telgau

[MorphemeAddict]

Are all these definitions in {lojbo jufsisku} right? I'm wondering specifically about "telgau" and related forms. 

telga'o lujvo g1=s2 is locked, preventing access to g2 by g3, the lock being s1 using mechanism s3. Cf. stela, ganlo, telgau, ga'orgau.
telgau lujvo g1 locks lock s1 on s2 by mechanism s3. Cf. stela, gasnu, telga'o, ga'orgau.
telcaugau lujvo g1 unlocks/unseals c1=s2 using lock/seal s1 with mechnism s3. Cf. stela, claxu, gasnu, toltelgau, telga'o, ga'orgau.
toltelgau lujvo g1 unlocks lock s1 on s2 by mechanism s3. Cf. to'e, stela, gasnu, telgau, telga'o, telcaugau, kargau. stevo

[Jacob Errington]

Well, in analysing the jvajvo forms of these, in Lojban:

lo ka telga'o cu ka ce'u poi ke'a se stela ce'u ce'u cu ganlo ce'u ce'u      or

lo ka telga'o cu ka ce'u se stela ce'u ce'u gi'e ganlo ce'u ce'u

g1=s2 is locked by lock s1 using mechanism s3, preventing access to g2 from g3

The jvojva make telga'o suck. IMO, ganlo also is sufficient; adding [fi'o stela] helps in precision.

telgau:

lo ka telgau cu ka ce'u gasnu lo nu ce'u stela ce'u ce'u

g1 locks lock s1 locking s2 with locking mechanism s3 (jeez, I sound like noralujv on that one)

This one is jvojva, that makes me happy.

telcaugau:

lo ka telcaugau cu ka ce'u gasnu lo nu ce'u goi ko'a claxu lo ka ce'u stela ko'a ce'u

g1 causes c1=s2 to lack being locked by lock s1 using locking mechanism s3

i.e. x1=g1 releases lock x3=s1 on x2=c1=s2 using locking mechanism x4=s3

Also jvajvo, but less so than the next one. I personally prefer this one over the next one, as "lacking the property of being locked" is clearer than "opposite(lock)", in my opinion.

toltelgau

lo ka toltelgau cu ka ce'u gasnu lo nu ce'u to'e stela ce'u ce'u

g1 causes lock s1 to not lock s2 with locking mechanism s3

Completely jvajvo. However, the way I see it, [to'e] is much less clear than [claxu].

I think that [cirko] instead of [claxu] might be better; it creates the implication that the lock *was* locked before being unlocked, which claxu doesn't quite imply. Using claxu might just mean that the x1 is simply causing the lock to remain locked, i.e. lack the property of being locked. However, cirko really does imply that the x1 is causing the lock to lose the property of being locked and thus that it was unlocked prior to the event.

Similarly, cirko can be used for the inverse, with [to'e]: to'e stela cirko gasnu -> toltelcrigau.

Using cirko has the advantage of supplying an "under circumstances" place that can be used to specify various details pertaining to the event (maybe some locks are only lockable/unlockable at certain times or maybe some other condition needs to be met, such as [lo nu pilno lo ckiku] ;) ).

In general for asymmetrical lujvo, it is possible to "flip" the tanru elements into abstractions:

rodgau -> gasnu lo nu broda

rodclagau -> gasnu lo nu claxu lo ka broda

rodclacrigau -> gasnu lo nu cirko lo ka claxu lo ka broda

etc.

Finally, analysing the lujvo structure in Lojban is always more helpful, and usually aids in creating coherent lujvo.

mu'o mi'e la tsani

--
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.

[MorphemeAddict]

Jacob,

I think you missed my point. Why is gasnu (-gau) involved in words relating to locks? 

stevo

[Jacob Errington]

Oh. 

Well, like I said, using the gasnu rafsi simply produces a lujvo, [broda]gau, with a meaning such as [gasnu lo nu broda]

Now, if [broda] is a predicate meaning "unlocked", then logically, we wind up with [gasnu lo nu "unlock"].

