questions about 'cu'

[RexScientiarum]

I am a bit confused by 'cu'. Is there any instances where its usage
is necessarily? Otherwise I don't understand why it exists.

[Pierre Abbat]

On Saturday, February 18, 2012 17:25:59 RexScientiarum wrote:
> I am a bit confused by 'cu'. Is there any instances where its usage
> is necessarily? Otherwise I don't understand why it exists.

There are some instances where you can say "cu" or a pile of terminators. For
example:
.i lo zbasu be le minji be lo nu lo remna cu vofli bu'u la .kiti'ok. cu du la
.uilbr. joi la .orvil.
.i lo zbasu be le minji be lo nu lo remna cu vofli bu'u la .kiti'ok. ku ku ku
du la .uilbr. joi la .orvil.
.i lo zbasu be le minji be lo nu lo remna cu vofli bu'u la .kiti'ok. be'o be'o
ku du la .uilbr. joi la .orvil.

There is also a natlang, namely Tok Pisin, which has a word like "cu". It's
called the predicate marker, though being the only word in its selma'o, it
might as well just be called a particle.

Man i mekim masin bilong man i flai long Kitty Hawk i Wilbur na Orville.

(I don't know how Tok Pisin handles names of people and places in English
outside PNG.)

Pierre
--
La sal en el mar es m�s que en la sangre.
Le sel dans la mer est plus que dans le sang.

[Lindar]

The short answer:

It's never necessary. NEVER.

It's a handy shortcut sometimes.

Learn to do without it at first or your grammar will suck.

[Lee Carlson]

And here I was told that without cu one of my favorite statements made no sense at all. So what is it: does cu serve a purpose, or not? If not, then what would I use in it's place?

mi'o brais

--
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/-/CuzwB6IY5XEJ.

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.

[Luke Bergen]

yes cu does serve a purpose. It's a shortcut for "close everything that needs closing so that I can say the selbri now".

So in "lo ctuca cu citka lo plise" "cu" is a shortcut for plain old "ku" (not much of an advantage here). But it can come in handy in situations like "lo nu mi pensi lo nu mi cusku lu zenba cu se kakne". Here "cu is standing in for "li'u kei kei". Sometimes it's easier for lazier folk like myself to be able to say "ugh, that convoluted sumti is done, now I want to do the selbri... shoot what all needs closing? Bah forget it.  'cu'. "

[Michael Turniansky]

  Yes, don't let lindar and his dialect contingent mislead you.  It DOES serve a purpose, but it can be worked around, as well.  Its purpose is to mark which word/phrase in a bridi that is the main relationship.  Can it be worked around?  Yes, but as Pierre mentioned, it means properly closing off all open structures before then.  

   So, what would you use in its place?  That depnds entirely on what needs terminating.  If nothing needs closing, the you don't need it.

                --gejyspa

[Lee Carlson]

My thanks. I created a farewell, based on my spiritual path's "blessed be," which I render as iure'e le cevni cu kurji ko by which I mean "with spiritual love I direct you to act in such a way that your perception of god (the divine) cares about/for you." Have I accomplished my goal?

mi'o mi'e brais

[Lindar]

Yes, wonderfully.

My point was that you shouldn't use {cu} when starting because it forces you to learn fa'orma'o, which in turn helps you a lot later in advanced speaking.

However, your Lojban looks like how pretty much anybody else would say it. *GREAT BIG THUMBS UP*

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Lee Carlson <lord...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My thanks. I created a farewell, based on my spiritual path's "blessed be,"
> which I render as iure'e le cevni cu kurji ko by which I mean "with
> spiritual love I direct you to act in such a way that your perception of god
> (the divine) cares about/for you." Have I accomplished my goal?

"le cevni" is "what I describe as god" rather than "your perception of
god". The latter would be more like "lo simlu be lo ka cevni bei do".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Jonathan Jones]

In the interest of shortness and similarity, I suggest {prami ko}, which is short for {pisu'o cevni cu prami re'e ko}.

