Rafybri and 4 new rafsi. Suggestion for a new agglutinative style in Lojban

[gleki]

At first I must say that I'm not a member of any language-developing committee (BPFK or anything).

And the following is just an idea how the flexibility of Lojban can be enriched.

Nobody is asked to use the following when writing or speaking real Lojban.

Everything here should be marked as exclusively experimental and (.a'o) as the source for further consideration.

None of the existing rules of Lojban (the baseline) is changed.

Rafybri

I always noticed how lujvo break the transparent logic of bridi.

Let's look at {nitkla} which means {klama lo cnita}.

Although it's much easier to learn {nitkla} rather then "descend" (in English they differ in sounding considerably)

nobody can guess that {nitkla} means "descend" and doesn't mean "go in a lower position under something" without getting the translation beforehand.

Although anybody is free to say "klama lo cnita" instead

it will lead to lengthier speech.

What I suggest is to glue bridi together into a new form of lujvo called "rafybri".

That's how it works. 

1. First rule

4 new rafsi

zve <= be fe lo

zvi <= be fi lo 

zvo <= be fo lo 

zvu <= be fu lo 

and 

jve (fifth rafsi)

When composing rafybri you replace gismu with rafsi and "be fe lo" etc. with new rafsi of ZVE series.

2. cmavo attached to rafsi don't lead to the emergence of a new meaning. Therefore selpa'i  is a synonym for "se prami" (actually the second rule is not a new rule at all).

Applying this rule we can dramatically compress the length of lojbanic jufra.

And if we replace cnita with dizlo in our example we can save even two syllables.

klama lo cnita = klama lo dizlo = kla+zve+dzi = klazvedzi

blanu je crino = blajveri'o. In this case I refer to {blajveri'o} as to a synonym of {blanu je crino} (blue-green). I suggest that no new meaning is added here.

In other words rafybri can be constructed from tanru only if the latter have logical operators

("pelnimre tricu" can't be compressed into rafybri).

[MorphemeAddict]

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 10:01 AM, gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

At first I must say that I'm not a member of any language-developing committee (BPFK or anything).

And the following is just an idea how the flexibility of Lojban can be enriched.

Nobody is asked to use the following when writing or speaking real Lojban.

Everything here should be marked as exclusively experimental and (.a'o) as the source for further consideration.

None of the existing rules of Lojban (the baseline) is changed.

All of the rafsi are baselined. Creating new ones is therefore a change to the baseline. 

stevo 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/kgWQbXt6Q-QJ.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:01 AM, gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

At first I must say that I'm not a member of any language-developing committee (BPFK or anything).

And the following is just an idea how the flexibility of Lojban can be enriched.

Nobody is asked to use the following when writing or speaking real Lojban.

Everything here should be marked as exclusively experimental and (.a'o) as the source for further consideration.

None of the existing rules of Lojban (the baseline) is changed.

Rafybri

I always noticed how lujvo break the transparent logic of bridi.

Let's look at {nitkla} which means {klama lo cnita}.

Although it's much easier to learn {nitkla} rather then "descend" (in English they differ in sounding considerably)

nobody can guess that {nitkla} means "descend" and doesn't mean "go in a lower position under something" without getting the translation beforehand.

I disagree. I argue that it is actually rather easy to determine the meaning of nitkla.

Let us assume that nitkla is a lujvo formed from the tanru {cnita klama}, which may or may not be true. {cnita klama} is a "below type-of going", i.e.. "going below", i.e. "descending".

How is that difficult to figure out?
 

Although anybody is free to say "klama lo cnita" instead

it will lead to lengthier speech.

What I suggest is to glue bridi together into a new form of lujvo called "rafybri".

That's how it works. 

1. First rule

4 new rafsi

zve <= be fe lo

zvi <= be fi lo 

zvo <= be fo lo 

zvu <= be fu lo 

and 

jve (fifth rafsi)

When composing rafybri you replace gismu with rafsi and "be fe lo" etc. with new rafsi of ZVE series.

2. cmavo attached to rafsi don't lead to the emergence of a new meaning. Therefore selpa'i  is a synonym for "se prami" (actually the second rule is not a new rule at all).

