What can you do with Lojban that you can't do with English?

[Alex Private]

I'm trying to find some info on what the features of Lojban are, so
far I've only found very few confusing and vague statements about the
language.

Could someone tell me what Lojban can do that English cannot and show
an example so it's easy for me to understand?

Thanks,
Alex.

[Lindar]

We we spit and bleed blue.
Do you spit blue?

We have red chickens and cows.
Are the cows red?

Bill and Jeff went to the store.
Did they go together?

It's implicit in English and explicit in Lojban. Also the grammar is predicate based.

[Lee Carlson]

Bill and Jeff were fighting and he hit him.
Lojban makes explicit who hit whom.

--
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/-/SgoU8dy14kQJ.

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.

--
The World is a magical place, waiting for our senses to grow sharper.

[Pierre Abbat]

On Wednesday 16 May 2012 20:19:41 Lindar wrote:
> We have red chickens and cows.
> Are the cows red?

Also, "we" = "I and who else?"

mi'a ponse lo xunre jipci .e lo bakni — doesn't say what color the cows are.
mi'a ponse lo xunre jipci je bakni — false, as no chicken is a cow.
mi'a ponse lo xunre jipci .e lo xunre bakni — the cows are red.
mi'a ponse lo xunre jipci ja bakni — they're all red, but whether they're all
chickens or all cows or a mix isn't stated.

Pierre
--
loi mintu se ckaji danlu cu jmaji

[ianek]

On 17 Maj, 05:55, Pierre Abbat <p...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 May 2012 20:19:41 Lindar wrote:
>
> > We have red chickens and cows.
> > Are the cows red?
>
> Also, "we" = "I and who else?"
>
> mi'a ponse lo xunre jipci .e lo bakni — doesn't say what color the cows are.
> mi'a ponse lo xunre jipci je bakni — false, as no chicken is a cow.

Aionys says that it doesn't make that assertion. According to him, "we
are a husband and a wife" is {mi'a me lo nakspe je fetspe}. So even
such simple things like logical connectives are controversial in
Lojban... uinai

> mi'a ponse lo xunre jipci .e lo xunre bakni — the cows are red.
> mi'a ponse lo xunre jipci ja bakni — they're all red, but whether they're all
> chickens or all cows or a mix isn't stated.

What about {mi'a ponse lo xunre jipci joi bakni}?

mu'o mi'e ianek

[Jonathan Jones]

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:27 PM, ianek <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 17 Maj, 05:55, Pierre Abbat <p...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 May 2012 20:19:41 Lindar wrote:
>
> > We have red chickens and cows.
> > Are the cows red?
>
> Also, "we" = "I and who else?"
>
> mi'a ponse lo xunre jipci .e lo bakni — doesn't say what color the cows are.
> mi'a ponse lo xunre jipci je bakni — false, as no chicken is a cow.

Aionys says that it doesn't make that assertion. According to him, "we
are a husband and a wife" is {mi'a me lo nakspe je fetspe}. So even
such simple things like logical connectives are controversial in
Lojban... uinai

It's aionys, not Aionys, and I don't say that. {lo} is not explicit about whether we are speaking of individuals or masses/sets, so it is possible to have either interpretation. There is nothing controversial about this.

To quote the tiki page on xorlo:

lo's inner quantifier indicates the number of things we're talking about, but in a slightly different fashion. "mu lo bakni cu bevri lo pipno" means "Five cows each carried a piano individually". "lo mu bakni cu bevri lo pipno" is ambiguous as to whether they did it individually or as a group. To be clear about group-ness, use loi and friends.
 

> mi'a ponse lo xunre jipci .e lo xunre bakni — the cows are red.
> mi'a ponse lo xunre jipci ja bakni — they're all red, but whether they're all
> chickens or all cows or a mix isn't stated.

What about {mi'a ponse lo xunre jipci joi bakni}?

mu'o mi'e ianek

> Pierre
> --
> loi mintu se ckaji danlu cu jmaji

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

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 .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

[Jonathan Jones]

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:27 PM, ianek <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 17 Maj, 05:55, Pierre Abbat <p...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 May 2012 20:19:41 Lindar wrote:
>
> > We have red chickens and cows.
> > Are the cows red?
>
> Also, "we" = "I and who else?"
>
> mi'a ponse lo xunre jipci .e lo bakni — doesn't say what color the cows are.
> mi'a ponse lo xunre jipci je bakni — false, as no chicken is a cow.

