Should I quit learning Lojban?

[shanoxilt]

coi ro do

I've recently been considering whether I should abandon learning Lojban in favor of Esperanto or Toki Pona. Thus far, it has been a difficult and unrewarding language. Yet, something in the back of my mind continues to draw me to it. What should I do?

[Michael Turniansky]

ko co'a cilre gi'e te preti

(continue learning and ask questions)

.imi'a ti zvati mu'i lo nu sidju po'onai

(we are here to help)

.iku'i do la'acu'i zmadu fi lo ka se sidju bu'u lo nintadni liste

(but you may be aided more on the beginners' list)

           --gejyspa

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 12:58 AM, shanoxilt <osiris_hade...@hotmail.com> wrote:

coi ro do

I've recently been considering whether I should abandon learning Lojban in favor of Esperanto or Toki Pona. Thus far, it has been a difficult and unrewarding language. Yet, something in the back of my mind continues to draw me to it. What should I do?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[selpa'i]

la'o me. shanoxilt .me cusku di'e
> coi ro do

coi do'u

Esperantlingvo eble estas interesa, kaj certe ne estas malficila. Sed
laŭ mia opinio ĝi ne estas pli interesa ol Loĵbano, ĉar ĝi estas tre
simila al aliaj latinidaj lingvoj.

ni'o ju'o cu'i lo sperybau cu cinri .i je ju'o ja'ai na nandu .i ku'i
pe'i na zmadu lo jbobau lo ka cinri .i ki'u bo mutce lo ka simsa lo
drata ke latmo bangu


toki pona li pona a. mi pilin e ni: jan ale li ken kama sona e toki
pona. pona mute. tenpo suno kama la sina pini e kama sona e toki a a a.

ni'o ie lo tokpona cu xamgu gi'a sampu .i mi jinvi la'e di'e .i ro prenu
cu kakne lo nu crebi'o tu'a lo tokpona .i tai sampu .i zo'o .u'i ca lo
bavlamdei do mo'u tadni ty

I doubt you have to abandon anything to learn Toki Pona. You can learn
it and then come back to Lojban the next day. ;)


Obviously, the answer is that you should do what you most want to do.
Follow your dreams. Chances are you haven't found the right way (for
you) to study Lojban yet; Would you like to tell us how you did it so
far? What are the problems you are encountering that make you so frustrated.

Sorry if this wasn't helpful, but I can neither in good conscience force
you to stay if you don't want to, nor is it my desire that you leave
Lojban behind. It's entirely up to you. If you need help with Lojban, we
are there for you.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

[.arpis.]

.i pe'i .e'u ko ca'o cilre la .lojban. .i pe'i ri ci'irmau gi'e zmadu fi lo ka tikygau lo pu'u pensi

(I'd say, keep learning lojban; IMO it's more interesting and changes how you think more)

Also, I'd like to say that I have never studied Esperanto (but I did study French and have heard Spanish) and I mostly understood selpa'i's Esperanto statement.

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

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

--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

[selpa'i]

la .arpis. cu cusku di'e

> Also, I'd like to say that I have never studied Esperanto (but I did
> study French and have heard Spanish) and I mostly understood selpa'i's
> Esperanto statement.

Maybe you would have understood more of it if I hadn't forgotten some
articles (I think three "la" are missing). zo'o

[la gleki]

pe'i zoi e'o la e'o simsa zo le i ku'i einai pe'i roroi pilno zoi e'o la e'o

[shanoxilt]

Obviously, the answer is that you should do what you most want to do.  

Follow your dreams. Chances are you haven't found the right way (for

you) to study Lojban yet;

I'm terrible at studying. I can't seem to stick with it consistently. :(

 

Would you like to tell us how you did it so far? What are the problems you are encountering that make you so frustrated. 

The logical aspect of the language is a bit counterintuitive, perhaps unnatural. Also, gismu with more than 3 sumti are difficult to remember. In addition to this, there is always a new discussion about reforms despite the fact that so few have learned standard Lojban. 

 

Sorry if this wasn't helpful, but I can neither in good conscience force

you to stay if you don't want to, nor is it my desire that you leave

Lojban behind. It's entirely up to you. If you need help with Lojban, we

are there for you.

Thank you. I just don't want to disappoint myself and other Lojbani. If you recall, I am one of the moderators of /r/Lojban on Reddit so it seems I should have mastered this language by now.

[iesk]

Le vendredi 19 avril 2013 06:58:40 UTC+2, shanoxilt a écrit :

coi ro do

I've recently been considering whether I should abandon learning Lojban in favor of Esperanto or Toki Pona. Thus far, it has been a difficult and unrewarding language. Yet, something in the back of my mind continues to draw me to it. What should I do?

coi do do'u

ni'o .e'u do segau co'a se pa'arbau  .i zu'u la pacnybau ku fadni ru'e fi lo zasti bangu  .i mulno sa'enai beki'u lo ka ce'u se jicmu lo ronbau kei gi'e bredi lo nu pilno  .i zu'unai nalfadni lo ka citri ce'u kei .e lo ka kulnu lo selbau be ce'u keiku po'onai  .i ja'a steci gi'e ku'inai pluka je cinri je .e'u tercli

