cture word censa ces holy cirko cri lose cmene cme me'e name centi cen .01 cirla cheese cmila mi'a laug cerda ced heir ciska ci'a writ h cerni cer morn e cmima mim cmi ing cisma smile member certu cre expe ciste ci'e syst cmoni cmo co'i moan rt em cnano na'o norm cevni cev cei god citka cti eat cnebo neb ne'o neck cfari cfa init citno cit ci'o youn cnemu nem ne'u rewa iate g rd cfika fik fi'a fict citri cir hist cnici nic orde ion ory rly cfila cfi flaw citsi season cnino nin ni'o new cfine wedge civla civ lous cnisa nis lead cfipu fi'u conf e cnita nit ni'a bene using cizra ciz stra ath ci cib 3 nge co col tanru ciblu blu bloo ckabu rubber inversion d ckafi kaf coff co'a co'a init cicna cyan ee iative cidja dja food ckaji kai qual co'e com co'e unsp cidni cid knee ity ecif bridi cidro dro hydr ckana cka bed co'u co'u cess ogen ckape cap peri ative cifnu cif infa l cokcu cko soak nt ckasu cas ridi up cigla cig glan cule condi con cno coi d ckeji kej cke deep cikna cik awak ashamed cortu cor cro e ckiku kik key pain cikre repair ckilu ci'u scal cpacu cpa get e cpana upon 12 cpare par clim dacru dac draw detri det date b er dicra dir inte cpedu cpe requ dacti dai obje rrupt est ct dikca dic elec cpina pungent dadjo daj Taoi tric cradi radio st diklo klo loca crane cra fron dakfu dak knif l t e dikni dik regu creka cek shir dakli sack lar t damba dab da'a figh dilcu quotient crepu rep harv t dilnu dil clou est damri drum d cribe rib bear dandu dad hang dimna dim fate crida rid fair danfu daf answ dinju dij di'u buil y er ding crino ri'o gree danlu dal da'u anim dinko di'o nail n al dirba dib dear cripu rip brid danmo dam smok dirce di'e radi ge e ate crisa cis summ danre da'e pres dirgo dig drop er sure dizlo diz dzi critu autumn dansu dance low ctaru tide danti dan proj djacu jac jau wate ctebi teb lip ectile r cteki tek ce'i tax daplu plu isla djedi dje dei full ctile petroleum nd day ctino ti'o shad dapma dap curs djica dji desi ow e re ctuca ctu teac dargu dag road djine jin ring h darlu dau argu djuno jun ju'o know cukla cuk roun e do don doi you d darno dar da'o far donri dor do'i dayt cukta cku book darsi audacity ime culno clu full darxi dax da'i hit dotco dot do'o Germ cumki cum cu'i poss daski pocket an ible dasni das wear draci drama cumla cul humb daspo spo dest drani dra corr le roy ect cunmi millet dasri sri ribb drata dat othe cunso cun cu'o rand on r om datka duck drudi rud dru cuntu cu'u affa datni data roof ir decti dec .1 du dub du'o same cupra pra prod degji deg fing identity as uce er du'u dum brid curmi cru let dejni dej owe i abstract curnu cur worm dekpu gallon dugri dug loga curve cuv pure dekto dek 10 rithm cusku cus sku delno del de'o cand dukse dus du'e exce express ela ss cutci cuc shoe dembi deb bean dukti dut oppo cutne cut ches denci den de'i toot site t h dunda dud du'a give cuxna cux cu'a choo denmi dem dens dunja duj free se e ze da dav dza some denpa dep de'a wait dunku duk du'u angu thing 1 dertu der de'u dirt ish da'a daz all derxi dre heap dunli dun du'i equa except desku des shak l e 13 dunra dur wint finti fin fi'i inve gapru gap abov er nt e dzena dze elde flalu fla law garna gar rail r flani flute gasnu gau do dzipo zip zi'o Anta flecu fle flow gasta gat stee rctican fliba fli fail l facki fak fa'i disc flira fir face genja gej root over fo'a fo'a it-6 gento get ge'o Arge fadni fad ordi fo'e fo'e it-7 ntinian nary fo'i fo'i it-8 genxu gex hook fagri fag fire foldi flo foi fiel gerku ger ge'u dog falnu fan sail d gerna gen ge'a gram famti aunt or fonmo fom fo'o foam mar uncle fonxa fon tele gidva gid gi'a guid fancu function phone e fange alien forca fro fork gigdo gig gi'o 1E9 fanmo fam fa'o end fraso fas Fren ginka gik camp fanri factory ch girzu gir gri fanta prevent frati fra reac group fanva translate t gismu gim gi'u root fanza faz anno fraxu fax forg word y ive glare gla hot fapro fap pro frica fic diff gleki gek gei happ oppose er y farlu fal fa'u fall friko fi'o Afri gletu let gle farna far fa'a dire can copulate ction frili fil easy glico gic gli farvi fav deve frinu fraction English lop friti fit offe gluta glu glov fasnu fau even r e t frumu fru frow gocti goc 1E- fatci fac fact n 24 fatne fat fa'e reve fukpi fuk fu'i copy gotro got 1E24 rse fulta ful flu gradu rau unit fatri fai dist float grake gra gram ribute funca fun fu'a luck grana ga'a rod febvi feb boil fusra fur rott grasu ras grea femti fem 1E- en se 15 fuzme fuz fu'e resp greku rek fram fendi fed divi onsible e de gacri gai cove grusi rus gray fengu feg fe'u angr r grute rut frui y gadri gad arti t fenki fek craz cle gubni gub publ y galfi gaf ga'i modi ic fenra fer fe'a crac fy gugde gug gu'e coun k galtu gal ga'u high try fenso fen fe'o sew galxe throat gundi gud indu fepni fep fei cent ganlo ga'o clos stry fepri lung ed gunka gun gu'a work ferti fre fert ganra gan broa gunma gum join ile d tly festi fes wast ganse gas ga'e sens gunro gur gu'o roll e e gunse goose fetsi fet fe'i fema ganti testicle gunta gut atta le ganxo gax anus ck figre fig fig ganzu gaz orga gurni gru grai filso fis Pale nize n stinian gapci gac gas guska guk scra finpe fip fi'e fish pe 14 gusni gus gu'i illu jecta jec je'a poli jinsa jis clea mine ty n gusta restauran jeftu jef week jinto well t jegvo jeg je'o Jeho jinvi jiv ji'i opin gutci guc cubi vist e t jei jez trut jinzi jiz inna gutra womb h abstract te guzme guz zme jelca jel burn jipci chicken melon jemna jme gem jipno jip ji'o tip ja jav tanru or jenca jen shoc jirna horn jabre brake k jisra juice jadni jad ja'i ador jendu jed axle jitfa jif fals n jenmi jem jei army e jakne rocket jerna earn jitro tro cont jalge jag ja'e resu jersi je'i chas rol lt e jivbu weave jalna starch jerxo jex Alge jivna jvi comp jalra cockroach rian ete jamfu jaf jma jesni jes need jmaji jaj gath foot le er jamna jam war jetce je'e jet jmifa shoal janbe jab bell jetnu jet je'u true jmina min add janco jan shou jgalu ja'u claw jmive miv ji'e live lder jganu jga angl jo jov tanru iff janli jal coll e jo'e jom unio ide jgari jai gras n jansu jas dipl p jo'u jo'u in omat jgena jge knot common with janta jat acco jgina gin gene joi jol joi in a unt jgira jgi prid mass with jarbu suburb e jordo jor jo'o Jord jarco ja'o show jgita git guit anian jarki jak narr ar jorne jon jo'e join ow jibni jbi near