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 )

[Lee Carlson]

My thanks for your input as I am still learning the intricacies of lojban, and can use all of the assistance I receive. I shall endeavor to get this right as I continue to grow.

mi'o mi'e brais

[Pierre Abbat]

On Sunday, February 19, 2012 13:27:28 Lee Carlson wrote:
> My thanks. I created a farewell, based on my spiritual path's "blessed be,"

> which I render as *iure'e le cevni cu kurji ko* by which I mean "with

> spiritual love I direct you to act in such a way that your perception of
> god (the divine) cares about/for you." Have I accomplished my goal?

I like the Lojban better than the English, which means, I think, that you're
thinking in Lojban. It's really hard to render the Lojban into any natlang I
know; the closest I can come offhand is Spanish "te amo y Dios cu�dete" (I
attend a Hispanic church, so much of my thinking about God is in Spanish).

Adding to what Lindar said, the fa'orma'o is, as far as I know, a part of
speech unique to the Loglanic languages, so you need lots of practice to get
it right. "cu" has an equivalent in Tok Pisin; attitudinals exist (though not
the same list) in some language spoken in the NE India/Burma area. Terminators
are what make it possible to say lots of grammatical constructs unambiguously.

Pierre
--
.i toljundi do .ibabo mi'afra tu'a do
.ibabo damba do .ibabo do jinga
.icu'u la ma'atman.

[Michael Turniansky]

  And let me add, that I don't disagree with Lindar on that point.  While I've never personally had a problem with the concept of the terminators, I have to concede that experience has shown that most people learn lojban better by learning and using them first before they can feel comfortable and confident removing them when unnecessary.  My issues with lindar have always been more on the abrasive dogmatism of his pronouncements, rather than the reasoning behind it.

               --gejys[a

 

--

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/-/Zhg_0FOinHEJ.

[MorphemeAddict]

I learned to use "cu" long ago, but I still don't know when or which terminators to use without parsing and looking them up. So I agree with gejyspa. 

stevo

[Adam Lopresto]

Just to further what others have said, and try to make it more concrete, you can achieve anything without {cu}, but sometimes at the expense of adding terminators. Your example is splendid. If we wanted to omit {cu}, we could instead use

.iure'e le cevni ku kurji ko

(using the actual terminator for LE in place of the catch-all {cu}), or we could rearrange things so we wouldn't need any separator at all.

.iure'e le cevni ko kurji

All of them are valid, all mean exactly the same thing, and your style is entirely your choice. The last form is the shortest, and matches my personal style. The {ku} version may be better as you're getting the hang of terminators. The {cu} version has the marginal benefit of explicitly marking the selbri, instead of relying on the listener to know that we've gotten to that level (I've heard people praise that, again in more complicated examples where it makes a difference). TMTOWTDI

[Pierre Abbat]

On Monday, February 20, 2012 09:52:54 Adam Lopresto wrote:
> Just to further what others have said, and try to make it more concrete,
> you can achieve anything without {cu}, but sometimes at the expense of
> adding terminators. Your example is splendid. If we wanted to omit {cu}, we
> could instead use
>
> .iure'e le cevni ku kurji ko
>
> (using the actual terminator for LE in place of the catch-all {cu}), or we
> could rearrange things so we wouldn't need any separator at all.
>
> .iure'e le cevni ko kurji
>
> All of them are valid, all mean exactly the same thing, and your style is
> entirely your choice. The last form is the shortest, and matches my
> personal style. The {ku} version may be better as you're getting the hang
> of terminators. The {cu} version has the marginal benefit of explicitly
> marking the selbri, instead of relying on the listener to know that we've
> gotten to that level (I've heard people praise that, again in more
> complicated examples where it makes a difference). TMTOWTDI

I actually said "iure'e le cevni ku kurji ko" when I read it aloud,
anticipating the "ku-" of "kurji". The short version is also made entirely of
amphibrachyes (if "r�'e" is so stressed), which is pe'i the most natural foot
for Lojban. I've come up with some sayings in amphibrachic n-meter, such as
"lo drata cu muvdu .ijo lo se drata cu klama fu zi'o".

Pierre
--
Jews use a lunisolar calendar; Muslims use a solely lunar calendar.

[RexScientiarum]

I am not sure I am even to a point where I want to worry about ku and
terminators just yet.