[gasnu] is vague however. Unlocking is necessarily a physical event, and thus perhaps [broda]ri'a is more appropriate, where the person unlocking the lock can be referred to with {jai [broda]ri'a}.

You are right about my misunderstanding; I didn't think the main question was the -gau ending. I figured it was more along the lines of what constitutes a suitable selbri for "unlocked". Sorry about that.

mu'o mi'e la tsani

[Pierre Abbat]

On Tuesday, February 14, 2012 01:20:37 MorphemeAddict wrote:
> Are all these definitions in {lojbo jufsisku} right? I'm
> wondering specifically about "telgau" and related forms.
> telga'o

> *lujvo* g1=s2 is locked, preventing access to g2 by g3, the lock being s1

> using mechanism s3. Cf. stela, ganlo, telgau, ga'orgau.
>
> telgau

> *lujvo* g1 locks lock s1 on s2 by mechanism s3.

> Cf. stela, gasnu, telga'o, ga'orgau.
>
> telcaugau

> *lujvo* g1 unlocks/unseals c1=s2 using lock/seal s1 with mechnism s3.

> Cf. stela, claxu, gasnu, toltelgau, telga'o, ga'orgau.
>
> toltelgau

> *lujvo* g1 unlocks lock s1 on s2 by mechanism s3.

> Cf. to'e, stela, gasnu, telgau, telga'o, telcaugau, kargau.

I think "lock" and "unlock" should be "telga'ogau" and "telkargau". "telgau",
I think, should mean "to put a lock on", that is, if you have a door with a
hole for a lock, you put a lock in it. "telcaugau" would then mean "to make
something lockless", and "toltelgau" makes me wonder what a "tolstela" (an
unlock?) is. (There are two prefixes "un-" in English; one is from "*anti" and
may be closer in meaning to "fat-", and the other is from "*ne" and means
"tol-" or "nal-". Some words, such as "untied", can have either and it's
sometimes hard to tell which.) Something can have a lock and not be locked.

Pierre
--
li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du
li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci

[MorphemeAddict]

How does "gasnu" fit into the words for 'lock' or 'unlock' or 'add a lock to', i.e., telgau, toltelgau, telcaugau. It seems to me that the "gau" component should be "ga'o", but there is a separate word "telga'o", not equal to "telgau". 

stevo 

 

--
li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du
li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci

[Pierre Abbat]

On Friday, February 17, 2012 15:08:04 MorphemeAddict wrote:
> How does "gasnu" fit into the words for 'lock' or 'unlock' or 'add a lock
> to', i.e., telgau, toltelgau, telcaugau. It seems to me that the "gau"
> component should be "ga'o", but there is a separate word "telga'o", not
> equal to "telgau".

"-gau" usually means "x1 makes that (whatever comes before gau, with its
places shifted by 1)". x2 of "gasnu" is an event, which is the abstraction of
whatever comes before "gau". So:
stela: x1 is a lock on x2 with mechanism x3
telgau: x1 makes x2 be a lock on x3 with mechanism x4.
"telgau", as I interpret it, does not imply that x3 is locked. A locksmith
takes a door which does not have a lock and puts a lock in it: that's
"telgau". I put the key in the lock and turn it so that the door cannot be
opened without the key: that's "telga'ogau". The door cannot be opened without
the key: that's "telga'o".

Pierre
--
When a barnacle settles down, its brain disintegrates.
J� n�o percebe nada, j� n�o percebe nada.

[MorphemeAddict]

I get it now. I assumed that "tel" was from "te", but it's from "stela". 

duh. Thanks for your patience, guys. 

stevo

Já não percebe nada, já não percebe nada.

[Muhammad an-Nuqrashi]

I might be confused here but I think that Lojban4Bigenners says that "tel-" was reserved for Greek-things while "ter-" was the only exception of "sel-" sisters which this thread appears to be discussing...

?

[la .lindar.]

What version are you reading? -tel- is the rafsi for -stela-.