ed jaspu jap pass jibri jib job ju juv tanru port jicla stir whether jatna ja'a capt jicmu cmu basi jubme jub jbu ain s table javni jva rule jijnu jij intu judri address jbama bam bomb it jufra juf ju'a sent jbari jba berr jikca jik soci ence y alize jukni juk spid jbena jbe born jikru liquor er jbera jer borr jilka jil alka jukpa jup cook ow li julne ju'e net jbini bin bi'i betw jilra jealous jundi jud ju'i atte een jimca jic bran ntive jdari jar firm ch jungo jug Chin jdice jdi deci jimpe jmi unde ese de rstand junla jul cloc jdika decrease jimte jit limi k jdima di'a pric t junri jur seri e jinci shears ous jdini din di'i mone jinga jig ji'a win junta weight y jinku vaccine jurme jum germ jduli dul jdu jinme jim meta jursa jus seve jelly l re je jev jve tanr jinru jir imme jutsi jut spec u and rse ies 15 juxre jux clum kensa kes oute kruji ruj crea sy r space m jvinu vin ji'u view kerfa kre hair kruvi ruv kru ka kam property kerlo ker ear curve abstract ketco ket tco ku'a kuz inte kabri cup South American rsection kacma camera kevna kev ke'a cavi kubli kub cube kadno Canadian ty kucli curious kafke cough kicne kic ki'e cush kufra kuf comf kagni kag comp ion ort any kijno kij oxyg kukte kuk deli kajde jde warn en cious kajna shelf kilto ki'o 1000 kulnu klu cult kakne ka'e able kinli kil shar ure kakpa dig p kumfa kum ku'a room kalci feces kisto kis Paki kumte camel kalri kar open stani kunra kun mine kalsa kas chao klaji laj stre ral tic et kunti kut empt kalte kat hunt klaku kak weep y kamju column klama kla come kurfa kur squa kamni committee klani lai quan re kampu kau comm tity kurji kuj ku'i take on klesi kle lei clas care of kanba goat s kurki bitter kancu kac coun klina kli clea kuspe kup ku'e rang t r e kandi kad dim kliru chlorine kusru kus crue kanji kaj calc kliti kit clay l ulate klupe lup lu'e scre labno wolf kanla kal eye w lacpu lap cpu kanro ka'o heal kluza luz loos pull thy e lacri lac rely kansa kan with kobli kob ko'i cabb ladru lad milk kantu ka'u quan age lafti laf lift tum kojna koj ko'a corn lakne la'e prob kanxe kax conj er able unction kolme kol ko'e coal lakse lak wax karbi kab comp komcu kom comb lalxu la'u lake are konju kon ko'u cone lamji lam la'i adja karce car korbi kor koi edge cent karda card korcu kro bent lanbi protein kargu costly korka kok cork lanci flag karli collar kosta kos coat lanka basket karni journal kramu acre lanli lal anal katna ka'a cut krasi kra sour yze kavbu kav capt ce lanme lan shee ure krati ka'i repr p ke kem start esent lante can grouping krefu ref ke'u recu lanxe lax bala ke'e kep ke'e end r nce grouping krici kri beli lanzu laz fami kecti kec ke'i pity eve ly kei kez end krili crystal larcu lar art abstraction krinu rin ki'u reas lasna la'a fast kelci kel kei play on en kelvo ke'o kelv krixa kix ki'a cry lastu brass in out latmo la'o Lati kenra ken canc kruca kuc inte n er rsect latna lotus 16 lazni lazy mabru mab mamm mentu met me'u minu le'e lem the al te stereotypical macnu cnu manu merko mer Amer lebna leb le'a take al ican lenjo len le'o lens makcu ma'u matu merli mre meas lenku lek cold re ure lerci lec late makfa maf magi mexco mex Mexi lerfu ler le'u lett c can eral maksi mak magn mi mib me li'i liz expe et midju mij midd rience abstract malsi mas temp le libjo lib Liby le mifra mif code an mamta mam moth mikce mic doct lidne li'e prec er or ede manci mac wond mikri mik 1E-6 lifri lif fri er milti mil .001 experience manfo uniform milxe mli mild lijda jda reli manku man dark minde mid mi'e comm gion manri mar refe and limna lim swim rence minji mi'i mach lindi lid ligh mansa satisfy ine tning manti ant minli mile linji lij li'i line mapku map cap minra mir refl linsi lin chai mapni cotton ect n mapti mat fit mintu mit mi'u same linto li'o ligh marbi mra shel mipri mip secr tweight ter et lisri lis stor marce ma'e vehi mirli deer y cle misno mis mi'o famo liste ste list marde mad mora us litce lic lite ls misro Egyptian r margu mag merc mitre tre mete litki lik liqu ury r id marji maj mai mate mixre mix xre litru li'u trav rial mixture el marna hemp mlana mla side livga liver marxa max mash mlatu lat cat livla lil fuel masno sno slow mleca mec me'a less lo'e lom the masti ma'i mont mledi led mold typical h mluni lun sate logji loj logi matci mat llite c matli linen mo'a mob too lojbo lob jbo matne butter few Lojbanic matra motor mo'i mov spac loldi lol loi floo mavji mav oats e motion r maxri xri whea moi mom moi ordi lorxu lor lo'u fox t nal selbri lubno lu'o Leba mebri meb brow mokca moc poin nese megdo meg 1E6 t lujvo luv jvo mei mem mei card moklu mol mo'u mout affix compound inal selbri h lumci lum lu'i wash mekso mek me'o MEX molki mlo mill lunbe lub bare melbi mel mle molro mo'o mole lunra lur luna beautiful morji moj mo'i reme r meljo mej Mala mber lunsa lus cond ysian morko mor Moro ense menli men mind ccan mabla mal dero mensi mes me'i sist morna mon mo'a patt gative er ern morsi mro dead 17 mosra mos fric nejni nen ener panka park tion gy panlo pa'o slic mraji rye nelci nel nei fond e mrilu mri mail nenri ner ne'i in panpi pap peac mruli mru hamm ni nil amount e er abstract panra parallel mu mum 5 nibli nib ni'i nece pante pat prot mu'e muf poin ssitate est t-event abstract nicte cte nigh panzi paz offs mucti mut imma t pring terial nikle nik nick papri page mudri mud wood el parbi pab rati mukti muk mu'i moti nilce ni'e furn o ve iture pastu pas robe mulno mul mu'o comp nimre citrus patfu paf pa'u fath lete ninmu nim ni'u woma er munje muj mu'e univ n patlu potato erse nirna nir nerv patxu pax pot mupli mup exam e pe'a pev figu ple nitcu tcu need rative murse glimmerin nivji niv knit pelji ple pape g nixli nix xli r murta mur mu'a curt girl pelxu pel yell ain no non 0 ow muslo mus Isla no'e nor no'e scal pemci pem poem mic ar midpoint not penbi peb pen mutce tce much nobli nol no'i nobl pencu pec pe'u touc muvdu muv mu'u move e h muzga muz muse notci not noi mess pendo ped pe'o frie um age nd na nar bridi nu nun event penmi pen pe'i meet negator abstract pensi pes pei thin na'e nal scal nu'o nu'o can k ar contrary but has not perli per pear nabmi nam prob nukni nuk mage pesxu pex past lem nta e nakni nak male nupre nup nu'e prom petso pet 1E15 nalci na'i wing ise pezli pez leaf namcu nac na'u numb nurma num rura pi piz decimal er l