Anyway, is it correct to replace {cu} with {ca} to show that something
is happening 'right now'? I was searching through some sentences
using lojbo jufsisku (great resource) and came across a sentence using
it so I put it in jbofi'e and looked it up in jbovlaste (more great
resources) that is how I am guessing {ca} is used from what I learned
there. I can't find anything in Lojban For Beginners or Lojban
Reference Grammar on using {ca} although I may have missed it.

Anyway, this is the sentence I found on lojbo jufsisku: "do ca catlu
lo va tricu" which is says is supposed to translate as: "You're
looking at that tree."

sia ki'e

-RexScientiarum

On Feb 20, 9:52 am, Adam Lopresto <adamlopre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to further what others have said, and try to make it more concrete,
> you can achieve anything without {cu}, but sometimes at the expense of
> adding terminators. Your example is splendid. If we wanted to omit {cu}, we
> could instead use
>
> .iure'e le cevni ku kurji ko
>
> (using the actual terminator for LE in place of the catch-all {cu}), or we
> could rearrange things so we wouldn't need any separator at all.
>
> .iure'e le cevni ko kurji
>
> All of them are valid, all mean exactly the same thing, and your style is
> entirely your choice. The last form is the shortest, and matches my
> personal style. The {ku} version may be better as you're getting the hang
> of terminators. The {cu} version has the marginal benefit of explicitly
> marking the selbri, instead of relying on the listener to know that we've
> gotten to that level (I've heard people praise that, again in more
> complicated examples where it makes a difference). TMTOWTDI
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Lee Carlson <lorddr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > My thanks. I created a farewell, based on my spiritual path's "blessed

> > be," which I render as *iure'e le cevni cu kurji ko* by which I mean

> > "with spiritual love I direct you to act in such a way that your perception
> > of god (the divine) cares about/for you." Have I accomplished my goal?
>
> > mi'o mi'e brais
>
> > On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Michael Turniansky <
> > mturnian...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>   Yes, don't let lindar and his dialect contingent mislead you.  It DOES
> >> serve a purpose, but it can be worked around, as well.  Its purpose is to
> >> mark which word/phrase in a bridi that is the main relationship.  Can it be
> >> worked around?  Yes, but as Pierre mentioned, it means properly closing off
> >> all open structures before then.
>
> >>    So, what would you use in its place?  That depnds entirely on what
> >> needs terminating.  If nothing needs closing, the you don't need it.
>
> >>                 --gejyspa
>

> >> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Lee Carlson <lorddr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> And here I was told that without cu one of my favorite statements made
> >>> no sense at all. So what is it: does cu serve a purpose, or not? If not,
> >>> then what would I use in it's place?
>
> >>> mi'o brais
>

[Jonathan Jones]

ca and friends (PU) can only appear before a selbri, so cu isn't needed in those cases. So, yes, you can replace it.

However, PU is more useful than as merely a cu replacement.

For example:
{mi klama ca lo bavlamdei lonu penmi lo pu pampe'o}, "I'm going to see my former girlfriend tomorrow."

[Patrick]

Well, I wouldn't say that "ca" (or any of selma'o PU) can replace "cu" unambiguously.  Take the following sentence:

lo ca klama ca pinxe

In this case, the first "ca" attaches to the sumti to make it mean something like "the one currently going", where the second "ca" attaches to the selbri of the entire bridi, for a total meaning of "the one currently going is currently drinking", possibly alluding to someone drinking while driving or biking.

In other words:  I believe Mr. Jones is right ("cu isn't needed in those cases"), but just left what those cases are a little cague.

"cu" always serves to point out the main selbri relationship in the sentence.  Think of it like an indicator.  Lojban is a strange language to all of us, and we can all sometimes use a little help picking out the verb in an English sentence.  That's what "cu" does, basically.  Don't think about it that other cmavo can "replace" it, because you can always have "cu", it's just sometimes superfluous.  You can say "le tavla ku cu barda" without being wrong, but it's just unnecessarily clunky.  

My general tendency when learning was to always assume I had to have a "cu", and then work out ways to avoid it as I learned other terminators or tricks.

mi'e .tavic.