Jes, lernu Esperanton. Kiel fakte ekzistanta lingvo ghi estas kvazau normala lingvo. Ghi estas «kompleta», char bazita sur la Europaj lingvoj, kaj uzebla. Sed ghia historio kaj kulturo, ekzemple, estas malbanalaj. Ghi estas siaspeca, kaj pro tio ghi plachas al mi kaj interesas min, kaj mi opinias, ke ghi estas lerninda.

ni'o lo lobybau zo'u do djica lo du'u do lo bangu ge'i pilno gi zbasu pe'a vau paunai zo'oru'e

To me, Lojban and Esperanto as passtimes are too different to be in the same league, as it were, except of course insofar as competing for one's time (which is perhaps your whole point). I guess that holds for TP, too. Would you consider giving up, say, painting for soccer or cooking? I'd say learning E (for a speaker of an IE language, at least) means learning 'another' new language, albeit a unique one, but then which language isn't unique? As for L, there's still so many semantic fields to plow with-tool the very-uncommon (technical grammar, that is). ;)

-iesk

[shanoxilt]

ni'o .e'u do segau co'a se pa'arbau  .i zu'u la pacnybau ku fadni ru'e fi lo zasti bangu  .i mulno sa'enai beki'u lo ka ce'u se jicmu lo ronbau kei gi'e bredi lo nu pilno  .i zu'unai nalfadni lo ka citri ce'u kei .e lo ka kulnu lo selbau be ce'u keiku po'onai  .i ja'a steci gi'e ku'inai pluka je cinri je .e'u tercli

Jes, lernu Esperanton. Kiel fakte ekzistanta lingvo ghi estas kvazau normala lingvo. Ghi estas «kompleta», char bazita sur la Europaj lingvoj, kaj uzebla. Sed ghia historio kaj kulturo, ekzemple, estas malbanalaj. Ghi estas siaspeca, kaj pro tio ghi plachas al mi kaj interesas min, kaj mi opinias, ke ghi estas lerninda.

ni'o lo lobybau zo'u do djica lo du'u do lo bangu ge'i pilno gi zbasu pe'a vau paunai zo'oru'e

To me, Lojban and Esperanto as passtimes are too different to be in the same league, as it were, except of course insofar as competing for one's time (which is perhaps your whole point). I guess that holds for TP, too. Would you consider giving up, say, painting for soccer or cooking? I'd say learning E (for a speaker of an IE language, at least) means learning 'another' new language, albeit a unique one, but then which language isn't unique? As for L, there's still so many semantic fields to plow with-tool the very-uncommon (technical grammar, that is). ;)

-iesk

I have concerns because I perceive that Lojban has such potential, but I have no idea how to demonstrate it. Also, unlike many Lojbani, I don't know anything about computer programming so I don't fit its culture (such as it is).

[iesk]

Me neither, not a bit (no pun intended).

[John E. Clifford]

Pini Kama sona (no 'e')

Sent from my iPad

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

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.

[John E. Clifford]

Yeah, sure!

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 19, 2013, at 16:42, iesk <pa....@gmx.de> wrote:

> Me neither, not a bit (no pun intended).
>

[selpa'i]

la John E. Clifford cu cusku di'e

> Pini Kama sona (no 'e')

This is a Lojban list, but since this seems important to you, allow me
to say that one of the example sentences in jan Sonja's textbook uses
"pini e". "pini e" is a relatively common phrase. I don't see why it
should be wrong. It's simply the transitive use of "pini".

To make this have anything to do with Lojban, I will also say it in Lojban:

ni'o lo me dei moi cu lojbo mriste .i ku'i ki'u lo nu la'e de'u simlu lo
ka vajni do zo'u .e'o do curmi lo nu mi do jungau lo du'u zoi ty. pini e
.ty se vasru lo ctucku pe la .sonias. (to noi finti lo tokpona doi io na
da'i djuno toi) .i zoi ty. pini e .ty ma'i fadni selsku .i mi na djuno
lo du'u da'i ma kau nibli lo du'u toldra .i sa'u relselsu'i te pilno .i
(to je'u fa'u gi zoi ty. pini .ty gi zoi ty. pini e .ty panra fa'u gi zo
tolcfa gi zo tolcfagau toi)

[selpa'i]

la selpa'i cu cusku di'e

> ni'o lo me dei moi cu lojbo mriste .i ku'i ki'u lo nu la'e de'u simlu lo
> ka vajni do zo'u .e'o do curmi lo nu mi do jungau lo du'u zoi ty. pini e
> .ty se vasru lo ctucku pe la .sonias.

(to ua .u'a se'i mi pu zi facki lo du'u la .sonias. na .e la .piies. cu
finti lo ctucku .i ku'i to'e ni'i nai lo du'u co'e cu so'i roi zilpli fa
zoi ty. pini e .ty toi)

[John E. Clifford]

Relevantly, toki pona, like Lojban, is still in a state of flux, so some older lessons (and Sonja's lessons are inevitably very old indeed) are out of date. The context suggests that 'pini' here is a modal(in the non Lojbanic sense) and so takes a bare VP after it (only this will allow the 'e' before the DO of 'kama sona',which would have to be 'pi' or null if 'Kama sona' were NP).

Sent from my iPad

[la gleki]

On Saturday, April 20, 2013 12:24:12 AM UTC+4, shanoxilt wrote:

Obviously, the answer is that you should do what you most want to do.  

Follow your dreams. Chances are you haven't found the right way (for

you) to study Lojban yet;

I'm terrible at studying. I can't seem to stick with it consistently. :(

 

Would you like to tell us how you did it so far? What are the problems you are encountering that make you so frustrated. 