point nanba nab brea nutli nul nu'i neut pi'u piv cros d ral s product nanca na'a year nuzba nuz news picti pic 1E- nandu nad diff pa pav 1 12 icult pacna pa'a hope pijne pin nanla boy pagbu pag pau part pikci beg nanmu nau man pagre gre pass pikta ticket nanvi nav 1E-9 through pilji pi'i mult narge nag nut pajni pai judg iply narju naj oran e pilka pil pi'a crus ge palci pac evil t natfe naf na'e deny palku pak pant pilno pli use natmi nat nai nati s pimlu pim pi'u feat on palne tray her navni neon palta plate pinca urine naxle nax xle pambe pump pindi pid poor canal panci pan odor pinfu pif pris nazbi naz zbi pandi pad punc oner nose tuate pinji penis panje sponge 18 pinka pik comm pruce ruc ru'e proc remna rem re'a huma ent ess n pinsi pis penc pruni pun elas renro rer re'o thro il tic w pinta pin leve pruxi rux ru'i spir renvi rev re'i surv l it ive pinxe pix drin pu'i pus can respa res rept k and has ile pipno pi'o pian pu'u puv proc ricfu rif cfu o ess abstract rich pixra pir xra pulce puc pu'e dust rigni rig disg picture pulji police usting plana plump pulni pulley rijno rij silv platu pla plan punji puj pu'i put er pleji lej le'i pay punli pul swel rilti ril rhyt plibu pib pubi ling hm c purci pur pru rimni rim rhym plini planet past e plipe pip pi'e leap purdi pud gard rinci drain plise apple en rinju ri'u rest plita pit plan purmo pum pu'o powd rain e er rinka rik ri'a caus plixa lix plow racli sane e pluja luj comp ractu rabbit rinsa greet licated radno ra'o radi rirci rare pluka puk pu'a plea an rirni rir pare sant rafsi raf affi nt pluta lut lu'a rout x rirxe ri'e rive e ragve rav acro r polje plo fold ss rismi ris rice polno pol Poly rakso Iraqi risna heart nesian raktu ra'u trou ritli ri'i rite ponjo pon po'o Japa ble rivbi riv avoi nese ralci rac deli d ponse pos po'e poss cate ro rol each ess ralju ral prin roi rom roi quan porpi pop po'i brea cipal tified tense k ralte ra'e reta rokci rok ro'i rock porsi por poi sequ in romge rog chro ence randa rad yiel me porto pot Port d ropno ron ro'o Euro uguese rango rag orga pean prali pal prof n rorci ror proc it ranji ra'i cont reate prami pam pa'i love inue rotsu rot tsu ro'u prane pa'e perf ranmi ram myth thick ect ransu bronze rozgu roz zgu preja pej pe'a spre ranti ran soft rose ad ranxi rax iron ruble rub ble prenu pre pers y weak on rapli rap repe rufsu ruf roug preti ret rei ques at h tion rarna rar natu runme rum melt prije pij wise ral runta dissolve prina pri prin ratcu rat rupnu rup ru'u doll t ratni rat atom ar pritu right re rel 2 rusko ruk ru'o Russ prosa ros ro'a pros rebla reb tail ian e rectu rec re'u meat rutni run arti fact 19 sabji sab prov senta set laye skori sko cord ide r skoto kot ko'o Scot sabnu cabin senva sev sne tish sacki match dream skuro ku'o groo saclu decimal sepli sep sei apar ve sadjo djo Saud t slabu sau old i serti ser stai slaka syllable sakci sak suck rs slami acid sakli sal slid setca se'a inse slanu cylinder e rt slari sar sour sakta sat suga sevzi sez se'i self slasi las plas r sfani fly tic salci sla cele sfasa sfa puni sligu lig soli brate sh d salpo sa'o slop sfofa sfo sofa slilu sli osci e sfubu sub su'u dive llate salta salad si'o siz conc sliri sulfur samcu cassava ept abstract slovo lov lo'o Slav sampu sap simp siclu sil whis ic le tle sluji slu musc sance sna soun sicni si'i coin le d sidbo sib si'o idea sluni onion sanga sag sa'a sing sidju dju help smacu mouse sanji saj cons sigja sig ciga smadi guess cious r smaji sma quie sanli sa'i stan silka sik silk t d silna salt smani monkey sanmi sai meal simlu mlu seem smoka smo sock sanso sauce simsa smi simi smuci muc spoo santa umbrella lar n sarcu sa'u nece simxu sim si'u mutu smuni mun smu ssary al meaning sarji sra supp since snake snada sad succ ort sinma si'a este eed sarlu spiral em snanu nan sout sarxe sax harm sinso sine h onious sinxa sni sign snidu nid seco saske ske scie sipna sip slee nd nce p snime si'e snow satci exact sirji sir stra snipa nip stic satre sa'e stro ight ky ke sirxo six Syri snuji nuj sand savru sav vru an wich noise sisku sis seek snura nur nu'a secu sazri saz oper sisti sti ceas re ate e snuti nut acci se sel 2nd sitna sit cite dental conversion sivni siv priv so soz 9 sefta sfe surf ate so'a soj almo ace skaci skirt st all selci sle cell skami sam comp so'e sop most selfu sef se'u serv uter so'i sor so'i many e skapi kap pelt so'o sos seve semto sme Semi skari ska colo ral tic r so'u sot few senci sec snee skicu ski desc sobde sob so'e soya ze ribe sodna sodium senpi sen doub skiji sij ski sodva sod soda t skina kin cine softo sof Sovi ma et 20 solji slo gold steci tec te'i spec tance tac tong solri sol sola ific ue r stedu sed head tanjo tangent sombo som so'o sow stela tel lock tanko tobacco sonci son soi sold stero te'o ster tanru tau phra ier adian se compound sorcu soc sro stici sic west tansi tas pan store stidi sid ti'i sugg tanxe tax ta'e box sorgu sog sorg est tapla tile hum stika tik adju tarbi embryo sovda sov so'a egg st tarci tar star spaji paj surp stizu tiz chai tarla tar rise r tarmi tam tai shap spali polish stodi sto cons e spano san Span tant tarti tra beha ish stuna sun east ve spati spa plan stura tur su'a stru taske thirst t cture tatpi ta'i tire speni spe marr stuzi tuz stu d ied site tatru tat brea spisa spi piec su'e sup su'e at st e most tavla tav ta'a talk spita hospital su'o suz su'o at taxfu taf ta'u garm spofu pof po'u brok least ent en su'u suv unsp tcaci cac cust spoja poj po'a expl ecif abstract om ode sucta suc abst tcadu tca city spuda spu repl ract tcana station y sudga sud dry tcati tea sputu put pu'u spit sufti sfu hoof tcena ten stre sraji raj vert suksa suk sudd tch ical en tcica tic dece sraku rak scra sumji suj sum ive tch sumne smell tcidu tid read sralo Australia sumti sum su'i argu tcika time of n ment day srana ra'a pert sunga sug garl tcila til deta ain ic il srasu sas gras sunla sul wool tcima tim ti'a weat s surla sur rela her srera sre err x tcini situation srito Sanskrit sutra sut fast tcita label sruma ru'a assu ta taz that te ter 3rd me there conversion sruri rur sru tabno tab carb temci tem tei time surround on tenfa tef expo stace sac hone tabra trumpet nential st tadji method tengu teg te'u text stagi vegetable tadni tad stud ure staku tak cera y terdi ted eart mic tagji tag