Applying this rule we can dramatically compress the length of lojbanic jufra.

And if we replace cnita with dizlo in our example we can save even two syllables.

klama lo cnita = klama lo dizlo = kla+zve+dzi = klazvedzi

blanu je crino = blajveri'o. In this case I refer to {blajveri'o} as to a synonym of {blanu je crino} (blue-green). I suggest that no new meaning is added here.

In other words rafybri can be constructed from tanru only if the latter have logical operators

("pelnimre tricu" can't be compressed into rafybri).

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/kgWQbXt6Q-QJ.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?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 )

[gleki]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2012 10:38:30 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:01 AM, gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

At first I must say that I'm not a member of any language-developing committee (BPFK or anything).

And the following is just an idea how the flexibility of Lojban can be enriched.

Nobody is asked to use the following when writing or speaking real Lojban.

Everything here should be marked as exclusively experimental and (.a'o) as the source for further consideration.

None of the existing rules of Lojban (the baseline) is changed.

Rafybri

I always noticed how lujvo break the transparent logic of bridi.

Let's look at {nitkla} which means {klama lo cnita}.

Although it's much easier to learn {nitkla} rather then "descend" (in English they differ in sounding considerably)

nobody can guess that {nitkla} means "descend" and doesn't mean "go in a lower position under something" without getting the translation beforehand.

I disagree. I argue that it is actually rather easy to determine the meaning of nitkla.

Let us assume that nitkla is a lujvo formed from the tanru {cnita klama}, which may or may not be true. {cnita klama} is a "below type-of going", i.e.. "going below", i.e. "descending".

The point is that in many lujvo the first rafsi acts rather like an adverb when translating to English.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:40 PM, gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, April 24, 2012 10:38:30 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:01 AM, gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

At first I must say that I'm not a member of any language-developing committee (BPFK or anything).

And the following is just an idea how the flexibility of Lojban can be enriched.

Nobody is asked to use the following when writing or speaking real Lojban.

Everything here should be marked as exclusively experimental and (.a'o) as the source for further consideration.

None of the existing rules of Lojban (the baseline) is changed.

Rafybri

I always noticed how lujvo break the transparent logic of bridi.

Let's look at {nitkla} which means {klama lo cnita}.

Although it's much easier to learn {nitkla} rather then "descend" (in English they differ in sounding considerably)

nobody can guess that {nitkla} means "descend" and doesn't mean "go in a lower position under something" without getting the translation beforehand.

I disagree. I argue that it is actually rather easy to determine the meaning of nitkla.

Let us assume that nitkla is a lujvo formed from the tanru {cnita klama}, which may or may not be true. {cnita klama} is a "below type-of going", i.e.. "going below", i.e. "descending".

The point is that in many lujvo the first rafsi acts rather like an adverb when translating to English.

The semantic role of the parts of a lujvo depends on the words used to make said lujvo. Equating anything in Lojban to an English grammar structure is malglico.
 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/ts0t4b8LznwJ.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[Ian Johnson]

That's a bias in favor of klama2, which is malgli if it is considered to be inherent (it isn't malgli in an actual lujvo definition). It could just as easily be "below type-of-going" i.e. "going from below" i.e. "rising". This seems less obvious to an English speaker but that's only because of preposition omission; "going below" is "going to below" which is essentially symmetric with the case which favors klama3. There is a similar albeit less natural version for klama4, namely essentially "tunneling", in the physical sense.

On the general topic, I think making a substantive agglutinative system is probably going to wind up being futile in a language like this.

mu'o mi'e latros

[Jonathan Jones]

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Ian Johnson <blindb...@gmail.com> wrote:

That's a bias in favor of klama2, which is malgli if it is considered to be inherent (it isn't malgli in an actual lujvo definition). It could just as easily be "below type-of-going" i.e. "going from below" i.e. "rising". This seems less obvious to an English speaker but that's only because of preposition omission; "going below" is "going to below" which is essentially symmetric with the case which favors klama3. There is a similar albeit less natural version for klama4, namely essentially "tunneling", in the physical sense.