Aionys says that it doesn't make that assertion. According to him, "we
are a husband and a wife" is {mi'a me lo nakspe je fetspe}. So even
such simple things like logical connectives are controversial in
Lojban... uinai

It's aionys, not Aionys, and I don't say that. {lo} is not explicit about whether we are speaking of individuals or masses/sets, so it is possible to have either interpretation. There is nothing controversial about this.

To quote the tiki page on xorlo:

lo's inner quantifier indicates the number of things we're talking about, but in a slightly different fashion. "mu lo bakni cu bevri lo pipno" means "Five cows each carried a piano individually". "lo mu bakni cu bevri lo pipno" is ambiguous as to whether they did it individually or as a group. To be clear about group-ness, use loi and friends.

Also, I feel I should point out that in {mi'a me lo nakspe je fetspe}, it is obvious that "lo nakspe je fetspe" is implicitly referring to a group because of "mi'a", and for no other reason.
 

 

> mi'a ponse lo xunre jipci .e lo xunre bakni — the cows are red.
> mi'a ponse lo xunre jipci ja bakni — they're all red, but whether they're all
> chickens or all cows or a mix isn't stated.

What about {mi'a ponse lo xunre jipci joi bakni}?

mu'o mi'e ianek

> Pierre
> --
> loi mintu se ckaji danlu cu jmaji

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

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

[ianek]

On 17 Maj, 08:48, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:27 PM, ianek <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 17 Maj, 05:55, Pierre Abbat <p...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday 16 May 2012 20:19:41 Lindar wrote:
>
> >> > > We have red chickens and cows.
> >> > > Are the cows red?
>
> >> > Also, "we" = "I and who else?"
>
> >> > mi'a ponse lo xunre jipci .e lo bakni — doesn't say what color the cows
> >> are.
> >> > mi'a ponse lo xunre jipci je bakni — false, as no chicken is a cow.
>
> >> Aionys says that it doesn't make that assertion. According to him, "we
> >> are a husband and a wife" is {mi'a me lo nakspe je fetspe}. So even
> >> such simple things like logical connectives are controversial in
> >> Lojban... uinai
>
> > It's aionys, not Aionys, and I don't say that.

Sorry, I've only used the capital A because it was the beginning of
the sentence.

> > {lo} is not explicit about
> > whether we are speaking of individuals or masses/sets, so it is possible to
> > have either interpretation. There is nothing controversial about this.
>
> > To quote the tiki page on xorlo:
>
> > lo's inner quantifier indicates the number of things we're talking about,
> > but in a slightly different fashion. "mu lo bakni cu bevri lo pipno" means
> > "Five cows each carried a piano individually". "lo mu bakni cu bevri lo
> > pipno" is ambiguous as to whether they did it individually or as a group.
> > To be clear about group-ness, use loi and friends.
>
> Also, I feel I should point out that in {mi'a me lo nakspe je fetspe}, it
> is obvious that "lo nakspe je fetspe" is implicitly referring to a group
> because of "mi'a", and for no other reason.

{lo nakspe je fetspe} refers to "one or more things that are nakspe je
fetspe". If being nakspe je fetspe doesn't imply being simultanously
both a husband and a wife, then {lo jipci je bakni} doesn't imply that
some chicken is a cow. I don't see how it's not analogical. The
sentence about cows and chickens also refers to a group.

Also, I still don't see any difference in meaning between {broda} and
{me lo broda}.

[Jonathan Jones]

A group can be contradictory things. Individuals can not. It is possible for a group to be cows and chickens, it is not possible for individuals to be cows and chickens. It is possible for a group to be husbands and wives, it is not possible for individuals to be so. The reason he says {mi'a ponse lo xunre jipci je bakni} is false is because he is referring to them as individuals. The reason {mi'a me lo nakspe je fetspe} is true is because I am (implicitly) referring to them as a group. "lo" is not specific as to whether a multitude of something is being addressed as a group or individually, although typically the individual interpretation is implied, as I said. The reasons why it is obvious that "lo nakspe je fetspe" should be interpreted as a group is because {mi'a} refers to groups- specifically, the group consisting of "The speaker and others unspecified but not the listener", and because an individual interpretation doesn't make sense, because it is impossible for an individual can't be a wife and a husband.
 