snug h stali sta rema talsa tal chal terpa tep te'a fear in lenge terto tet 1E12 stani stalk tamca tomato ti tif this here stapa tap step tamji taj thum tigni tig perf stasu soup b orm stati talent tamne cousin tikpa tip kick steba seb frus tanbo ta'o boar tilju tij heav tration d y tinbe tib obey 21 tinci tin tutra tut terr vitno vi'o perm tinsa stiff itory anent tirna tin hear va vaz there at vlagi lag vulv tirse tir iron vacri var air a tirxu tiger vajni vaj vai impo vlile vil viol tisna tis fill rtant ent titla tit swee valsi val vla vlina alternati t word on tivni tiv tele vamji vam va'i valu vlipa vli powe vision e rful tixnu tix ti'u daug vamtu vat vomi vo von 4 hter t vofli vol voi flig to'e tol to'e pola vanbi vab envi ht r opposite ronment voksa vok vo'a voic toknu tok oven vanci vac even e toldi tod butt ing vorme vor vro erfly vanju van wine door tonga tog to'a tone vasru vas vau cont vraga vra leve tordu tor to'u shor ain r t vasxu vax va'u brea vreji rej vei reco torni ton to'i twis the rd t ve vel 4th vreta vre recl traji rai supe conversion ining rlative ve'e ve'e whol vrici miscellan trano nitrogen e space interval eous trati taut vecnu ven ve'u sell vrude vud vu'e virt trene ren re'e trai venfu vef reve ue n nge vrusi vus vu'i tast tricu ric tree vensa ves spri e trina tri attr ng vu vuz yonder at act verba ver ve'a chil vukro vur vu'o Ukra trixe rix ti'e behi d inian nd vi viz here at xa xav 6 troci toc toi try vibna vib vagi xabju xa'u dwel tsali tsa stro na l ng vidni video xadba xab half tsani tan sky vidru vir viru xadni xad body tsapi seasoning s xagji hunger tsiju tsi seed vifne vif fres xagri reed tsina sin stag h xajmi xam funn e vikmi vim vi'i excr y tu tuf that ete xaksu xak use yonder viknu vik visc up tubnu tu'u tube ous xalbo levity tugni tug tu'i agre vimcu vic vi'u remo xalka xal alco e ve hol tujli tuj tuli vindu vid pois xalni panic p on xamgu xag xau good tumla tum tu'a land vinji vij airp xampo xap xa'o ampe tunba tub sibl lane re ing vipsi vip depu xamsi xas sea tunka tuk copp ty xance xan xa'e hand er virnu vri brav xanka nervous tunlo tul tu'o swal e xanri xar imag low viska vis vi'a see inary tunta tun poke vitci vit irre xanto elephant tuple tup tu'e leg gular xarci xac xa'i weap turni tru gove vitke vi'e gues on rn t xarju xaj pig tutci tci tool xarnu stubborn 22 xasli donkey za'i zaz stat zumri zmu maiz xasne sweat e abstract e xatra xa'a lett za'o za'o supe zungi zug guil er rfective t xatsi xat 1E- zabna zan za'a favo zunle zul left 18 rable zunti zun zu'i inte xazdo xaz zdo zajba zaj gymn rfere Asiatic ast zutse zut tse xe xel 5th zalvi zal grin sit conversion d zvati zva at xebni xen xei hate zanru zar zau appr xebro xeb bro ove Hebrew zarci zac zai mark xecto xet cto et 100 zargu zag za'u butt xedja xej xe'a jaw ock xekri xek xe'i blac zasni zas temp k orary xelso xes Gree zasti zat za'i exis k t xendo xed xe'o kind zbabu bab soap xenru xer xe'u regr zbani bay et zbasu zba make xexso xex 1E18 zbepi zbe pede xindo xin Hind stal i zdani zda nest xinmo xim ink zdile zdi amus xirma xir xi'a hors ing e ze zel 7 xislu xil xi'u whee ze'e ze'e whol l e time interval xispo xip Hisp ze'o zev ze'o outw anic ard xlali xla bad zekri zer zei crim xlura xlu infl e uence zenba zen ze'a incr xotli xol xoi hote ease l zepti zep 1E- xrabo rab Arab 21 ic zetro zet 1E21 xrani xai inju zgana zga obse re rve xriso xis xi'o Chri zgike zgi gi'e musi stian c xruba xub buck zifre zif zi'e free wheat zinki zin zi'i zinc xruki xuk turk zirpu zir zi'u purp ey le xrula rul flow zivle ziv vle er invest xruti xru retu zmadu zma mau more rn zmiku zmi auto xukmi xum xu'i chem matic ical zo'a zon zo'a tang xunre xun xu'e red ential to xurdo xur xu'o Urdi zo'i zor zo'i inwa xusra xus xu'a asse rd rt zu'o zum acti xutla xul smoo vity abstract th zukte zuk zu'e act 23 bab zbabu soa big bilga obl cag cange far cim cilmo moi p iged m st bac bancu bey bij briju off caj canja exc cin cinse sex ond ice hange ual bad bandu def bik bikla whi cak calku she cip cipra tes end p ll t baf bakfu bun bil bilni mil cal canlu spa cir citri his dle itary ce tory bag bargu arc bim bitmu wal cam carmi int cis crisa sum h l ense mer baj bajra run bin jbini bet can canre san cit citno you bak bakni bov ween d ng ine bir birka arm cap ckape per civ civla lou bal banli gre bis bisli ice il se at bit birti cer car carna tur ciz cizra str bam jbama bom tain n ange b biv bi 8 cas ckasu rid col co tan ban bangu lan bix binxo bec icule ru guage ome cat cartu cha inversion bap bapli for biz bi'i uno rt com co'e uns ce rdered cav carvi rai pecif bar bartu out interval n bridi bas basti rep bof boxfo she cax caxno sha con condi dee lace et llow p bat batci bit bog bongu bon caz ca'a act cor cortu pai e e ually is n bav balvi fut bol bolci bal cec ce in cuc cutci sho ure l a set e bax banxa ban bon boxna wav with cuk cukla rou k e ced cerda hei nd baz banzu suf bor bo sho r cul cumla hum fice rt scope cek creka shi ble beb bebna foo link rt cum cumki pos lish bot botpi bot cel cecla lau sible bed bende cre tle ncher cun cunso ran w bud bunda pou cem cecmu com dom bef betfu abd nd munity cup clupa loo omen buj budjo Bud cen centi .01 p beg bengo Ben dhist cer cerni mor cur curnu wor gali buk bukpu clo ning m bej benji tra th ces censa hol cus cusku exp nsfer bul bu'a som y ress bem bemro Nor e selbri cev cevni god cut cutne che th 1 cez ce'i per st American bum bumru fog cent cuv curve pur ben besna bra bun bruna bro cib ci 3 e in ther cic cilce wil cux cuxna cho ber berti nor bur bunre bro d ose th wn cid cidni kne dab damba fig bes bersa son bus bu wor e ht bet betri tra d to cif cifnu inf dac dacru dra gedy lerfu ant wer bev bevri car cab cabna now cig cigla gla dad dandu han ry cac tcaci cus nd g bic bifce bee tom cij cinje wri daf danfu ans bid bindo Ind cad cando idl nkle wer onesian e cik cikna awa dag dargu roa bif brife bre caf cafne oft ke d eze en cil cilta thr daj dadjo Tao ead ist 24 dak dakfu kni don do you fed fendi div gar garna rai fe dor donri day ide l dal danlu ani time feg fengu ang gas ganse sen mal dot dotco Ger ry se dam danmo smo man fek fenki cra gat gasta ste ke dub du sam zy el dan danti pro e fem femti 1E- gax ganxo anu jectile identity 15 s dap dapma cur as fen fenso sew gaz ganzu org se dud dunda giv fep