Granted, those all could be argued. I would like to think that this x2 bias is because such favouritism is due to it making most sense based purely on the definitions of the words themselves. The order of "a destination gone to" (klama2) and "a destination gone from" (klama3) in klama is the same as the order of "something which is below" (cnita1) and "something to which something is below" (cnita2).

Of course, being an English-language native, I can't objectively say that I have no linguistic bias. It's entirely possible that the above is merely a rationale my subconscious is using to justify said bias, but I sincerely hope not.
 

[gleki]

My suggestion for rafybri is to eliminate the need to memorise thousands of words which makes Lojban dictionary as hard to memorise as native languages.

If you can say {klama lo cnita} instead of {nitkla} it's ok. If you feel {klama lo cnita}  is too long to pronounce you might wanna use rafybri.

The meaning  of lujvo is postulated. They need to be entered into dictionaries to be clearly understood by everyone.

The meaning of rafybri is not postulated. You don't have to add them to dictionaries.

Everyone can easily decompress them back to bridi. You don't have to memorise thousands of words.

In some cases, though, lujvo is the best solution (take names of plants and animals, for instance). But "to descend" is really not worth it.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?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 )

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

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Jonathan Jones]

Personally, I think you're overestimating the difficulty. Most lujvo can be easily figured out without needing to "memorize" them, as long as you /have/ memorized the gismu, cmavo, and their rafsi, which you /have to do anyway/ to speak Lojban fluently.

I don't see how it is difficult to figure out, without previously learning the definition, that nitkla means "x1 goes down from high point x2 to low point x3 ...". I can see how variants could be what you conclude, as Latro showed, but you should at least be able to understand that "downwards" and "move" constitute the meaning of "nitkla", merely by knowing the meanings of cnita and klama, and also knowing the rafsi thereof.

Also, there's this really great strategy for finding out what a word you don't know means. It's actually an ancient technique, used since the first days of verbal communication: Ask the person that said it.

Lojban is a young language, with no native speakers (although Robin's trying to change the latter), so it's no surprise that most people have difficulties regarding concepts.

The only time I have trouble with a Lojban word, however, is when the meaning is counter-intuitive, that is, when what it means does not seem to fit in with what is used to make it, such as me'ispe. Looking at the word, without knowing the definition, you would think it has something to do with the concepts of "marriage" and "sister", and you may even reach the conclusion that it's talking about someone who is a sister because of a marriage. This makes sense.

me'ispe currently means "Brother-in-Law".

My line of attack for lujvo like the above isn't to try to memorize the meaning, or to come with some addition to the language that will make it more complicated while seeming to make it more simple (any addition is automatically an increase in complexity), but to /fix/ the /broken/ word.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/L6oFMr7C9F8J.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[Jonathan Jones]

Thinking about it, the whole "counter-intuitive" thing is actually a really good reason against placing cnita1 in klama3 for nitkla. Making klama3, the origin, be cnita1, the thing below, logically means placing cnita2, the thing above, in klama3, the destination, making nitkla in case mean, in essence "to go upwards". The reason this is counter-intuitive is because it means using a word that means "down"- or at least a meaning associated, "under, below, etc."- to make a word that means "up". We have a word that means "up" in exactly the same way cnita means "down"- gapru- so it would make more sense to use that for a "go up" lujvo. {lu ko'a gapru ko'e li'u mintu soi lu ko'a se cnita ko'e li'u}

[Jonathan Jones]

doi gleki do na pamoi troci lonu xagzengau lo jbobau
to lu ko'a gasnu lonu ko'e zenba loka xamgu ko'i kei ko'o li'u smuni toi
.i so'a jbopre ti'u lo nintadni to mi cmima toi cu troci lo se go'i
.i da'aso'ada na snada
.i ro go'i cu te cusku lu ko pamoi nitcu lonu cilre lo jbobau gi'e remoi nitcu lonu jimpe
.i ca lonu la'edi'u mulno ku curmi lonu troci li'u
.i puti'u lonu nanca li pamu ku la xorlo .e la.dotsaid. se steci lonu snada