The logical aspect of the language is a bit counterintuitive, perhaps unnatural. Also, gismu with more than 3 sumti are difficult to remember. In addition to this, there is always a new discussion about reforms despite the fact that so few have learned standard Lojban. 

mi na jinvi lo du'u ma'a so'iroi casnu lo srana be lo nu galfi lo jbobau i sa'u ma'a casnu lo vrici smuni ja gerna nabmi poi zasti bau lo so'a bangu

i je'u so'u da poi se terdi cu casnu lo simsa i la'e di'u mupli pa lo krinu lo nu mi prami lo jbogu'e cecmu i uinairu'e lo jbopre po'o ba'uru'e casnu lo cinri ke bangu stura pevpagbu

I don't think that we discuss very often what to radically change in Lojban. We simple discuss various semantic or grammatical problems that exist in almost all languages. The fact is that very few people on the earth discuss similar things. This is one of the reasons why i like Lojban community. It's a bit disappointing that only (<-- yes, I'm exaggerating a bit) Lojbanists discuss interesting aspects of language structure.

[iesk]

ni'o la selpa'i ku cusku di'e

>ni'o ie lo tokpona cu xamgu gi'a sampu

ni'o sei banbau se'u zo gi'a logji valsi .i mi te smuni lodo jufra la'e zoi. aficalanguidjavlajbanistan. Toki Pona is good or simple .aficalanguidjavlajbanistan. mu'a .i ti'e lo si'o xamgu keiku ju'e lo si'o sampu keiku se sidbo pa da lo selbau be lo tokpona sei dei jai nandu .i mi kucli .ibo da'i ma xe fanva zoi. gic. Toki Pona is good, or simple .gic. sei me'o slaka bu cu se jundi .i va'i za'e friti su'ore lo valsi fi'o se tavla fi lo mintu

{gi'a} is a logical connector. In the context of Selpa'i's sentence, a non-logical 'or' could also be expected. Phrasing things differently to encircle the intended meaning. How to do that in Lojban?

Also, my use of {mintu} is nonsense, I fear (mintu ma?).

[Betsemes]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 12:58 AM, shanoxilt

I have been and still am struggling with learning Lojban. I knew about
Lojban some years ago while I was learning the Klingon Language
(mostly because I was a trekkie). Back then, I tried to learn both of
them and found myself struggling with both languages. As I studied
both languages I realized that 1) I was not really interested in
learning a language that cannot be used for real like Klingon was with
its severely limited vocabulary that was created to fit a fictional
alien race and not humans. 2) The whole lot of usage of gutural sounds
made me get into the (maybe wrong) feeling that I was learning
garbage. I ended up deciding I didn't like Klingon. On the other hand,
my computer science studies made Lojban even more interesting as I
learned about it. So I decided to give Lojban my full attention and
quit Klingon.

But I have been very inconsistent on learning its vocabulary. I
remember the time I first came to this list. Back then one of the
current experts, selpa'i, was not here yet. It has been a long time,
and I still cannot read a single Lojban line.

More recently, I have been doing what I think has solved my
procrastination problem; a flashcards program called Mnemosyne. I
unsuccessfuly used another flashcards program before, Cue Cards.
Mnemosyne is more robust and feature-rich while still looking clean. I
only complained about a single flaw, but now it's fixed and I'm ready
to import the whole of jbovlaste into it sorted by descending
frequency (that thread was a godsend).

So, for me, it's now or never. I think I have never had a better
opportunity. Well, working on a fictional story set on a
Lojban-speaking country has helped.

So maybe it's a matter of finding the right study way for you.

mu'o mi'e betsemes

[la gleki]

oh wait, i'll upload another freq dic now.

[Betsemes]

On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 9:38 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mnemosyne is more robust and feature-rich while still looking clean. I
>> only complained about a single flaw, but now it's fixed and I'm ready
>> to import the whole of jbovlaste into it sorted by descending
>> frequency (that thread was a godsend).
>
> oh wait, i'll upload another freq dic now.

Thank you for the warning. I'd regret it if I had already imported it.
Could you tell us when your work on these lists is finished?

ki'e mu'o mi'e betsemes

[la gleki]

It is finished (see the last message that i sent 40 minutes ago in that thread). It is finished at least how i understand it. I checked all the words sorted by frequency till No 4043  and then added the rest of the words from jbovlaste. For me 4043 words are enough both for flashcards and MultiLing. Anyway word No 4043 had absolute frequency of only 11 so estimation error was likely to be high.

However, notice that it has cmavo clusters like {lonu} etc. I think those who learn lojban must be familiar with most frequent cmavo clusters as well even though their meaning can be directly derived from their components.