fepni cen anize dar darno far e t gej genja roo das dasni wea dug dugri log fer fenra cra t r arithm ck gek gleki hap dat drata oth duj dunja fre fes festi was py er eze te gen gerna gra dav da som duk dunku ang fet fetsi fem mmar ething 1 uish ale ger gerku dog dax darxi hit dul jduli jel fic frica dif get gento Arg daz da'a all ly fer entinian except dum du'u bri fig figre fig gex genxu hoo deb dembi bea di fik cfika fic k n abstract tion gic glico Eng dec decti .1 dun dunli equ fil frili eas lish deg degji fin al y gid gidva gui ger dur dunra win fin finti inv de dej dejni owe ter ent gig gigdo 1E9 dek dekto 10 dus dukse exc fip finpe fis gik ginka cam del delno can ess h p dela dut dukti opp fir flira fac gim gismu roo dem denmi den osite e t word se fac fatci fac fis filso Pal gin jgina gen den denci too t estinian e th fad fadni ord fit friti off gir girzu gro dep denpa wai inary er up t fag fagri fir fom fonmo foa git jgita gui der dertu dir e m tar t fak facki dis fon fonxa tel goc gocti 1E- des desku sha cover ephone 24 ke fal farlu fal fuk fukpi cop got gotro 1E2 det detri dat l y 4 e fam fanmo end ful fulta flo gub gubni pub dib dirba dea fan falnu sai at lic r l fun funca luc guc gutci cub dic dikca ele fap fapro opp k it ctric ose fur fusra rot gud gundi ind dig dirgo dro far farna dir ten ustry p ection fuz fuzme res gug gugde cou dij dinju bui fas fraso Fre ponsible ntry lding nch gac gapci gas guk guska scr dik dikni reg fat fatne rev gad gadri art ape ular erse icle gum gunma joi dil dilnu clo fav farvi dev gaf galfi mod ntly ud elop ify gun gunka wor dim dimna fat fax fraxu for gal galtu hig k e give h gur gunro rol din jdini mon faz fanza ann gan ganra bro l ey oy ad gus gusni ill dir dicra int feb febvi boi gap gapru abo umine errupt l ve gut gunta att diz dizlo low ack 25 guz guzme mel jic jimca bra jut jutsi spe kez kei end on nch cies abstracti jab janbe bel jif jitfa fal juv ju tan on l se ru kic kicne cus jac djacu wat jig jinga win whether hion er jij jijnu int jux juxre clu kij kijno oxy jad jadni ado uit msy gen rn jik jikca soc kab karbi com kik ckiku key jaf jamfu foo ialize pare kil kinli sha t jil jilka alk kac kancu cou rp jag jalge res ali nt kin skina cin ult jim jinme met kad kandi dim ema jaj jmaji gat al kaf ckafi cof kir ckire gra her jin djine rin fee teful jak jarki nar g kag kagni com kis kisto Pak row jip jipno tip pany istani jal janli col jir jinru imm kaj kanji cal kit kliti cla lide erse culate y jam jamna war jis jinsa cle kak klaku wee kix krixa cry jan janco sho an p out ulder jit jimte lim kal kanla eye kob kobli cab jap jaspu pas it kam ka pro bage sport jiv jinvi opi perty koj kojna cor jar jdari fir ne abstract ner m jiz jinzi inn kan kansa wit kok korka cor jas jansu dip ate h k lomat jol joi in kap skapi pel kol kolme coa jat janta acc a mass t l ount with kar kalri ope kom komcu com jav ja tan jom jo'e uni n b ru or on kas kalsa cha kon konju con jec jecta pol jon jorne joi otic e ity ned kat kalte hun kor korbi edg jed jendu axl jor jordo Jor t e e danian kav kavbu cap kos kosta coa jef jeftu wee jov jo tan ture t k ru iff kax kanxe con kot skoto Sco jeg jegvo Jeh jub jubme tab junction ttish ovist le kec kecti pit kub kubli cub jel jelca bur jud jundi att y e n entive kej ckeji ash kuc kruca int jem jenmi arm juf jufra sen amed ersect y tence kel kelci pla kuf kufra com jen jenca sho jug jungo Chi y fort ck nese kem ke sta kuj kurji tak jer jbera bor juk jukni spi rt e care of row der grouping kuk kukte del jes jesni nee jul junla clo ken kenra can icious dle ck cer kul ckule sch jet jetnu tru jum jurme ger kep ke'e end ool e m grouping kum kumfa roo jev je tan jun djuno kno ker kerlo ear m ru and w kes kensa out kun kunra min jex jerxo Alg jup jukpa coo er space eral erian k ket ketco Sou kup kuspe ran jez jei tru jur junri ser th ge th ious American kur kurfa squ abstract jus jursa sev kev kevna cav are jib jibri job ere ity kus kusru cru el 26 kut kunti emp lig sligu sol mab mabru mam mij midju mid ty id mal dle kuz ku'a int lij linji lin mac manci won mik mikri 1E- ersection e der 6 lab blabi whi lik litki liq mad marde mor mil milti .00 te uid als 1 lac lacri rel lil livla fue maf makfa mag mim cmima mem y l ic ber lad ladru mil lim limna swi mag margu mer min jmina add k m cury mip mipri sec laf lafti lif lin linsi cha maj marji mat ret t in erial mir minra ref lag vlagi vul lir clira ear mak maksi mag lect va ly net mis misno fam laj klaji str lis lisri sto mal mabla der ous eet ry ogative mit mintu sam lak lakse wax lit clite pol mam mamta mot e lal lanli ana ite her miv jmive liv lyze liv cliva lea man manku dar e lam lamji adj ve k mix mixre mix acent lix plixa plo map mapku cap ture lan lanme she w mar manri ref mob mo'a too ep liz li'i exp erence few lap lacpu pul erience mas malsi tem moc mokca poi l abstract ple nt lar larcu art lob lojbo Loj mat mapti fit moj morji rem las slasi pla banic mav mavji oat ember stic loj logji log s mol moklu mou lat mlatu cat ic max marxa mas th lax lanxe bal lol loldi flo h mom moi ord ance or meb mebri bro inal laz lanzu fam lom lo'e the w selbri ily typical mec mleca les mon morna pat leb lebna tak lor lorxu fox s tern e lot bloti boa meg megdo 1E6 mor morko Mor lec lerci lat t mej meljo Mal occan e lov slovo Sla aysian mos mosra fri led mledi mol vic mek mekso MEX ction d lub lunbe bar mel melbi bea mov mo'i spa lej pleji pay e utiful ce motion lek lenku col luj pluja com mem mei car muc smuci spo d plicated dinal on lem le'e the lum lumci was selbri mud mudri woo stereotyp h men menli min d ical lun mluni sat d muf mu'e poi len lenjo len ellite mer merko Ame nt-event s lup klupe scr rican abstract ler lerfu let ew mes mensi sis muj munje uni teral lur lunra lun ter verse let gletu cop ar met mentu min muk mukti mot ulate lus lunsa con ute ive lib libjo Lib dense mex mexco Mex mul mulno com yan lut pluta rou ican plete lic litce lit te mib mi me mum mu 5 er luv lujvo aff mic mikce doc mun smuni mea lid lindi lig ix tor ning htning compound mid minde com mup mupli exa lif lifri exp luz kluza loo mand mple erience se mif mifra cod mur murta cur e tain 27 mus muslo Isl nim ninmu wom pam prami lov pip plipe lea amic an e p mut mucti imm nin cnino new pan panci odo pir pixra pic aterial nip snipa sti r ture muv