Place structure of lujvo

[mashers]

coi rodo

I'm trying to understand the place structure of lujvo in the jbovlaste. For example, the definition of tamgau is listed as "g1 defines t2 into form t1". To what do g1, t2 and t1 refer? This does not fit the sumti descriptors I am used to seeing (x1 selbri x2 [...] [xn]).

ki'e

[.arpis.]

g1 is the x1 of the component starting with g

t2 is the x2 of the component starting with t

ko'a tamgau ko'e ko'i == ko'a gasnu lo nu ko'i tarmi ko'e

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/BxRECn7qhEUJ.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.

--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

[Remo Dentato]

In case of lujvo, one refers to the place structure of the tanru
components using their first letter. So for {tamgau}

g1 defines t2 into form t1.

g1 is the x1 of {gasnu}, t2 the x2 of {tarmi} and t1 the x1 of
{tarmi}. It should be:

x1=g1 defines x2=t2 into form x3=t1

to make the relation explicit.

I personally think that some of lujvo should be redefined in jbovlaste
to follow the more usual convention of x1, x2 etc.

That said, since the lujvo ending with {gasnu} are very common. I
would object that a more appropriate definition for {tamgau} should
be:

x1 define x2=t1 the be the form of x3=t2

I do respect the freedom of a lujvo maker but I don't see the benefit
of swapping t1 and t2, especially when using gasnu. I would much
rather stick to:

ko'a rodgau ko'e ko'i ko'o ko'u => ko'a gasnu lo nu ko'e broda
ko'i ko'o ko'u

remod

[mashers]

Thanks for the replies. I've just been discussing this on IRC and had a similar response, and basically that the place structure is the same order as the sumti are given in the lujvo definition (e.g. "g1 defines t2 into form t1" == "x1 defines x2 into form x3").

While we're on the subject of tamgau, I'm not sure I really understand that definition. The use of the word *into* implies some transformation. That doesn't fit with my understanding of the concept of "definition", which I understand to mean "give a description of the meaning of". The meaning described by the jbovlaste feels more like "conceptualises".

[Jacob Errington]

On 14 October 2012 12:43, mashers <ma...@mashley.net> wrote:

Thanks for the replies. I've just been discussing this on IRC and had a similar response, and basically that the place structure is the same order as the sumti are given in the lujvo definition (e.g. "g1 defines t2 into form t1" == "x1 defines x2 into form x3").

While we're on the subject of tamgau, I'm not sure I really understand that definition. The use of the word *into* implies some transformation. That doesn't fit with my understanding of the concept of "definition", which I understand to mean "give a description of the meaning of". The meaning described by the jbovlaste feels more like "conceptualises".

Indeed, {tamgau} is probably inappropriate for discussing definitions of words. {tarmi} itself appears poorly understood by the commmunity as a whole.

I usually just use ciksi when discussing what the definition of a word is (according to ciksi1), but I suppose that {jdice lo du'u makau smuni} could be used for the sense of "ascribe a meaning to something".

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/nM0Vu2g3stgJ.

[mashers]

On Sunday, 14 October 2012 22:07:41 UTC+1, tsani wrote:

I usually just use ciksi when discussing what the definition of a word is (according to ciksi1),

So you could do { la jbovlaste ciksi zo tamgau fo zoi by. g1 defines t2 into form t1 .by. }

Is that right? By the way, the by. and .by. in that bridi are based on the section in What Is Lojban, page 39, on quotations, where quoted non-Lojban text is surrounded by {by.} and {.by.}. When I looked this up in the jbovlaste it stated that {by} is simply the letter 'b'. So I'm not sure what function it serves in this bridi.

 

but I suppose that {jdice lo du'u makau smuni} could be used for the sense of "ascribe a meaning to something".

I didn't understand that sentence. Please could you translate it for me? Even looking up the words in the jbovlaste I was unable to understand what it meant. 

[Jacob Errington]

On 14 October 2012 14:47, mashers <ma...@mashley.net> wrote:

On Sunday, 14 October 2012 22:07:41 UTC+1, tsani wrote:

I usually just use ciksi when discussing what the definition of a word is (according to ciksi1),

So you could do { la jbovlaste ciksi zo tamgau fo zoi by. g1 defines t2 into form t1 .by. }

Yes. (you missed a terminator before {ciksi} however) I'd probably use la'e before the zoi, too, but I'm not sure if a quote in itself constitutes an explanation.

 

Is that right? By the way, the by. and .by. in that bridi are based on the section in What Is Lojban, page 39, on quotations, where quoted non-Lojban text is surrounded by {by.} and {.by.}. When I looked this up in the jbovlaste it stated that {by} is simply the letter 'b'. So I'm not sure what function it serves in this bridi.

 

{by} is indeed the letter 'b'. zoi-quotes function by taking a user-decided delimiter after the word {zoi} itself. After the delimiter, you put any text you like, so long as it doesn't contain the delimiter, and then end the quote with the delimiter at the end. Formally, the structure is 

zoi [delim] any-text [delim].

The delimiter can be any one single lojban word. That includes full gismu, lujvo, zi'evla, cmevla, and cmavo.

 

but I suppose that {jdice lo du'u makau smuni} could be used for the sense of "ascribe a meaning to something".

I didn't understand that sentence. Please could you translate it for me? Even looking up the words in the jbovlaste I was unable to understand what it meant. 