[Jonathan Jones]

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 1:18 AM, ianek <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:

Also, I still don't see any difference in meaning between {broda} and
{me lo broda}.

Well, obviously, it's the place structure.

{mi klama} means "I go from somewhere to somewhere by some route using some means"/"I am-a-go-er from somewhere to somewhere by some route using some means" (and all the various different tenses of those).

{mi me lo klama} means "I am amongst-those-that-are-(something that goes from somewhere to somewhere by some route using some means) in some aspect".

You have to remember that unfilled places are always implicitly filled with "zo'e", as well, so those two above are actually {mi klama zo'e zo'e zo'e zo'e} and {mi me lo klama be zo'e bei zo'e bei zo'e bei zo'e be'o zo'e}, respectively.

[ianek]

> The reason he says {mi'a ponse
> lo xunre jipci je bakni} is false is because he is referring to them as
> individuals.

So if I'm referring to them as a group, then {mi'a ponse lo xunre
jipci je bakni} is true, right? And the sentence is not wrong, only
one interpretation is wrong? Oh, how I love Lojban, the unambiguous
language.

On 17 Maj, 09:50, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 1:18 AM, ianek <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Also, I still don't see any difference in meaning between {broda} and
> > {me lo broda}.
>
> Well, obviously, it's the place structure.

Of course I knew that, I meant the semantics of the x1 place.

> {mi klama} means "I go from somewhere to somewhere by some route using some
> means"/"I am-a-go-er from somewhere to somewhere by some route using some
> means" (and all the various different tenses of those).
>
> {mi me lo klama} means "I am amongst-those-that-are-(something that goes
> from somewhere to somewhere by some route using some means) in some aspect".
>
> You have to remember that unfilled places are always implicitly filled with
> "zo'e", as well, so those two above are actually {mi klama zo'e zo'e zo'e
> zo'e} and {mi me lo klama be zo'e bei zo'e bei zo'e bei zo'e be'o zo'e},
> respectively.

I remember that, obviously.
That doesn't answer my question. If I go, then I'm amongst those that
are goers. If I'm amongst those that are goers, then I go. Am I right?
If so, then there's no difference in meaning of the x1 place between
{klama} and {me lo klama}. And the meaning of me2 is very unclear, as
I remember from the discussion about it here.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:00 AM, ianek <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The reason he says {mi'a ponse

> lo xunre jipci je bakni} is false is because he is referring to them as
> individuals.

So if I'm referring to them as a group, then {mi'a ponse lo xunre
jipci je bakni} is true, right? And the sentence is not wrong, only
one interpretation is wrong?

Yes. In order to ensure that only the intended interpretation is derived by the audience, you must either be explicit about whether you are referring to the object(s) individually (with "PA lo broda") or as a group/set (with "loi broda"/"lo'i broda"), or allow context to make the distinction for you, which is in itself usually enough.

Oh, how I love Lojban, the unambiguous
language.

Syntactically unambiguous, which means that there are no instances where a word or phrase can be confused with a different word or phrase, (such with English to, too, and two, or the famous "pretty little girls' school" example).

Semantically, Lojban is no less ambiguous than any other language, and is often more so, because of the rather vague- bu intention- meanings of the words.
 

On 17 Maj, 09:50, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 1:18 AM, ianek <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Also, I still don't see any difference in meaning between {broda} and
> > {me lo broda}.
>
> Well, obviously, it's the place structure.

Of course I knew that, I meant the semantics of the x1 place.

> {mi klama} means "I go from somewhere to somewhere by some route using some
> means"/"I am-a-go-er from somewhere to somewhere by some route using some
> means" (and all the various different tenses of those).
>
> {mi me lo klama} means "I am amongst-those-that-are-(something that goes
> from somewhere to somewhere by some route using some means) in some aspect".
>
> You have to remember that unfilled places are always implicitly filled with
> "zo'e", as well, so those two above are actually {mi klama zo'e zo'e zo'e
> zo'e} and {mi me lo klama be zo'e bei zo'e bei zo'e bei zo'e be'o zo'e},
> respectively.