muvdu mov cky pap panpi pea pis pinsi pen e nir nirna ner ce cil muz muzga mus ve par cpare cli pit plita pla eum nis cnisa lea mb ne nab nanba bre d pas pastu rob piv pi'u cro ad nit cnita ben e ss nac namcu num eath pat pante pro product ber niv nivji kni test pix pinxe dri nad nandu dif t pav pa 1 nk ficult nix nixli gir pax patxu pot piz pi dec naf natfe den l paz panzi off imal y nol nobli nob spring point nag narge nut le peb penbi pen pof spofu bro naj narju ora non no 0 pec pencu tou ken nge nor no'e sca ch poj spoja exp nak nakni mal lar ped pendo fri lode e midpoint end pol polno Pol nal na'e sca not pej preja spr ynesian lar not notci mes ead pon ponjo Jap contrary sage pel pelxu yel anese nam nabmi pro nuj snuji san low pop porpi bre blem dwich pem pemci poe ak nan snanu sou nuk nukni mag m por porsi seq th enta pen penmi mee uence nar na bri nul nutli neu t pos ponse pos di tral per perli pea sess negator num nurma rur r pot porto Por nat natmi nat al pes pensi thi tuguese ion nun nu eve nk puc pulce dus nav nanvi 1E- nt pet petso 1E1 t 9 abstract 5 pud purdi gar nax naxle can nup nupre pro pev pe'a fig den al mise urative puj punji put naz nazbi nos nur snura sec pex pesxu pas puk pluka ple e ure te asant neb cnebo nec nut snuti acc pez pezli lea pul punli swe k idental f lling nel nelci fon nuz nuzba new pib plibu pub pum purmo pow d s ic der nem cnemu rew pab parbi rat pic picti 1E- pun pruni ela ard io 12 stic nen nejni ene pac palci evi pid pindi poo pur purci pas rgy l r t ner nenri in pad pandi pun pif pinfu pri pus pu'i can nib nibli nec ctuate soner and has essitate paf patfu fat pij prije wis put sputu spi nic cnici ord her e t erly pag pagbu par pik pinka com puv pu'u pro nid snidu sec t ment cess ond paj spaji sur pil pilka cru abstract nik nikle nic prise st rab xrabo Ara kel pak palku pan pim pimlu fea bic nil ni amo ts ther rac ralci del unt pal prali pro pin pinta lev icate abstract fit el rad randa yie ld 28 raf rafsi aff rid crida fai ruk rusko Rus sel se 2nd ix ry sian conversio rag rango org rif ricfu ric rul xrula flo n an h wer sen senpi dou raj sraji ver rig rigni dis rum runme mel bt tical gusting t sep sepli apa rak sraku scr rij rijno sil run rutni art rt atch ver ifact ser serti sta ral ralju pri rik rinka cau rup rupnu dol irs ncipal se lar set senta lay ram ranmi myt ril rilti rhy rur sruri sur er h thm round sev senva dre ran ranti sof rim rimni rhy rus grusi gra am t me y sez sevzi sel rap rapli rep rin krinu rea rut grute fru f eat son it sib sidbo ide rar rarna nat rip cripu bri ruv kruvi cur a ural dge ve sic stici wes ras grasu gre rir rirni par rux pruxi spi t ase ent rit sid stidi sug rat ratni ato ris rismi ric sab sabji pro gest m e vide sig sigja cig rav ragve acr rit brito Bri sac stace hon ar oss tish est sij skiji ski rax ranxi iro riv rivbi avo sad snada suc sik silka sil ny id ceed k raz brazo Bra rix trixe beh sag sanga sin sil siclu whi zilian ind g stle reb rebla tai rod broda pre saj sanji con sim simxu mut l dicate scious ual rec rectu mea var 1 sak sakci suc sin tsina sta t rog romge chr k ge red bredi rea ome sal sakli sli sip sipna sle dy rok rokci roc de ep ref krefu rec k sam skami com sir sirji str ur rol ro eac puter aight rej vreji rec h san spano Spa sis sisku see ord rom roi qua nish k rek greku fra ntified sap sampu sim sit sitna cit me tense ple e rel re 2 ron ropno Eur sar slari sou siv sivni pri rem remna hum opean r vate an ror rorci pro sas srasu gra six sirxo Syr ren trene tra create ss ian in ros prosa pro sat sakta sug siz si'o con rep crepu har se ar cept vest rot rotsu thi sav savru noi abstract rer renro thr ck se sob sobde soy ow roz rozgu ros sax sarxe har a res respa rep e monious soc sorcu sto tile rub ruble wea saz sazri ope re ret preti que k rate sod sodva sod stion ruc pruce pro seb steba fru a rev renvi sur cess stration sof softo Sov vive rud drudi roo sec senci sne iet rib cribe bea f eze sog sorgu sor r ruf rufsu rou sed stedu hea ghum ric tricu tre gh d soj so'a alm e ruj kruji cre sef selfu ser ost all am ve 29 sol solri sol tap stapa ste tis tisna fil vas vasru con ar p l tain som sombo sow tar tarci sta tit titla swe vat vamtu vom son sonci sol r et it dier tas tansi pan tiv tivni tel vax vasxu bre sop so'e mos tat tatru bre evision athe t ast tix tixnu dau vaz va the sor so'i man tav tavla tal ghter re at y k tiz stizu cha vef venfu rev sos so'o sev tax tanxe box ir enge eral taz ta tha toc troci try vel ve 4th sot so'u few t there tod toldi but conversio sov sovda egg teb ctebi lip terfly n soz so 9 tec steci spe tog tonga ton ven vecnu sel sub sfubu div cific e l e ted terdi ear tok toknu ove ver verba chi suc sucta abs th n ld tract tef tenfa exp tol to'e pol ves vensa spr sud sudga dry onential ar ing sug sunga gar teg tengu tex opposite vib vibna vag lic ture ton torni twi ina suj sumji sum tek cteki tax st vic vimcu rem suk suksa sud tel stela loc tor tordu sho ove den k rt vid vindu poi sul sunla woo tem temci tim tub tunba sib son l e ling vif vifne fre sum sumti arg ten tcena str tuf tu tha sh ument etch t yonder vij vinji air sun stuna eas tep terpa fea tug tugni agr plane t r ee vik viknu vis sup su'e at ter te 3rd tuj tujli tul cous most conversio ip vil vlile vio sur surla rel n tuk tunka cop lent ax tet terto 1E1 per vim vikmi exc sut sutra fas 2 tul tunlo swa rete t tib tinbe obe llow vin jvinu vie suv su'u uns y tum tumla lan w pecif tic tcica dec d vip vipsi dep abstract eive tun tunta pok uty suz su'o at tid tcidu rea e vir vidru vir least d tup tuple leg us tab tabno car tif ti thi tur stura str vis viska see bon s here ucture vit vitci irr tac tance ton tig tigni per tut tutra ter egular gue form ritory viz vi her tad tadni stu tij tilju hea tuz stuzi sit e at dy vy e vok voksa voi taf taxfu gar tik stika adj vab vanbi env ce ment ust ironment vol vofli fli tag tagji snu til tcila det vac vanci eve ght g ail ning von vo 4 taj tamji thu tim tcima wea vaj vajni imp vor vorme doo mb ther ortant r tak staku cer tin tirna hea val valsi wor vud vrude vir amic r d tue tal talsa cha tip tikpa kic vam vamji val vur vukro Ukr llenge k ue ainian tam tarmi sha tir tirse iro van vanju win vus vrusi tas pe n e te tan tsani sky var vacri air 30 vuz vu yon xol xotli hot zug zungi gui cmo cmoni moa der at el lt