[Jacob Errington]

i doi la gleki zo'u tu'e

i je'a se nandu lo nu jai galfi lo jbobau i mi tugni la djanatyn djons lo du'u su'o lo jbopre goi ko'a troci gi'eku'i iesa'e fliba

i la deple'u mlana .e la xorlo cu po'o  zo'u snada gi'eki'ubo je'a ke jbobau sarcu

i ta'onai tu'a zo co .eja'ebo zoi raf col raf se smuni lo do seldji vau pe'i

i sa'e lu mi joi lo pampe'o cu simxu co kansa co zgana co nu tigni co pendo li'u mupli tu'a zo co

i si'a zo simcolkancolzgacolnuntigycolpe'o mupli ra'oi col

i ku'i lo lujvo pe zo col so'aroi clani dukse vau iepei

i lo lujvo pe secau tu'a cy. zi'e noi ke'a se mupli zo nunpedytigkezyzgakansi'u noi ke'a lujvo fo lo bi'unai clani tanru cu je'a zanmau

i ja'o lo tai lujvo cu jai frili fai lo kamseljmi ki'u lo du'u so'eroiku lo seltau cu srana lo za'umoi sumti tu'u

mu'o mi'e la tsani

[Jonathan Jones]

doi tsani do na drani pe'i loka pilno zo zo'u

[Jonathan Jones]

Also, it seems to me- and granted I haven't seen much of your writing, so I could be wrong- that you're purposefully using very advanced grammatical constructs. I would suggest trimming the fat, as it were, considering I'm pretty sure gleki is still a nintadni. I consider myself a middle-level jbopre and I had trouble understanding you.

[Pierre Abbat]

On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 05:15:25 Jonathan Jones wrote:
> The only time I have trouble with a Lojban word, however, is when the
> meaning is counter-intuitive, that is, when what it means does not seem to
> fit in with what is used to make it, such as me'ispe. Looking at the word,
> without knowing the definition, you would think it has something to do with
> the concepts of "marriage" and "sister", and you may even reach the
> conclusion that it's talking about someone who is a sister because of a
> marriage. This makes sense.
>
> me'ispe currently means "Brother-in-Law".
>
> My line of attack for lujvo like the above isn't to try to memorize the
> meaning, or to come with some addition to the language that will make it
> more complicated while seeming to make it more simple (any addition is
> automatically an increase in complexity), but to /fix/ the /broken/ word.

"me'ispe" isn't broken. It means "x1 is married to the sister of x2 by
custom/bond x3". This is not the same as brother-in-law, which also includes
spebu'a. i la stiv. me'ispe mi .ije mi spebu'a la stiv. i mi me'ispe noda
.ini'ibo mi na speni

mu'omi'e .pier.
--
loi mintu se ckaji danlu cu jmaji

[ianek]

There's one more reason why me'ispe is not the same as brother-in-law: me'ispe can be a sister's wife.

mu'o mi'e ianek

[Jonathan Jones]

You mean wife's sister.
 

mu'o mi'e ianek

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/neMP6eXFAA8J.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[Craig Daniel]

No, a wife's sister isn't a sisterish sort of spouse. (She's a
speme'i, not a me'ispe.) A sister's wife, however, is.

[Jonathan Jones]

me'ispe: s₁ is a brother-in-law (sister's spouse) of m₂ under law/custom/tradition/system/convention sp₃.

If you look up "brother-in-law", that ^ is what you find. So either the definition of me'ispe is "brother-in-law" and is broken for reasons stated previously, or it isn't and is broken because the definition is wrong.
 

mu'omi'e .pier.

--
loi mintu se ckaji danlu cu jmaji

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[Craig Daniel]

In English, a brother-in-law can be two types of relatives - a husband
of a sibling (that is, most me'ispe and a few bu'aspe), or a brother
of a spouse (a spebu'a). The lujvo definition clarifies which kind it
means with that parenthetical (sister's spouse), but the gloss
"brother-in-law" was very probably written at a time when under all
western-world laws that relationship necessarily indicated a man.

