From Lojban
(Redirected from experimental cmavo)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
minma'o = x1 is an experimental cmavo of class x2

Technical discussion

  • And Rosta:
    • NB In sorting the original list into the above two, I have erred on the side of caution, declaring Obsolete only proposals that came from me or that were proposed in discussions I was involved in so know the outcome of.
  • Jay:
    • How about links to uses of these cmavo? (Besides, of course, the example sentence that came in the proposal...) Just a little short story or something, maybe.
    • And Rosta:
      • Do you mean further exemplification, or uses not originally intended for exemplificatory purposes? Most of them have seen no spontaneous use, which seems a good thing, because almost all currently proposed experimental cmavo are relatively speculative, put forward for consideration and discussion, rather than for immediate usage.
      • Jay:
        • I mean so much as a haiku written using one.
        • And Rosta:
          • I doubt that any have seen any use, and anyway, the use of one in a haiku would probably not provide a clearer example than one concocted deliberately. The list is of currently proposed experimental cmavo, not of cmavo currently used. If any did start to enter usage then I suppose this should be reflected on the page, but since some of those proposals are ill-thought-out, I hope people would avoid learning and using them.
          • Jay:
  • mark:
    • I think I've seen my ja'ai used once or twice, though mostly in the context of discussions about it (which don't really count). But not necessarily exclusively.
  • And Rosta:
    • Though I haven't noticed it being used (tho I only read about 5% of posted lojban text), pe'i ja'ai is virtually the only currently proposed experimental cmavo that is definitely worth adopting as-is. That is, it's the only one I think it useful, necessary and the right solution to the problem it fixes.
      • Mungojelly:
        • I just came to this page because Xorxes said "ja'ai" to me in context on the beginners' list, for whatever that's worth.

General discussion

  • rab.spir:
    • This list used to be a useful reference for the 3 or 4 experimental cmavo which were already in use. Would it be possible to delete the ones which are shown to be redundant - such as ci'a, da'au, xa'a, xo'o, xoi, xu'u, and possibly others?
  • And:
    • I have made a start on this, by sifting them into the two lists linked to above. Maybe you should say which you think are obsolete, and why, and then we can shift them to the Obsolete list.
  • There's a proposal for xa'a and xa'anai on the old archives, but I can't seem to figure out what they're supposed to mean. [1]
    • They got changed to xo'u
  • There's lots more to be found in the archives, btw. Just search for any xV(')V, and be prepared for a lot of sifting...
  • .kreig.daniyl.:
    • Paraphrased from a discussion of Lojban pronouns in the Portland Pattern Repository wiki: We need a cmavo that makes imperatives without ko. This could be a ko plural, although some want a 'let's' form too. Or it could be a UI, more like xu, that turns bridi into imperatives rather than questions. I propose xu'a, of selma'o UI, to mean 'make this bridi true, even though it contains no do' so that you could say xu'a mi'o klama for 'let's go' or xu'a do'o klama for you (plural) go (imperative). What do others think?
      • xod:
        • I think that .e'ucai or .e'ocai, or even .eicai work just fine for that. Such attitudinals can easily refer to a state of reality that is not being asserted to be factual, but rather is being asked for, suggested, or obligated. Thus, .e'o mi'o klama really does mean Let's go, please!
      • pc has published a record of current thinking, and of why such a cmavo would be a Bad Thing[1].
      • Jay:
        • First, nothing says ko cannot be plural. Not a thing. Should you insist that ko must be singular, then make use of the fact that ko is defined as identical to do, except commanding the target of do to make the bridi true. Then, make use of the fact that doi assigns the value of do. (Its in The Book, I swear) And if you want to command someone to make a bridi true which they are otherwise not a part of, such as le gerku cu zasti, then modals are your bestest friend. I'd suggest gau, but with the use of fi'o you could use aaanything you want. Surely something would be appropriate.
      • .kreig.daniyl.:
        • .kreig.daniyl., who proposed xu'a, no longer think that at least as is it would be a Good Thing. It wastes xvv cmavo space, which ought to be reserved for more common needs. Also, there are unspecified modals, which I think could mean be somehow involved in. perhaps a more useful thing would be like the indirect commands of Spanish: Juan, haz tu' cama means John, make your bed, doi xuan. bai ko se cnici ledo ckana while que haga su cama Juan means (somewhere in between I hope and I want it to be made so, but not stated outright as either) that John makes his bed, thus either .a'o bai la xuan. cu se cnici le xy. ckana or .e'u bai la xuan. cu cnici le xy. ckana - there is not an outright statement that this is a command, but if it were to happen the speaker would be pleased, hint hint - but could contain this hinted command use as (whatever someone suggests replacing xu'a with) bai la xuan. cu se cnici le xy. ckana. Of course I would use ko'a-series rather than lerfu in a formal text, but this will do for now. Jorge, please correct any of the Spanish that I explained wrong, we went over this a year ago in my Spanish class and haven't even reviewed it or heard our teachers use it since, so I may be a little off.
    • Ultimately ko'oi was proposed.
  • Note that the only way any of these are ever going to see any use is if influential people write interesting things using them. And given Lojban politics, and the ideal of language stability, perhaps not even then. Which is probably a good thing, but I thought I'd point out that simply listing them doesn't encourage their use. :)
  • Just saying, "Everyone, cmavo blah is a Good Thing, so you should use it" is a waste of time. (Even if it is canonicalized.)
  • And yet, so few of these are any good! Mostly they attempt to smooth out the existing language; they don't add powerful new usages.