n xab xadba hal xub xruba buc zuk zukte act cmu jicmu bas f kwheat zul zunle lef is xac xarci wea xuk xruki tur t cna canpa sho pon key zum zu'o act vel xad xadni bod xul xutla smo ivity cne cenba var y oth abstract y xag xamgu goo xum xukmi che zun zunti int cni cinmo emo d mical erfere tion xaj xarju pig xun xunre red zut zutse sit cno condi dee xak xaksu use xur xurdo Urd p up i cnu macnu man xal xalka alc xus xusra ass ual ohol ert bla blanu blu cpa cpacu get xam xajmi fun zac zarci mar e cpe cpedu req ny ket ble ruble wea uest xan xance han zag zargu but k cpi cipni bir d tock bli bliku blo d xap xampo amp zaj zajba gym ck cpu lacpu pul ere nast blo bloti boa l xar xanri ima zal zalvi gri t cra crane fro ginary nd blu ciblu blo nt xas xamsi sea zan zabna fav od cre certu exp xat xatsi 1E- orable bra barda big ert 18 zar zanru app bre bredi rea cri cirko los xav xa 6 rove dy e xaz xazdo Asi zas zasni tem bri bridi pre cro cortu pai atic porary dicate n xeb xebro Heb zat zasti exi bro xebro Heb cru curmi let rew st rew cta catlu loo xed xendo kin zaz za'i sta bru burcu bru k d te sh cte nicte nig xej xedja jaw abstract cfa cfari ini ht xek xekri bla zel ze 7 tiate cti citka eat ck zen zenba inc cfi cfila fla cto xecto 100 xel xe 5th rease w ctu ctuca tea conversio zep zepti 1E- cfu ricfu ric ch n 21 h dja cidja foo xen xebni hat zer zekri cri cka ckana bed d e me cke ckeji ash dje djedi ful xer xenru reg zet zetro 1E2 amed l day ret 1 cki ciksi exp dji djica des xes xelso Gre zev ze'o out lain ire ek ward cko cokcu soa djo sadjo Sau xet xecto 100 zif zifre fre k up di xex xexso 1E1 e cku cukta boo dju sidju hel 8 zin zinki zin k p xil xislu whe c cla clani lon dra drani cor el zip dzipo Ant g rect xim xinmo ink arctican cli cilre lea dre derxi hea xin xindo Hin zir zirpu pur rn p di ple clu culno ful dri badri sad xip xispo His ziv zivle inv l dro cidro hyd panic est cma cmalu sma rogen xir xirma hor zon zo'a tan ll dru drudi roo se gential cme cmene nam f xis xriso Chr to e dza da som istian zor zo'i inw cmi cmima mem ething 1 ard ber 31 dze dzena eld jge jgena kno ple pelji pap sni sinxa sig er t er n dzi dizlo low jgi jgira pri pli pilno use sno masno slo dzu cadzu wal de plo polje fol w k jma jamfu foo d snu casnu dis fla flalu law t plu daplu isl cuss fle flecu flo jme jemna gem and spa spati pla w jmi jimpe und pra cupra pro nt fli fliba fai erstand duce spe speni mar l jva javni rul pre prenu per ried flo foldi fie e son spi spisa pie ld jve je tan pri prina pri ce flu fulta flo ru and nt spo daspo des at jvi jivna com pro fapro opp troy fra frati rea pete ose spu spuda rep ct jvo lujvo aff pru purci pas ly fre ferti fer ix t sra sarji sup tile compound sfa sfasa pun port fri lifri exp kla klama com ish sre srera err erience e sfe sefta sur sri dasri rib fro forca for kle klesi cla face bon k ss sfo sfofa sof sro sorcu sto fru frumu fro kli klina cle a re wn ar sfu sufti hoo sru sruri sur gla glare hot klo diklo loc f round gle gletu cop al ska skari col sta stali rem ulate klu kulnu cul or ain gli glico Eng ture ske saske sci ste liste lis lish kra krasi sou ence t glu gluta glo rce ski skicu des sti sisti cea ve kre kerfa hai cribe se gra grake gra r sko skori cor sto stodi con m kri krici bel d stant gre pagre pas ieve sku cusku exp stu stuzi sit s through kro korcu ben ress e gri girzu gro t sla salci cel tca tcadu cit up kru kruvi cur ebrate y gru gurni gra ve sle selci cel tce mutce muc in mla mlana sid l h jba jbari ber e sli slilu osc tci tutci too ry mle melbi bea illate l jbe jbena bor utiful slo solji gol tco ketco Sou n mli milxe mil d th jbi jibni nea d slu sluji mus American r mlo molki mil cle tcu nitcu nee jbo lojbo Loj l sma smaji qui d banic mlu simlu see et tra tarti beh jbu jubme tab m sme semto Sem ave le mra marbi she itic tre mitre met jda lijda rel lter smi simsa sim er igion mre merli mea ilar tri trina att jde kajde war sure smo smoka soc ract n mri mrilu mai k tro jitro con jdi jdice dec l smu smuni mea trol ide mro morsi dea ning tru turni gov jdu jduli jel d sna sance sou ern ly mru mruli ham nd tsa tsali str jga jganu ang mer sne senva dre ong le pla platu pla am tse zutse sit n 32 tsi tsiju see zmu zumri mai bu'i bu wor cu'u cuntu aff d ze d to air tsu rotsu thi zva zvati at lerfu da'a damba fig ck bu'o budjo Bud ht vla valsi wor dhist da'e danre pre d bu'u bukpu clo ssure vle zivle inv ba'a barna mar th da'i darxi hit est k ca'a cabra app da'o darno far vli vlipa pow ba'e balre bla aratus da'u danlu ani erful de ca'e catke sho mal vra vraga lev ba'i banli gre ve dai dacti obj er at ca'i catni aut ect vre vreta rec ba'o banro gro hority dau darlu arg lining w ca'o canko win ue vri virnu bra ba'u bacru utt dow de'a denpa wai ve er ca'u canlu spa t vro vorme doo bai bapli for ce de'i denci too r ce cai carmi int th vru savru noi bau bangu lan ense de'o delno can se guage cau claxu wit dela xla xlali bad be'a bersa son hout de'u dertu dir xle naxle can be'e bende cre ce'a cecla lau t al w ncher dei djedi ful xli nixli gir be'i benji tra ce'i cteki tax l day l nsfer ce'o ce'o in di'a jdima pri xlu xlura inf be'o bemro Nor a ce luence th sequence di'e dirce rad xra pixra pic American with iate ture be'u betfu abd ce'u cecmu com di'i jdini mon xre mixre mix omen munity ey ture bei bevri car cei cevni god di'o dinko nai xri maxri whe ry ci'a ciska wri l at bi'a bilma ill te di'u dinju bui xru xruti ret bi'e brife bre ci'e ciste sys lding urn eze tem do'i donri day zba zbasu mak bi'i jbini bet ci'i cinri int time e ween eresting do'o dotco Ger zbe zbepi ped bi'o binxo bec ci'o citno you man estal ome ng doi do you zbi nazbi nos bi'u bitmu wal ci'u ckilu sca du'a dunda giv e l le e zda zdani nes bo'a boxna wav co'a co'a ini du'e dukse exc t e tiative ess zdi zdile amu bo'e brode pre co'e co'e uns du'i dunli equ sing dicate pecif al zdo xazdo Asi var 2 bridi du'o du sam atic bo'i botpi bot co'i cmoni moa e zga zgana obs tle n identity erve bo'o boxfo she co'u co'u ces as zgi zgike mus et sative du'u dunku ang ic bo'u bongu bon coi condi dee uish zgu rozgu ros e p fa'a farna dir e boi bolci bal cu'a cuxna cho ection zma zmadu mor l ose fa'e fatne rev e bu'a bruna bro cu'e ckule sch erse zme guzme mel ther ool fa'i facki dis on bu'e bunre bro cu'i cumki pos cover zmi zmiku aut wn sible