P.S. au do ca'o jmina lo frili je sampu be do jufra la tatoebas

[John E Clifford]

Back to the original question, or rather the subsection on which language to learn.  If you are short on time or patience, then go for toki pona.  Although the claim that you can learn it in a day is a bit optimistic, you can produce reasonable sentences which say what you mean by the end of the day and pretty much read everything by the end of a week of writing to the various tp lists.  The vocabulary is strange but, at only 125 words or so long, easily mastered.  The grammar is very restricted and simple; the hardest thing will be expressing any complex ideas (and dealing with numbers, of which there are virtually none).  There are a couple of unofficial lesson sets which are adequate for this language.
If you are a bit more ambitious, try Esperanto.  You will probably be able to get the gist of things in Esperanto right from the start, since much of the vocabulary is more or less familiar (the more so the more you know of Latin,  Greek, some Romance Languages, German, and English) and the grammar is familiar from all the mentioned languages.  The 16 Rules will get you through many of the details and learning the pronoun system takes care of much of the rest.  But writing it is harder, since you don't know which of the available forms -- from all the languages listed -- are actually used for the meaning you have in mind.  Sometimes your favorite is not used at all and sometimes it is used but in a slightly different meaning from what you want.  But international and scientific words are all available immediately.  For English speakers, remembering agreement, plurals in j rather than s, and the accusative case are the big problems.  There are dozens of good primers in English (and every other major language).
Lojban is more ambitious still,  since there are no familiar vocabulary and even the "basic" vocabulary is 3000 words or so.  The grammar of simple sentences is simple but feels unfamiliar, since many "objects" are things which would take prepositions in English.  But once over that oddity, things run fairly smoothly for quite a while.  In fact, almost none of the really complex pieces of Lojban are actually needed and those that are are easily analogized to familiar patterns in English.  Unfortunately, there has not been until now a decent primer -- or even a really bad one, so the process of learning what you really need and what is window dressing or advanced work has to be by trial and error.  Using the beginners list is a good idea in that people on it tend to be at a lower level and still learning rudiments -- for all they do try to fly too early.  Folks on this list tend to be a bit better and also terribly fond of esoterica -- not good role models, in short.

---

From: la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Should I quit learning Lojban?

[John E Clifford]

I hope we don't often discuss what to radically change in Lojban, at least before we discuss whether Lojban needs any radical changes.  That involves going back to a specification of what a logical language is and seeing in what ways Lojban falls short (or overachieves).  In a paper I was writing for LCC5 (but dropped) I worked with the minimal definition: a monparse language in which the parse of any discourse revealed its logical structure, and looked at what could be added back to the logical structure derived from a discourse that would keep the structure but be "sufficiently languagey".  Given that definition and approach, Lojban needs no radical change, and few minor tinkerings (vocabulary excepted).  What definitions and approaches suggest the need for something more radical?

---

From: la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 11:36 PM

Subject: Re: [lojban] Should I quit learning Lojban?

[shanoxilt]

In fact, almost none of the really complex pieces of Lojban are actually needed and those that are are easily analogized to familiar patterns in English.

But if I'm just going to use Lojban as encoded English, what's the point of learning it?

 

  Unfortunately, there has not been until now a decent primer -- or even a really bad one, so the process of learning what you really need and what is window dressing or advanced work has to be by trial and error.  Using the beginners list is a good idea in that people on it tend to be at a lower level and still learning rudiments -- for all they do try to fly too early.  Folks on this list tend to be a bit better and also terribly fond of esoterica -- not good role models, in short.

I've noticed this. :\ 

[John E Clifford]

Analogizing isn't encoding.  Lojban is basically the language of logic, which, for all sorts of historical reasons, is SAE, that is, English, by and large.  If you want something radically different, try Hopi or Menominee (Whorf's favorites).  Still, Lojban's vocabulary is not an English relex (fairly obviously) nor is its basic grammar conceptually like English.  It just is that the patterns of things turning up is more or less the same, {lo du'u} and "that" for example (which just turned up in something today, not perhaps a typical case).  They are relatively easy to learn -- or would be if rationally taught (but a word list and a pumping technique combined with a reference grammar is not rational teaching).

---

From: shanoxilt <osiris_hade...@hotmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Cc: John E Clifford <kali9...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 2:11 PM

[Ian Johnson]

On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 3:11 PM, shanoxilt <osiris_hade...@hotmail.com> wrote:

In fact, almost none of the really complex pieces of Lojban are actually needed and those that are are easily analogized to familiar patterns in English.

But if I'm just going to use Lojban as encoded English, what's the point of learning it?

First, even for Lojban as it exists now, I think that comment was somewhat overstated. The very basics are similar, that's true. Even somewhat more complicated things can be fairly well approximated by straightforward replacements. For example, FA (and the default ordering, as a special case) are essentially verb-specific prepositions, and NU can often be translated as various clause-introducing words like "that" and "to", etc. While English lacks the tools for unambiguous clause separation that Lojban has, only in rather complicated sentences does this tend to be a practical problem. The real problem in my experience, which I had even before learning Lojban, is that sufficiently getting complex English sentences to behave the way you want results in them being intolerably awkward. (That sentence exemplifies itself to a fair extent.) Complex Lojban sentences in my experience "flow" nicer than their English counterparts, especially in writing.

One of the most basic things that isn't nearly as easy to translate by approximate replacement is things involving ka/ni. In particular, {zmadu} and its various counterparts are quite structurally different from their direct English counterparts, and because they take generic bridi rather than just adjectives, they are also more extensible than their counterparts.

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

[Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG]

John E Clifford wrote:
> Analogizing isn't encoding. Lojban is basically the language of logic,
> which, for all sorts of historical reasons, is SAE, that is, English, by
> and large. If you want something radically different, try Hopi or
> Menominee (Whorf's favorites). Still, Lojban's vocabulary is not an
> English relex (fairly obviously) nor is its basic grammar conceptually
> like English. It just is that the patterns of things turning up is more
> or less the same, {lo du'u} and "that" for example (which just turned up
> in something today, not perhaps a typical case). They are relatively
> easy to learn -- or would be if rationally taught (but a word list and a
> pumping technique combined with a reference grammar is not rational
> teaching).