[Patrick]

vague*

[Klaus F. Abel]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 23:07:58 -1000
Patrick <sonar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, I wouldn't say that "ca" (or any of selma'o PU) can replace "cu"
> unambiguously. Take the following sentence:
>
> lo ca klama ca pinxe
>
> In this case, the first "ca" attaches to the sumti to make it mean
> something like "the one currently going", where the second "ca" attaches to
> the selbri of the entire bridi, for a total meaning of "the one currently
> going is currently drinking", possibly alluding to someone drinking while
> driving or biking.
>

How do you identify "pinxe" as a selbri in this case at all, i.e. what stops one from reading the whole "ca klama ca pinxe" as a tanru (regardless of how it would make sense in translation)? Is this really ambiguous, or just plain wrong (the selbri reading, I mean)?

Klaus

[Patrick]

Hmm, I'm not sure.  There might have to still be a "cu" in there, but I'm not positive.  I think maybe you can't nest PU inside of tanru?  I'll get back to you in a few minutes.  My disclaimer before I begin to find out just how wrong I am:  I'm very tired, and it's very late in my time zone.  Write again soon.

mi'e .tavic.

[Patrick]

Well, so far I haven't managed to find anything which says the way I wrote it is wrong.  "LE PU broda" constructions and "LE broda PU brode" both appear, with the meaning of the "LE PU broda" being equivalent to what I said it would be individually (CLL C 10 12.12), and "LE broda PU brode" giving the meaning I said that fragment would have (CLL, C 6, 2.8), however, I haven't yet found any examples of the two types together (namely, "LE PU broda PU brode") and *why* that's unambiguous.  CLL C 10 *does* say " The placement of a tense construct within a Lojban bridi is easy: right before the selbri. It goes immediately after the ``cu'', and can in fact always replace the ``cu'' (although in very complex sentences the rules for eliding terminators may be changed as a result). "  I feel confident in thinking that what I wrote is both gramatically correct and conveyed the meaning I wanted it to, I'm just looking for how I'm right. Will update again soon.

mi'e .tavic.

[Patrick]

Alright, I found it (I think).  CLL C 5, S 13, last sentence:  " Tense, modal, and negation cmavo can appear only at the beginning of the selbri. They cannot be embedded within it. "  That means that we can have our descriptor of selma'o LE, followed by the slot for a PU cmavo (or, technically, NA or modal or other tense cmavo), followed by exactly on selbri, be it a tanru or just a single brivla.  That leads to A) an unambiguous interpretation of "lo ca klama" as "the current goer", and B) of "lo klama ca pinxe" as "the goer is currently drinking",  and C) of "lo ca klama ca pinxe" as "the current goer is currently drinking", since the "ca pinxe" cannot be absorbed as part of the tanru.  Mystery solved.

My reasoning is always potentially wrong, thanks for watching out for me and keeping me straight, Mr. Abbat.  If I'm still wrong or uncited (as good as wrong) somewhere, please feel free to point it out again.  :D

mi'e .tavic. .i mi sipna

[ianek]

Neither jbofi'e nor camxes accept {ca broda ca brode}, which would be
the case if it were a possible tanru. http://camxes.lojban.org/?text=loca%20broda%20ca%20brode

mu'o mi'e ianek

[Klaus F. Abel]

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:54:30 -1000
Patrick <sonar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Alright, I found it (I think). CLL C 5, S 13, last sentence: " Tense,
> modal, and negation cmavo can appear only at the beginning of the selbri.
> They cannot be embedded within it. " That means that we can have our
> descriptor of selma'o LE, followed by the slot for a PU cmavo (or,
> technically, NA or modal or other tense cmavo), followed by exactly on
> selbri, be it a tanru or just a single brivla. That leads to A) an
> unambiguous interpretation of "lo ca klama" as "the current goer", and B)
> of "lo klama ca pinxe" as "the goer is currently drinking", and C) of "lo
> ca klama ca pinxe" as "the current goer is currently drinking", since the
> "ca pinxe" cannot be absorbed as part of the tanru. Mystery solved.
>

Oh, I see! Learned something again, thanks. May the rest of your night hours be peaceful.

Haven't said a word in here for too long, so that I forgot to sign with my already known jbocme.

mu'o mi'e feliks.