.u'i Yes, indirect questions in Lojban sure are fun :p 

For example {mi djuno lo du'u makau klama lo zarci} -> "I know who goes to the store." The word {ma} here isn't actually a question, but an indirect question, which must be marked with {kau}. 

Here, the translation is "decide what is the meaning of".

[mashers]

On Sunday, 14 October 2012 23:23:51 UTC+1, tsani wrote:

On 14 October 2012 14:47, mashers <ma...@mashley.net> wrote:

 

So you could do { la jbovlaste ciksi zo tamgau fo zoi by. g1 defines t2 into form t1 .by. }

Yes. (you missed a terminator before {ciksi} however)

{ cu } ?
 

I'd probably use la'e before the zoi, too, but I'm not sure if a quote in itself constitutes an explanation.

I don't understand the definition of la'e according to the jbovlaste. Would you mind explaining it for me please?
 

 {by} is indeed the letter 'b'. zoi-quotes function by taking a user-decided delimiter after the word {zoi} itself. After the delimiter, you put any text you like, so long as it doesn't contain the delimiter, and then end the quote with the delimiter at the end. Formally, the structure is 

zoi [delim] any-text [delim].

Ahh ok, thanks for clarifying.
 

The delimiter can be any one single lojban word. That includes full gismu, lujvo, zi'evla, cmevla, and cmavo.

So you could just as accurately say { zoi klama Hello World klama }, and {klama} would be interpreted as the delimiter? Not that I'm saying I would actually do that, I'm just working out the boundary of the flexibility in choosing a delimiter.
 

 .u'i Yes, indirect questions in Lojban sure are fun :p 

I often don't even understand them in my native language ;)
 

For example {mi djuno lo du'u makau klama lo zarci} -> "I know who goes to the store." The word {ma} here isn't actually a question, but an indirect question, which must be marked with {kau}. 

Here, the translation is "decide what is the meaning of".

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

Thanks. I need to take some time to understand that.

[Jacob Errington]

On 15 October 2012 00:37, mashers <ma...@mashley.net> wrote:

On Sunday, 14 October 2012 23:23:51 UTC+1, tsani wrote:

On 14 October 2012 14:47, mashers <ma...@mashley.net> wrote:

 

So you could do { la jbovlaste ciksi zo tamgau fo zoi by. g1 defines t2 into form t1 .by. }

Yes. (you missed a terminator before {ciksi} however)

{ cu } ?
 

{cu} would be the most common way of terminating the clause in this context, but you could alternatively use {ku}, which terminates LE and LA clauses (except LA-cmevla clauses such as {la .klark.})

 

I'd probably use la'e before the zoi, too, but I'm not sure if a quote in itself constitutes an explanation.

I don't understand the definition of la'e according to the jbovlaste. Would you mind explaining it for me please?
 

la'e is the Lojban equivalent of dereferencing a pointer in programming. A text refers to something, and is therefore a symbol. Using the la'e qualifier marks that you aren't talking about the *text*, but rather to what that text *refers to*. It's the distinction between {.i mi tcidu zoi gy The Moon is a Harsh Mistress gy} and {.i mi tcidu la'e zoi gy The Moon is a Harsh Mistress gy}. The former states that you read "The Moon is a Harsh mistress", whereas the latter states that you're reading the thing to which "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" refers, and in this context, that's a book (which iirc contains a reference to Loglan.)

 

 {by} is indeed the letter 'b'. zoi-quotes function by taking a user-decided delimiter after the word {zoi} itself. After the delimiter, you put any text you like, so long as it doesn't contain the delimiter, and then end the quote with the delimiter at the end. Formally, the structure is 

zoi [delim] any-text [delim].

Ahh ok, thanks for clarifying.
 

The delimiter can be any one single lojban word. That includes full gismu, lujvo, zi'evla, cmevla, and cmavo.

So you could just as accurately say { zoi klama Hello World klama }, and {klama} would be interpreted as the delimiter? Not that I'm saying I would actually do that, I'm just working out the boundary of the flexibility in choosing a delimiter.
 

Exactly right :)

By extension, even {zoi jbojevysofkemsuzgugje'ake'eborkemfaipaltrusi'oke'ekemgubyseltru Hi guys! jbojevysofkemsuzgugje'ake'eborkemfaipaltrusi'oke'ekemgubseltru} is legal.

The choice of delimiter usually reflects the contents of the quote however. Choosing {gy} for quoting English text comes from the lojban gismu {glico} meaning "English". Quoting other languages is usually done with the first letter of that language's name in Lojban. Beware however of languages beginning with vowels, as in Lojban the proper way to refer to a vowel letter is with the magic compounds {a bu} {e bu} {i bu} and {u bu} most usually written without the space. This leads to the incorrect conclusion that these word pairs form a single word.

 

 .u'i Yes, indirect questions in Lojban sure are fun :p 

I often don't even understand them in my native language ;)
 

For example {mi djuno lo du'u makau klama lo zarci} -> "I know who goes to the store." The word {ma} here isn't actually a question, but an indirect question, which must be marked with {kau}. 

Here, the translation is "decide what is the meaning of".

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

Thanks. I need to take some time to understand that.

The kau is especially necessary because {.i mi djuno lo du'u ma klama lo zarci} is actually a question, which is incidentally pretty weirdly translated into English. "I know that *who* goes the store?" is the most colloquial rendition I can think of.