...

> But if I'm just going to use Lojban as encoded English, what's the point
> of learning it?
>
> Unfortunately, there has not been until now a decent primer -- or
> even a really bad one, so the process of learning what you really
> need and what is window dressing or advanced work has to be by trial
> and error.

I've seen sentiments like this before in the past few months, and it
makes me wonder - doesn't anyone use Nick Nicolas's and Robin Turner's
introductory textbook? And if so, what are its flaws that make one
describe it as not "even a really bad one"?

Nick expanded Robin's original primer lessons because everyone said that
they were so great to learn from, and the links to the book are on the
same web page as the links to the reference grammar.



As for learning methodology, it depends on what aspect of the language
you are trying to learn.

Vocabulary in any language is difficult. Even languages with high
cognate levels are still difficult - one can learn Basic English rather
trivially, since the vocabulary is essentially English words, but you
have to learn which words are NOT in Basic English, and how to
paraphrase around them.

Those with few cognates are but a little harder. You invent your own
hooks; Nora's association of "manci" with a Wonder bread truck, making
her think of "munchies, since she likes to snack on bread, is the
classic Lojban example. And the need for cognates largely stops at the
gismu list (and possibly the cmavo, many of which have ties to specific
gismu), since lujvo are analytically decomposable.

Learning vocabulary basically comes down to memorizing some minimum
number of words dependent on your desired fluency level, whether by
flashcards or some other technique. Greater fluency requires a larger
vocabulary, though in Lojban one can cheat a lot by learning to compose
tanru and lujvo quickly on the fly. I used LogFlash (flashcards) to
learn the Lojban lexicon, and it has stuck with me even though I rarely
actually get around to using the language in non-trivial ways.

With Russian, I did little direct memorization, instead bothering to
look up every word I did not know, repeatedly if necessary, in a
dictionary. After a half dozen times looking a word up, I usually have
learned it to some extent. The same is probably true for how I learned
many of the cmavo in Lojban.



Place structures - well yes, it can be hard to learn the places of words
with more than a couple of places. But then, everyone who has learned
English verbs has learned what ambiguous prepositions mean when attached
to those verbs. Not by memorizing them, but through usage. If a gismu
(or other brivla) has more than 2 places, learn the first two, and that
there exist additional places (which you will look up if and when they
seem relevant). Then start using the words. Again, the extra places
that you use the most will be assimilated fairly quickly by looking them
up when needed. That many of the place structures have patterns common
to a lot of words is a useful observation that aid in gaining those places.


Most of the logic of Lojban can be learned formulaically - "to say XXX,
use the pattern YYY". Once you learn the patterns, someone can explain
the logical basis for those patterns if you really want to know. But
surely, Robin Powell is not going to need to teach his infants formal
logic before they will understand what he is saying, just like no one
needs to explain what a direct object and a prepositional phrase are in
order for you to understand English. You learn like a child does, and
absorb the patterns, and then later go back to study the formalisms.

Covering the other of shanoxilt's expressed issues:

Much of the language debate on Lojban list, however esoteric, is not
relevant or essential to being able to understand and use the language.
People can debate the "correctness" of "who" vs "whom", of "fewer
than" vs "less than", etc in English, and the discussions can get
esoteric, but you will likely be understood even if you use them
incorrectly. The best example of this for me is xorlo, which I find so
esoteric that almost any explanation washes over me like so many words
and is forgotten 10 minutes later. But xorxes says that if I use Lojban
the way I used it before xorlo was invented, I likely won't make any
"errors", and I'll be understood, even if my style may seem a little
antiquated because I use "le" sometimes when a xorlo aficionado might
prefer "lo" (and I seem to have no more problem reading post-xorlo
Lojban than earlier forms).

But for all the discussion of reforms, xorlo is the ONLY change that has
been adopted by LLG in 15+ years. English usage probably changes more
rapidly than that, especially as people gravitate to new media with
radically different styles (such as those needed to fit your thoughts
into 140 character chunks).

I more or less agree with pc's (John Clifford's) comments about encoded
English. Lojban sentences of more than a few words seldom could be
thought of as encoded English. Look at the numerous literal translation
examples in the reference grammar. As to whether Western logic is
fundamentally tied to European languages, I doubt that Loglan/Lojban
would have been invented if normal speakers of European languages
followed the rules of logic. And I will especially point out to pc the
work we did many years ago on negation in Lojban, which rather strongly
deviates from English in several ways (though one can mimic English
usage stylistically with naku for several of its aspects).

lojbab
--
Bob LeChevalier loj...@lojban.org www.lojban.org
President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc.