[Jonathan Jones]

That doesn't make it any less broken.

[Craig Daniel]

It's not broken at all. It's a type of spena, exactly as you would
expect from the form of the word. It's just that, in English, for some
reason we use one term for these two sides of that sort of
asymmetrical relationships, even though we wouldn't do the same with
"uncle" and "niece." Lojban removes the natlang ambiguity; that's kind
of what it's designed to do.

[Jonathan Jones]

It is broken. "brother-in-law" != me'ispe. Saying it does is broken.

Add you said yourself, "brother-in-law" == me'ispe jonai spebu'a.

They are not equivalent, therefore, the definition is broken.

to pu benji ti fo lo mi me la.android. samcku toi

mu'o mi'e.aionys.

On Apr 25, 2012 1:29 PM, "Craig Daniel" <craigb...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Craig Daniel]

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is broken. "brother-in-law" != me'ispe. Saying it does is broken.
>
> Add you said yourself, "brother-in-law" == me'ispe jonai spebu'a.
>
> They are not equivalent, therefore, the definition is broken.
>

A keyword is not a definition. Lots of Lojban words have perfectly
functional definitions and terrible choices of keyword; I'd definitely
put me'ispe in that category, since it's quite clear from the
definition what it means and it is not synonymous with
"brother-in-law."

[Jonathan Jones]

The term "brother-in-law" is in the definition. It is not just a bad keyword.

Unfortunately, like so many words, the only existing definition of the word is in English.

Obviously a Lojban definition would not have any such problems.

to pu benji ti fo lo mi me la.android. samcku toi

mu'o mi'e.aionys.

[Jacob Errington]

I'm pretty sure that the zo'u-construct I used at the beginning will parse, notwithstanding that I'm almost certain that I've seen it used before, by skilled lojbanists. However, you're right about the second one, that [cu] was from my initial idea of the sentence; removing it makes the sentence parse, and maintain the intended meaning.

Nothing in there is used purely for the sake of complexity: it's just the way I write in Lojban. The most complicated thing there is stuff like [CONNECTIVE BAI BO] and jai, but neither of those are really that complicated. Oh, and ad hoc lujvo that are 100% non-cilmo, like [kamseljmi] -> [ka se jimpe]. I do that for shortening, and to remember rafsi.

mu'o mi'e la tsani

[Jonathan Jones]

According to jbofi'e, that first zu'o does not parse. I didn't check in camxes, though.

[MorphemeAddict]

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm pretty sure that the zo'u-construct I used at the beginning will parse,

It did not parse either time using jboski. 

stevo

[selpa'i]

COI does not create a term. zo'u wants at least one term before it.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?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 )

--

-- 
.i da xamgu ganse fi no na'ebo lo risna 
.i lo vajrai cu nonselji'u lo kanla

[selpa'i]

(sorry for the double post)
[...]
And this applies to DOI as well, of course.
So, tsani's text was entirely grammatical, except for the termless prenex, and the accidental {cu} in the other prenex. No parser will be able to parse it because ra'oi was used. Replace that with zo and you'll be able to verify that the text is indeed grammatical.

mu'i mi'e la selpa'i

[selpa'i]

Oh, and the lujvo *{nunpedytigkezyzgakansi'u} obviously contains an invalid cluster (gk). Insert -y-.
.i ca ku ja'a gendra

—mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

[Jacob Errington]

The lojban definitions would certainly look like this:

i lo ka me'ispe cu ka ce'u speni lo mensi be ce'u ce'u -> x1 is the spouse of the sister of x2, by spouse-bond x3.

i lo ka spebu'a cu ka ce'u bruna lo speni be ce'u ce'u -> x1 is the brother of the spouse of x2, by brother-bond x3.

Now, for me'ispe, if A is married to B's sister, then A must be male, according to Bad Western Tradition. A is thus B's brother-in-law, e.g. if I'm married to your sister, I'm your brother-in-law. [i fu'e mu'a mi speni lo mensi be do i mi me'ispe do fu'o] 

For spebu'a, if A is the brother of B's spouse, then A must be male (by virtue of being a brother of someone) and is also B's brother-in-law. e.g. if I'm your spouse's brother, then I'm your brother-in-law. [i fu'e mu'a mi bruna lo speni be do .i mi spebu'a do]

I do all my Lojban definitions this way. (I've been doing quite a few lujvo definitions like this.) It seems like producing a definition this way  almost always yields a jvajvo result.