I remember that, obviously.
That doesn't answer my question. If I go, then I'm amongst those that
are goers. If I'm amongst those that are goers, then I go. Am I right?
If so, then there's no difference in meaning of the x1 place between
{klama} and {me lo klama}. And the meaning of me2 is very unclear, as
I remember from the discussion about it here.

mu'o mi'e ianek

As far as the x1 is concerned, no, I don't believe there is any difference. "me" is most useful when wanting to describe things which have no brivla, such as in {mi me la.djan.}

[Jacob Errington]

Why would anyone say {i mi'a me lo nakspe je fetspe} ?
It seems like an extremely bad calque on English.
Why not {(lu'i) mi'a spesi'u} ?
It doesn't indicate the gender of the persons involved and it uses a
more lojbanic system (simxu + a set).

mu'o mi'e la tsani

[Jonathan Jones]

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why would anyone say {i mi'a me lo nakspe je fetspe} ?
It seems like an extremely bad calque on English.
Why not {(lu'i) mi'a spesi'u} ?
It doesn't indicate the gender of the persons involved and it uses a
more lojbanic system (simxu + a set).

mu'o mi'e la tsani

This is not the place for that discussion.
 

[Jorge Llambías]

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 4:43 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The reason {mi'a me lo nakspe je fetspe} is true is because I
> am (implicitly) referring to them as a group. "lo" is not specific as to
> whether a multitude of something is being addressed as a group or
> individually, although typically the individual interpretation is implied,
> as I said.

I don't think "lo" helps much here. The question is really about "mi'a
nakspe je fetspe". (Or "mi'a me zo'e noi ke'a nakspe je fetspe").
There are no clear official rules about how tanru logical connectives
work, but the obvious interpretation is that "ko'a nakspe je fetspe"
expands to "ko'a nakspe .i je ko'a fetspe". I would prefer "mi'a
nakspe jo'u fetspe" (or the more wordy "mi'a me lo nakspe jo'u
fetspe").

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[ianek]

On 17 Maj, 10:31, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So if I'm referring to them as a group, then {mi'a ponse lo xunre
> > jipci je bakni} is true, right? And the sentence is not wrong, only
> > one interpretation is wrong?
>
> Yes. In order to ensure that only the intended interpretation is derived by
> the audience, you must either be explicit about whether you are referring
> to the object(s) individually (with "PA lo broda") or as a group/set (with
> "loi broda"/"lo'i broda"), or allow context to make the distinction for
> you, which is in itself usually enough.

So after all, when Pierre says "mi'a ponse lo xunre jipci je bakni",
you'd say that it doesn't imply that some chickens are cows, because
it's an absurd interpretation, am I not right?

> > Oh, how I love Lojban, the unambiguous
> > language.
>
> Syntactically unambiguous, which means that there are no instances where a
> word or phrase can be confused with a different word or phrase, (such with
> English to, too, and two, or the famous "pretty little girls' school"
> example).
>
> Semantically, Lojban is no less ambiguous than any other language, and is
> often more so, because of the rather vague- bu intention- meanings of the
> words.

I know all that. But I prefer to see Lojban as vague, not ambiguous.
That way I don't have a situation when some sentence is false because
it may imply that chickens are cows, but may be true, if the speaker
didn't intend to make that implication. Vague sentences shouldn't be
false because some interpretation is false. Of course it has some
drawbacks, too.
Like, "mi na cadzu", as a logical negation of "mi cadzu", which
doesn't state that I'm currently walking or even that I ever walked
(maybe I'm only innately capable of walking), should mean that I've
never walked walked and I can't walk. I fell better when I don't think
about it.

On 17 Maj, 14:01, Jorge Llambías <jjllamb...@gmail.com> wrote:

ki'e xorxes
Are there many other simple Lojban constructs which meanings are
unspecified? I'd say that tanru logical connectives are pretty base
thing, unlike some obscure mekso issues, or "what if a sentence has
multiple prenexes".
Also, I don't really understand how jo'u works in general, in CLL I've
seen only one example. Does {mi jo'u do bevri lo pipno} mean that each
of us carries a piano individually, but we both carry the same piano?
The less I understand jo'u as a tanru connective...