[John E Clifford]

My apologies.  L4B was a long time ago and has not had much press (that I remember or can find).  I can't judge how effective it might be but it is surely a step in the right direction (and goes some way toward making a couple of other points here).  The best way to learn Lojban (or any language) is still to read and write a lot of it (or speak  it, if you can manage) and th text book does a bit of that, but a reader would be nice and a more carefully selected vocabulary (although this looks pretty good on a brief glance).
xorlo may be the only change approved, but hardly the only one in active use.  Further, xorlo is much more about interpretation and rather little about usage, so that almost nothing (after earlier tidying about quantifiers) of older stuff has become incorrect (or new stuff correct).  Most of the other changes seems to have been in usage and, most dramatically/disastrously in vocabulary, but generally in precisely the esoteric discussions here, so not harming the useful language much.
Hopefully, the logic will be taught by example and not formulaically, especially since the examples are usually so far from thr formulae (the source of both Lojban having some claim to be a language and the cause of the worry about how logical it is). 
The historical roots of logical symbolism in Western culture and languages is too long to get into here (see Bochenski for some nice discussion) but the essential "Europeanness" (not actually, but that idea get fixed with "SAE") goes far deeper.  Whether speakers of European languages would have come up with Lojban without formal logic intervening is hard to judge; the point is, the Hopi wouldn't have, even with formal logic.

---

From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" <loj...@lojban.org>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 1:48 AM

Subject: Re: [lojban] Should I quit learning Lojban?

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Pierre Abbat]

On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:03:52 John E Clifford wrote:
> The historical roots of logical symbolism in Western culture and languages
> is too long to get into here (see Bochenski for some nice discussion) but
> the essential "Europeanness" (not actually, but that idea get fixed with
> "SAE") goes far deeper. Whether speakers of European languages would have
> come up with Lojban without formal logic intervening is hard to judge; the
> point is, the Hopi wouldn't have, even with formal logic.

Looking at the list of conlangs, it seems that most are invented by speakers
of European languages, but many of the languages are hardly SAE. I don't know
much about Hopi, but it may simply not be a Hopi thing to do to invent
languages. Lojban is definitely not SAE, for reasons I've listed before. In
particular, the tense system is completely unlike that of the SAE languages.

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

[John E Clifford]

"SAE" is a term of art and refers to certain types of what we would now call deep structures; in particular, it is not an averaging of European languages in any sense.  Lojban "tenses" are those of logic, essentially Prior's, and it took me a number of pages to demonstrate that they were tenses at all as they are very different from those of natural languages (four points -- or one repeated four times -- and three arrows).  The Hopi failure to come up with Lojban (or, indeed, formal logic in its common form) has nothing to do with their lack of interest in the project (though I suppose they do lacks interest) but to the radically different nature of their language.  [I should note that, while I regularly express the orthodox view on these matters, I am not perfectly sure they are correct, cf. Christianity]

---

From: Pierre Abbat <ph...@bezitopo.org>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:46 PM

Subject: Re: [lojban] Should I quit learning Lojban?

[Pierre Abbat]

On Thursday, April 25, 2013 06:59:55 John E Clifford wrote:
> "SAE" is a term of art and refers to certain types of what we would now call
> deep structures; in particular, it is not an averaging of European
> languages in any sense. Lojban "tenses" are those of logic, essentially
> Prior's, and it took me a number of pages to demonstrate that they were
> tenses at all as they are very different from those of natural languages
> (four points -- or one repeated four times -- and three arrows). The Hopi
> failure to come up with Lojban (or, indeed, formal logic in its common
> form) has nothing to do with their lack of interest in the project (though
> I suppose they do lacks interest) but to the radically different nature of
> their language. [I should note that, while I regularly express the
> orthodox view on these matters, I am not perfectly sure they are correct,
> cf. Christianity]

I know about SAE from Wikipedia
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Average_European) and from being at
least a semi-native speaker of three SAE languages. What features of SAE
languages are you talking about? What are the four points and three arrows?
Are they like the four walls and three benches?

Pierre
--
I believe in Yellow when I'm in Sweden and in Black when I'm in Wales.

[John E Clifford]

Don't know about walls and benches.  The four points (axes) are Present, Future, Retropresent ("Past") and Retrofuture and the three arrows are Retrospective, Prospective and Immediate, radiating from each axis.  All axes are displacements for Present, all vectors are views from an axis.  No language has the whole system intact and purely tense (I couldn't get it into Lojban, alas -- or logic either).  It keeps slopping over into aspects and subjunctives (as in most familiar languages).  Logically, the crucial factors here are that different axes have different extensions of "exist" and events vectored from an axis involve existents of that axis, while events at displaced axes may involve things existing then but not at Present (in particular).  All sorts of other restrictions and violations occur, but this is the basic stuff.
From the orthodox chat, the crucial thing about SAE languages is their Fregean semantics, the world consists of things with holes and things to plug the holes, giving a metaphysics of isolated (and generally characterless) individuals and properties (etc.) that they take on.  This contrasts with languages which go for properties only that intersect and overlap and absorb, and those which simply have processes, and perhaps those which merely have instantaneous sensations.  The existence of languages of any of these types is questionable and the question may well be unintelligible, but without it, there is no SWH.

---

From: Pierre Abbat <ph...@bezitopo.org>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 12:10 PM

Subject: Re: [lojban] Should I quit learning Lojban?

[Pierre Abbat]

On Thursday, April 25, 2013 10:38:51 John E Clifford wrote:
> Don't know about walls and benches. The four points (axes) are Present,
> Future, Retropresent ("Past") and Retrofuture and the three arrows are
> Retrospective, Prospective and Immediate, radiating from each axis. All
> axes are displacements for Present, all vectors are views from an axis. No
> language has the whole system intact and purely tense (I couldn't get it
> into Lojban, alas -- or logic either). It keeps slopping over into aspects
> and subjunctives (as in most familiar languages). Logically, the crucial
> factors here are that different axes have different extensions of "exist"
> and events vectored from an axis involve existents of that axis, while
> events at displaced axes may involve things existing then but not at
> Present (in particular). All sorts of other restrictions and violations
> occur, but this is the basic stuff.