Does this clear anything up?

mu'o mi'e la tsani

[Jacob Errington]

pft, termless prenexes *should* be grammatical, shouldn't they? ^^" Replacing [doi] with [tecu'u] fixes the problem.

Sorry for that slip-up with zo'u, as well as the lujvo. I wasn't paying enough attention when making it.

mu'o mi'e la tsani

[Jonathan Jones]

No. There was nothing that needed to be cleared up.

[Jonathan Jones]

Well of course, if we fix the grammar errors it would be grammatical. :P

[Sajesh]

And this applies to DOI as well, of course.
So, tsani's text was entirely grammatical, except for the termless prenex, and the accidental {cu} in the other prenex. No parser will be able to parse it because ra'oi was used. Replace that with zo and you'll be able to verify that the text is indeed grammatical.

mu'i mi'e la selpa'i

[Sajesh]

Oh, and the lujvo *{nunpedytigkezyzgakansi'u} obviously contains an invalid cluster (gk). Insert -y-.
.i ca ku ja'a gendra

—mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

Am 26.04.2012 01:06, schrieb selpa'i:

[gleki]

On Apr 25, 2:50 pm, Jacob Errington <nicty...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i doi la gleki zo'u tu'e
> i je'a se nandu lo nu jai galfi lo jbobau i mi tugni la djanatyn djons lo
> du'u su'o lo jbopre goi ko'a troci gi'eku'i iesa'e fliba
> i la deple'u mlana .e la xorlo cu po'o  zo'u snada gi'eki'ubo je'a ke
> jbobau sarcu
> i ta'onai tu'a zo co .eja'ebo zoi raf col raf se smuni lo do seldji vau pe'i

lo rafybri valsi cu se demri'a bridi
i ku'i lo lujvo valsi cu se smuni lo frica be lo tanru ja bridi

> i sa'e lu mi joi lo pampe'o cu simxu co kansa co zgana co nu tigni co pendo
> li'u mupli tu'a zo co
> i si'a zo simcolkancolzgacolnuntigycolpe'o mupli ra'oi col

lo lujvo valsi ku na'e vasru lo nenri sumti

> i ku'i lo lujvo pe zo col so'aroi clani dukse vau iepei
> i lo lujvo pe secau tu'a cy. zi'e noi ke'a se mupli zo
> nunpedytigkezyzgakansi'u noi ke'a lujvo fo lo bi'unai clani tanru cu je'a
> zanmau
> i ja'o lo tai lujvo cu jai frili fai lo kamseljmi ki'u lo du'u so'eroiku lo
> seltau cu srana lo za'umoi sumti tu'u
>
> mu'o mi'e la tsani
>

> On 25 April 2012 06:27, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > doi gleki do na pamoi troci lonu xagzengau lo jbobau
> > to lu ko'a gasnu lonu ko'e zenba loka xamgu ko'i kei ko'o li'u smuni toi
> > .i so'a jbopre ti'u lo nintadni to mi cmima toi cu troci lo se go'i
> > .i da'aso'ada na snada
> > .i ro go'i cu te cusku lu ko pamoi nitcu lonu cilre lo jbobau gi'e remoi
> > nitcu lonu jimpe
> > .i ca lonu la'edi'u mulno ku curmi lonu troci li'u
> > .i puti'u lonu nanca li pamu ku la xorlo .e la.dotsaid. se steci lonu snada
>

> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Thinking about it, the whole "counter-intuitive" thing is actually a
> >> really good reason against placing cnita1 in klama3 for nitkla. Making
> >> klama3, the origin, be cnita1, the thing below, logically means placing
> >> cnita2, the thing above, in klama3, the destination, making nitkla in case
> >> mean, in essence "to go upwards". The reason this is counter-intuitive is
> >> because it means using a word that means "down"- or at least a meaning
> >> associated, "under, below, etc."- to make a word that means "up". We have a
> >> word that means "up" in exactly the same way cnita means "down"- gapru- so
> >> it would make more sense to use that for a "go up" lujvo. {lu ko'a gapru
> >> ko'e li'u mintu soi lu ko'a se cnita ko'e li'u}
>

> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:01 AM, gleki <gleki.is.my.n...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> At first I must say that I'm not a member of any language-developing
> >>>>>>> committee (BPFK or anything).
> >>>>>>> And the following is just an idea how the flexibility of Lojban can
> >>>>>>> be enriched.
> >>>>>>> Nobody is asked to use the following when writing or speaking real
> >>>>>>> Lojban.
> >>>>>>> Everything here should be marked as exclusively experimental and
> >>>>>>> (.a'o) as the source for further consideration.
> >>>>>>> None of the existing rules of Lojban (the baseline) is changed.
>

> >>>>>>> *Rafybri*
> >>>>>>> *
> >>>>>>> *

> >>>>>>>https://groups.google.com/d/**msg/lojban/-/kgWQbXt6Q-QJ<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/kgWQbXt6Q-QJ>
> >>>>>>> .

> >>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.

> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@**
> >>>>>>> googlegroups.com <lojban%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.
> >>>>>>> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/**
> >>>>>>> group/lojban?hl=en <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?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.
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[gleki]

On Apr 26, 2:47 am, Jacob Errington <nicty...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that the zo'u-construct I used at the beginning will parse,
> notwithstanding that I'm almost certain that I've seen it used before, by
> skilled lojbanists. However, you're right about the second one, that [cu]
> was from my initial idea of the sentence; removing it makes the sentence
> parse, and maintain the intended meaning.
> Nothing in there is used purely for the sake of complexity: it's just the
> way I write in Lojban.

i seki'u e'o do ba ze'e pilno lo do cusku tadji vau i'o

> The most complicated thing there is stuff like
> [CONNECTIVE BAI BO] and jai, but neither of those are really that
> complicated. Oh, and ad hoc lujvo that are 100% non-cilmo, like [kamseljmi]
> -> [ka se jimpe]. I do that for shortening, and to remember rafsi.
>
> mu'o mi'e la tsani
>

> On 25 April 2012 07:11, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Also, it seems to me- and granted I haven't seen much of your writing, so
> > I could be wrong- that you're purposefully using very advanced grammatical
> > constructs. I would suggest trimming the fat, as it were, considering I'm
> > pretty sure gleki is still a nintadni. I consider myself a middle-level
> > jbopre and I had trouble understanding you.
>

> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:01 AM, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> doi tsani do na drani pe'i loka pilno zo zo'u
>

> >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Jacob Errington <nicty...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>> i doi la gleki zo'u tu'e
> >>> i je'a se nandu lo nu jai galfi lo jbobau i mi tugni la djanatyn djons
> >>> lo du'u su'o lo jbopre goi ko'a troci gi'eku'i iesa'e fliba
> >>> i la deple'u mlana .e la xorlo cu po'o  zo'u snada gi'eki'ubo je'a ke
> >>> jbobau sarcu
> >>> i ta'onai tu'a zo co .eja'ebo zoi raf col raf se smuni lo do seldji vau
> >>> pe'i
> >>> i sa'e lu mi joi lo pampe'o cu simxu co kansa co zgana co nu tigni co
> >>> pendo li'u mupli tu'a zo co
> >>> i si'a zo simcolkancolzgacolnuntigycolpe'o mupli ra'oi col
> >>> i ku'i lo lujvo pe zo col so'aroi clani dukse vau iepei
> >>> i lo lujvo pe secau tu'a cy. zi'e noi ke'a se mupli zo
> >>> nunpedytigkezyzgakansi'u noi ke'a lujvo fo lo bi'unai clani tanru cu je'a
> >>> zanmau
> >>> i ja'o lo tai lujvo cu jai frili fai lo kamseljmi ki'u lo du'u so'eroiku
> >>> lo seltau cu srana lo za'umoi sumti tu'u
>
> >>> mu'o mi'e la tsani
>