fa'o fanmo end omatic cu'o cunso ran fa'u farlu fal dom l 33 fai fatri dis gi'e zgike mus ju'i jundi att ku'u ckunu con tribute ic entive ifer fau fasnu eve gi'o gigdo 1E9 ju'o djuno kno la'a lasna fas nt gi'u gismu roo w ten fe'a fenra cra t word ka'a katna cut la'e lakne pro ck gu'a gunka wor ka'e kakne abl bable fe'i fetsi fem k e la'i lamji adj ale gu'e gugde cou ka'i krati rep acent fe'o fenso sew ntry resent la'o latmo Lat fe'u fengu ang gu'i gusni ill ka'o kanro hea in ry umine lthy la'u lalxu lak fei fepni cen gu'o gunro rol ka'u kantu qua e t l ntum lai klani qua fi'a cfika fic ja'a jatna cap kai ckaji qua ntity tion tain lity lau cladu lou fi'e finpe fis ja'e jalge res kau kampu com d h ult mon le'a lebna tak fi'i finti inv ja'i jadni ado ke'a kevna cav e ent rn ity le'i pleji pay fi'o friko Afr ja'o jarco sho ke'e ke'e end le'o lenjo len ican w grouping s fi'u cfipu con ja'u jgalu cla ke'i kecti pit le'u lerfu let fusing w y teral fo'a fo'a it- jai jgari gra ke'o kelvo kel lei klesi cla 6 sp vin ss fo'e fo'e it- jau djacu wat ke'u krefu rec li'a cliva lea 7 er ur ve fo'i fo'i it- je'a jecta pol kei kelci pla li'e lidne pre 8 ity y cede fo'o fonmo foa je'e jetce jet ki'a krixa cry li'i linji lin m je'i jersi cha out e foi foldi fie se ki'e kicne cus li'o linto lig ld je'o jegvo Jeh hion htweight fu'a funca luc ovist ki'i ckini rel li'u litru tra k je'u jetnu tru ated vel fu'e fuzme res e ki'o kilto 100 lo'i bloti boa ponsible jei jenmi arm 0 t fu'i fukpi cop y ki'u krinu rea lo'o slovo Sla y ji'a jinga win son vic ga'a grana rod ji'e jmive liv ko'a kojna cor lo'u lorxu fox ga'e ganse sen e ner loi loldi flo se ji'i jinvi opi ko'e kolme coa or ga'i galfi mod ne l lu'a pluta rou ify ji'o jipno tip ko'i kobli cab te ga'o ganlo clo ji'u jvinu vie bage lu'e klupe scr sed w ko'o skoto Sco ew ga'u galtu hig jo'e jorne joi ttish lu'i lumci was h ned ko'u konju con h gai gacri cov jo'o jordo Jor e lu'o lubno Leb er danian koi korbi edg anese gau gasnu do jo'u jo'u in e ma'a cmana mou ge'a gerna gra common ku'a kumfa roo ntain mmar with m ma'e marce veh ge'o gento Arg joi joi in ku'e kuspe ran icle entinian a mass ge ma'i masti mon ge'u gerku dog with ku'i kurji tak th gei gleki hap ju'a jufra sen e care of ma'o cmavo str py tence ku'o skuro gro ucture gi'a gidva gui ju'e julne net ove word de 34 ma'u makcu mat nai natmi nat pi'a pilka cru ri'e rirxe riv ure ion st er mai marji mat nau nanmu man pi'e plipe lea ri'i ritli rit erial ne'i nenri in p e mau zmadu mor ne'o cnebo nec pi'i pilji mul ri'o crino gre e k tiply en me'a mleca les ne'u cnemu rew pi'o pipno pia ri'u rinju res s ard no train me'e cmene nam nei nelci fon pi'u pimlu fea ro'a prosa pro e d ther se me'i mensi sis ni'a cnita ben po'a spoja exp ro'i rokci roc ter eath lode k me'o mekso MEX ni'e nilce fur po'e ponse pos ro'o ropno Eur me'u mentu min niture sess opean ute ni'i nibli nec po'i porpi bre ro'u rotsu thi mei mei car essitate ak ck dinal ni'o cnino new po'o ponjo Jap roi roi qua selbri ni'u ninmu wom anese ntified mi'a cmila lau an po'u spofu bro tense gh no'e no'e sca ken ru'a sruma ass mi'e minde com lar poi porsi seq ume mand midpoint uence ru'e pruce pro mi'i minji mac not pu'a pluka ple cess hine no'i nobli nob asant ru'i pruxi spi mi'o misno fam le pu'e pulce dus rit ous noi notci mes t ru'o rusko Rus mi'u mintu sam sage pu'i punji put sian e nu'a snura sec pu'o purmo pow ru'u rupnu dol mo'a morna pat ure der lar tern nu'e nupre pro pu'u sputu spi sa'a sanga sin mo'i morji rem mise t g ember nu'i nutli neu ra'a srana per sa'e satre str mo'o molro mol tral tain oke e nu'o nu'o can ra'e ralte ret sa'i sanli sta mo'u moklu mou but has ain nd th not ra'i ranji con sa'o salpo slo moi moi ord pa'a pacna hop tinue pe inal e ra'o radno rad sa'u sarcu nec selbri pa'e prane per ian essary mu'a murta cur fect ra'u raktu tro sai sanmi mea tain pa'i prami lov uble l mu'e munje uni e rai traji sup sau slabu old verse pa'o panlo sli erlative se'a setca ins mu'i mukti mot ce rau gradu uni ert ive pa'u patfu fat t se'i sevzi sel mu'o mulno com her re'a remna hum f plete pai pajni jud an se'u selfu ser mu'u muvdu mov ge re'e trene tra ve e pau pagbu par in sei sepli apa na'a nanca yea t re'i renvi sur rt r pe'a preja spr vive si'a sinma est na'e natfe den ead re'o renro thr eem y pe'i penmi mee ow si'e snime sno na'i nalci win t re'u rectu mea w g pe'o pendo fri t si'i sicni coi na'o cnano nor end rei preti que n m pe'u pencu tou stion si'o sidbo ide na'u namcu num ch ri'a rinka cau a ber pei pensi thi se si'u simxu mut nk ual 35 so'a sovda egg to'u tordu sho xau xamgu goo zu'e zukte act so'e sobde soy rt d zu'i zunti int a toi troci try xe'a xedja jaw erfere so'i so'i man tu'a tumla lan xe'i xekri bla y d ck so'o sombo sow tu'e tuple leg xe'o xendo kin soi sonci sol tu'i tugni agr d dier ee xe'u xenru reg su'a stura str tu'o tunlo swa ret ucture llow xei xebni hat su'e su'e at tu'u tubnu tub e most e xi'a xirma hor su'i sumti arg va'i vamji val se ument ue xi'o xriso Chr su'o su'o at va'u vasxu bre istian least athe xi'u xislu whe su'u sfubu div vai vajni imp el e ortant xoi xotli hot ta'a tavla tal vau vasru con el k tain xu'a xusra ass ta'e tanxe box ve'a verba chi ert ta'i tatpi tir ld xu'e xunre red ed ve'e ve'e who xu'i xukmi che ta'o tanbo boa le space mical rd interval xu'o xurdo Urd ta'u taxfu gar ve'u vecnu sel i ment l za'a zabna fav tai tarmi sha vei vreji rec orable pe ord za'i zasti exi tau tanru phr vi'a viska see st ase vi'e vitke gue za'o za'o sup compound st erfective te'a terpa fea vi'i vikmi exc za'u zargu but r rete tock te'i steci spe vi'o vitno per zai zarci mar cific manent ket te'o stero ste vi'u vimcu rem zau zanru app radian ove rove te'u tengu tex vo'a voksa voi ze'a zenba inc ture ce rease tei temci tim voi vofli fli ze'e ze'e who e ght le time ti'a tcima wea vu'e vrude vir interval ther tue ze'o ze'o out ti'e trixe beh vu'i vrusi tas ward ind te zei zekri cri ti'i stidi sug vu'o vukro Ukr me gest ainian zi'e zifre fre ti'o ctino sha xa'a xatra let e dow ter zi'i zinki zin ti'u tixnu dau xa'e xance han c ghter d zi'o dzipo Ant to'a tonga ton xa'i xarci wea arctican e pon zi'u zirpu pur to'e to'e pol xa'o xampo amp ple ar ere zo'a zo'a tan opposite xa'u xabju dwe gential to'i torni twi ll to st xai xrani inj zo'i zo'i inw ure ard