How is retrofuture different from past? What is "retropresent" supposed to
mean? What do the arrows do? What about spatial tenses?

> From the orthodox chat, the crucial thing about SAE languages is their
> Fregean semantics, the world consists of things with holes and things to
> plug the holes, giving a metaphysics of isolated (and generally
> characterless) individuals and properties (etc.) that they take on. This
> contrasts with languages which go for properties only that intersect and
> overlap and absorb, and those which simply have processes, and perhaps
> those which merely have instantaneous sensations. The existence of
> languages of any of these types is questionable and the question may well
> be unintelligible, but without it, there is no SWH.

What is the world of Hebrew like? That's the only non-SAE natlang that I know
a fair bit of.

By "properties only that intersect ..." do you mean "lo ckaji poi po'o kruca
..."? The only restriction on the properties is that they intersect and
overlap and absorb? I would not normally put "only" there, and it took me a
while to figure out what it means.

Pierre
--
lo ponse be lo mruli ku po'o cu ga'ezga roda lo ka dinko

[John E Clifford]

Retrofuture is the past version of the future; the structural forms often end up being used for some kind of subjunctive: Eng; "would" = "will" + -D.  The basic tense is present (the only "real" one).  This is duplicated to the future (the affectable one), then this pair is duplicated in the past ("retro") for reporting on previous presents.  Arrows related events to axes, so talk about past, present and future events which involve axial existents and are relevant to the axis.  There do not seem to be universal patterns of spatial tenses (indeed, the notion is strictly nonsensical, since there is no time in spatial relations  -- this side of building relativity). 
I, alas, don't know Hebrew, so I can't say what its worldview is like.  The teeinsy bit I've had explained to me looks SAE, however, just not European.
No, the only elements of the second sort of languages are properties, which overlap [the wrong word here, but I can't remember the right one] or not in varying degrees (sorry, they changed the rules on relative clauses on me between high school and now).  So the classic Logic 1 sentence would be "Mortality humanity" with maybe some minor hook in there (but I don't know any such languages so don't quite know how it goes). 
.

---

From: Pierre Abbat <ph...@bezitopo.org>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 6:53 PM

Subject: Re: [lojban] Should I quit learning Lojban?

[la gleki]

On Thursday, April 25, 2013 9:38:51 PM UTC+4, clifford wrote:

Don't know about walls and benches.  The four points (axes) are Present, Future, Retropresent ("Past") and Retrofuture and the three arrows are Retrospective, Prospective and Immediate, radiating from each axis.  All axes are displacements for Present, all vectors are views from an axis.  No language has the whole system intact and purely tense (I couldn't get it into Lojban, alas -- or logic either).  It keeps slopping over into aspects and subjunctives (as in most familiar languages).  Logically, the crucial factors here are that different axes have different extensions of "exist" and events vectored from an axis involve existents of that axis, while events at displaced axes may involve things existing then but not at Present (in particular).  All sorts of other restrictions and violations occur, but this is the basic stuff.
From the orthodox chat, the crucial thing about SAE languages is their Fregean semantics, the world consists of things with holes and things to plug the holes, giving a metaphysics of isolated (and generally characterless) individuals and properties (etc.) that they take on.  This contrasts with languages which go for properties only that intersect and overlap and absorb, and those which simply have processes, and perhaps those which merely have instantaneous sensations.  The existence of languages of any of these types is questionable and the question may well be unintelligible, but without it, there is no SWH.

.au mi jimpe da la'edi'u vau u'i 

[la gleki]

On Friday, April 26, 2013 5:49:01 AM UTC+4, clifford wrote:

Retrofuture is the past version of the future; the structural forms often end up being used for some kind of subjunctive: Eng; "would" = "will" + -D.  The basic tense is present (the only "real" one).  This is duplicated to the future (the affectable one), then this pair is duplicated in the past ("retro") for reporting on previous presents.  Arrows related events to axes, so talk about past, present and future events which involve axial existents and are relevant to the axis.  There do not seem to be universal patterns of spatial tenses (indeed, the notion is strictly nonsensical, since there is no time in spatial relations  -- this side of building relativity). 
I, alas, don't know Hebrew, so I can't say what its worldview is like.  The teeinsy bit I've had explained to me looks SAE, however, just not European.
No, the only elements of the second sort of languages are properties, which overlap [the wrong word here, but I can't remember the right one] or not in varying degrees (sorry, they changed the rules on relative clauses on me between high school and now).  So the classic Logic 1 sentence would be "Mortality humanity" with maybe some minor hook in there (but I don't know any such languages so don't quite know how it goes). 

Can you provide a link to any descriptions of such languages with examples with glosses? Because the only example "Mortality humanity" makes no sense.

How are two words connected to each other? Like in tanru? Then it's just {submorsi subremna}.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 11:49 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, April 26, 2013 5:49:01 AM UTC+4, clifford wrote:

No, the only elements of the second sort of languages are properties, which overlap [the wrong word here, but I can't remember the right one] or not in varying degrees (sorry, they changed the rules on relative clauses on me between high school and now).  So the classic Logic 1 sentence would be "Mortality humanity" with maybe some minor hook in there (but I don't know any such languages so don't quite know how it goes). 