> >>> On 25 April 2012 06:27, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> doi gleki do na pamoi troci lonu xagzengau lo jbobau
> >>>> to lu ko'a gasnu lonu ko'e zenba loka xamgu ko'i kei ko'o li'u smuni toi
> >>>> .i so'a jbopre ti'u lo nintadni to mi cmima toi cu troci lo se go'i
> >>>> .i da'aso'ada na snada
> >>>> .i ro go'i cu te cusku lu ko pamoi nitcu lonu cilre lo jbobau gi'e
> >>>> remoi nitcu lonu jimpe
> >>>> .i ca lonu la'edi'u mulno ku curmi lonu troci li'u
> >>>> .i puti'u lonu nanca li pamu ku la xorlo .e la.dotsaid. se steci lonu
> >>>> snada
>

> >>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>> Thinking about it, the whole "counter-intuitive" thing is actually a
> >>>>> really good reason against placing cnita1 in klama3 for nitkla. Making
> >>>>> klama3, the origin, be cnita1, the thing below, logically means placing
> >>>>> cnita2, the thing above, in klama3, the destination, making nitkla in case
> >>>>> mean, in essence "to go upwards". The reason this is counter-intuitive is
> >>>>> because it means using a word that means "down"- or at least a meaning
> >>>>> associated, "under, below, etc."- to make a word that means "up". We have a
> >>>>> word that means "up" in exactly the same way cnita means "down"- gapru- so
> >>>>> it would make more sense to use that for a "go up" lujvo. {lu ko'a gapru
> >>>>> ko'e li'u mintu soi lu ko'a se cnita ko'e li'u}
>

> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:01 AM, gleki <gleki.is.my.n...@gmail.com

> >>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> At first I must say that I'm not a member of any
> >>>>>>>>>> language-developing committee (BPFK or anything).
> >>>>>>>>>> And the following is just an idea how the flexibility of Lojban
> >>>>>>>>>> can be enriched.
> >>>>>>>>>> Nobody is asked to use the following when writing or speaking
> >>>>>>>>>> real Lojban.
> >>>>>>>>>> Everything here should be marked as exclusively experimental and
> >>>>>>>>>> (.a'o) as the source for further consideration.
> >>>>>>>>>> None of the existing rules of Lojban (the baseline) is changed.
>

> >>>>>>>>>> *Rafybri*
> >>>>>>>>>> *
> >>>>>>>>>> *

> >>>>>>>>>> I always noticed how lujvo break the transparent logic of bridi.
> >>>>>>>>>> Let's look at {nitkla} which means {klama lo cnita}.
> >>>>>>>>>> Although it's much easier to learn {nitkla} rather then "descend"
> >>>>>>>>>> (in English they differ in sounding considerably)
> >>>>>>>>>> nobody can guess that {nitkla} means "descend" and doesn't mean
> >>>>>>>>>> "go in a lower position under something" without getting the translation
> >>>>>>>>>> beforehand.
>
> >>>>>>>>> I disagree. I argue that it is actually rather easy to determine
> >>>>>>>>> the meaning of nitkla.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Let us assume that nitkla is a lujvo formed from the tanru {cnita
> >>>>>>>>> klama}, which may or may not be true. {cnita klama} is a "below type-of
> >>>>>>>>> going", i.e.. "going below", i.e. "descending".
>
> >>>>>>>>> How is that difficult to figure out?
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Although anybody is free to say "klama lo cnita" instead
> >>>>>>>>>> it will lead to lengthier speech.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> What I suggest is to glue bridi together into a new form of lujvo
> >>>>>>>>>> called "rafybri".
> >>>>>>>>>> That's how it works.
> >>>>>>>>>> 1. First rule
>
> >>>>>>>>>> 4 new rafsi
> >>>>>>>>>> zve <= be fe lo
> >>>>>>>>>> zvi <= be fi lo
> >>>>>>>>>> zvo <= be fo lo
> >>>>>>>>>> zvu <= be fu
>

> ...
>
> read more »