[Devin Prater]

Hmm, well I think that with Lojban, things  can be made more clearly, the letter-to-sound rules are consistant, so that if you know how Lojban's rules of letter-to-sound rules work, you can just listen to something and know how it sounds, which means that you don't have to ask how things are spelled. I am very new to Lojban, so if I have something wrong please correct me. And, even though there are few Lojban text-to-speech engines, E-speak is the only one I know of that has Lojban, but if there were more, I would suspect that it would be very simple to create, since Lojban's rules of speech are quite simple compared to English. Oh and for anyone that has an iOS device, there is a Lojban dictionary available. Hmm, I wonder if there are any Lojban Zello/LoudTalks channels? If not I will create one. Zello is a service like teamtalk and Ventrillo, it is for Android, iOS, PC and lots of other systems.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 3:17 PM, ianek <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Are there many other simple Lojban constructs which meanings are
> unspecified? I'd say that tanru logical connectives are pretty base
> thing,

The main problem with tanru logical connnectives is what can it mean
to connect two predicates with different place structures. The usual
assumption is that the x1 of "broda je brode" has to be something that
satisfies both the x1 of broda and the x1 of brode. But what about the
x2? Does it have to satisfy both the x2 of broda and the x2 of brode?
If so, does something like "ko'a ko'e sutra je bajra" make any sense
at all?

>unlike some obscure mekso issues, or "what if a sentence has
> multiple prenexes".

I'm not aware of any issues with multiple prenexes, it's just the same
as one single longer prenex.

> Also, I don't really understand how jo'u works in general, in CLL I've
> seen only one example. Does {mi jo'u do bevri lo pipno} mean that each
> of us carries a piano individually, but we both carry the same piano?

I take "jo'u" as the connective corresponding to "lo", just like "joi"
corresponds to "loi" and "ce" corresponds to "lo'i". So "mi jo'u do
bevri lo pipno" is like "lo re prenu cu bevri lo pipno".

> The less I understand jo'u as a tanru connective...

Tanru connectives are indeed weird.

[ianek]

On 17 Maj, 23:38, Jorge Llambías <jjllamb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 3:17 PM, ianek <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Are there many other simple Lojban constructs which meanings are
> > unspecified? I'd say that tanru logical connectives are pretty base
> > thing,
>
> The main problem with tanru logical connnectives is what can it mean
> to connect two predicates with different place structures. The usual
> assumption is that the x1 of "broda je brode" has to be something that
> satisfies both the x1 of broda and the x1 of brode. But what about the
> x2? Does it have to satisfy both the x2 of broda and the x2 of brode?
> If so, does something like "ko'a ko'e sutra je bajra" make any sense
> at all?
>
> >unlike some obscure mekso issues, or "what if a sentence has
> > multiple prenexes".
>
> I'm not aware of any issues with multiple prenexes, it's just the same
> as one single longer prenex.

Yes, it was also an example of a rarely-to-never used construct, so
any issues there would be quite artificial (compared to tanru
connectives).

> > Also, I don't really understand how jo'u works in general, in CLL I've
> > seen only one example. Does {mi jo'u do bevri lo pipno} mean that each
> > of us carries a piano individually, but we both carry the same piano?
>
> I take "jo'u" as the connective corresponding to "lo", just like "joi"
> corresponds to "loi" and "ce" corresponds to "lo'i". So "mi jo'u do
> bevri lo pipno" is like "lo re prenu cu bevri lo pipno".

So the example 14.10 from CLL 14.14 http://dag.github.com/cll/14/14/
"la djeimyz. jo'u la djordj. cu remei bruna"
would correspond to "lo re nanmu cu remei bruna" and I don't see why
it would work as suggested in that chapter.

mu'o mi'e ianek

[Jorge Llambías]

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 3:13 AM, ianek <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So the example 14.10 from CLL 14.14 http://dag.github.com/cll/14/14/
> "la djeimyz. jo'u la djordj. cu remei bruna"
> would correspond to "lo re nanmu cu remei bruna" and I don't see why
> it would work as suggested in that chapter.

"cu bunsi'u" would be better to convey that idea.

"cu remei bruna" is not false in that case, it just isn't really
explicit with the information that they are each other's brother.