Can you provide a link to any descriptions of such languages with examples with glosses? Because the only example "Mortality humanity" makes no sense.

How are two words connected to each other? Like in tanru? Then it's just {submorsi subremna}.

 

There's one language I know of that fits that description: the language of the northern hemisphere of Tlön. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tl%C3%B6n,_Uqbar,_Orbis_Tertius or read the full story here: http://art.yale.edu/file_columns/0000/0066/borges.pdf

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[John E. Clifford]

Nice, xorxes peddling borxes.  Alas, not a lot of text or grammar to work with.

Sent from my iPad

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.

[la gleki]

Damn it. It has been in my bookmarks for years. Anyway "it mooned" is just {ca'o lunra} because obviously {lunra} is a verb. And I can't see much difference from "it was the dog all o'er the road" from the Wave lessons.

[Jorge Llambías]

"It mooned" is from the languages of the southern hemisphere:

"The preceding applies to the languages of the southern hemisphere. In 

those of the northern hemisphere (on whose Ursprache there is very 

little data in the Eleventh Volume) the prime unit is not the verb, but the 

monosyllabic adjective. The noun is formed by an accumulation of 

adjectives. They do not say "moon," but rather "round airy-light on dark" 

or "pale-orange-of-the-sky" or any other such combination. In the 

example selected the mass of adjectives refers to a real object, but this is 

purely fortuitous."

[la gleki]

Quote: <One of the imagined languages of Tlön lacks nouns. Its central units are "impersonal verbs qualified by monosyllabic suffixes or prefixes which have the force of adverbs." Borges lists a Tlönic equivalent of "The moon rose above the water": hlör u fang axaxaxas mlö, meaning literally "Upward behind the onstreaming it mooned".>

As for "pale-orange-of-the-sky"  i can do that with tanru or lujvo. And btw it's more of aUI or similar languages (even Ithkuil might do, and there is also Arahau with only 100 root words which leads to the same kind of problems as with aUI, see J.Clifford's lecture on youtube).

So again I can't see any problems with expressing that even in English. Indeed it's just "pale-orange-of-the-sky" may be with a fixed meaning. What's wrong?

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 10:50 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, April 27, 2013 4:24:46 PM UTC+4, xorxes wrote:

On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 4:55 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, April 27, 2013 2:06:27 AM UTC+4, xorxes wrote:

 

There's one language I know of that fits that description: the language of the northern hemisphere of Tlön. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tl%C3%B6n,_Uqbar,_Orbis_Tertius or read the full story here: http://art.yale.edu/file_columns/0000/0066/borges.pdf

Damn it. It has been in my bookmarks for years. Anyway "it mooned" is just {ca'o lunra} because obviously {lunra} is a verb. And I can't see much difference from "it was the dog all o'er the road" from the Wave lessons.

"It mooned" is from the languages of the southern hemisphere:

"The preceding applies to the languages of the southern hemisphere. In 

those of the northern hemisphere (on whose Ursprache there is very 

little data in the Eleventh Volume) the prime unit is not the verb, but the 

monosyllabic adjective. The noun is formed by an accumulation of 

adjectives. They do not say "moon," but rather "round airy-light on dark" 

or "pale-orange-of-the-sky" or any other such combination. In the 

example selected the mass of adjectives refers to a real object, but this is 

purely fortuitous."

Quote: <One of the imagined languages of Tlön lacks nouns. Its central units are "impersonal verbs qualified by monosyllabic suffixes or prefixes which have the force of adverbs." Borges lists a Tlönic equivalent of "The moon rose above the water": hlör u fang axaxaxas mlö, meaning literally "Upward behind the onstreaming it mooned".>

Yes, as the story says, that applies to the languages of the southern hemisphere of Tlön. What's your point?

As for "pale-orange-of-the-sky"  i can do that with tanru or lujvo. And btw it's more of aUI or similar languages (even Ithkuil might do, and there is also Arahau with only 100 root words which leads to the same kind of problems as with aUI, see J.Clifford's lecture on youtube).

So again I can't see any problems with expressing that even in English. Indeed it's just "pale-orange-of-the-sky" may be with a fixed meaning. What's wrong?

What's wrong with what? You asked for an example of pc's "languages which go for properties only", "the only elements of the second sort of languages are properties". I just cited the only example of such languages I know of.

[John E Clifford]

The fact that you *can* do something in Lojban  is not terribly important; the orange-in-the-sky tanru could obviously be well-formed and meaningful.  But it wouldn't be a name without the 'la' to bring in the thing which bears it.  The point about Northern Tlo"n and property languages generally is that descent doesn't happen.  One of the roughest tests for SWH is Sanskrit, a thoroughly SAE language to all appearances yet used to express philosophies across the range from Aristotelian to Platonic and beyond to pure property and pure process and even instantaneous sense-data forms.  Of course, it usually fails in the details, but it goes an awful long way (as trying to translate some Navya-Nyaya treatises showed me -- dammit, where's the effing subject?). 

aUI, also thoroughly SAE, has the problem of limited vocabulary (worse than toki pona even) and so the need to devise metaphorical uses practically from the get-go.  But that has nothing to do with the situation we're discussing. I don't know squat about Ithkuil but rumor has it that it is just Lojban gone wild, with every possible verb modifier known to man or beast and a few that have escaped even the Archons and Aeons.  Again, not obviously relevant here.

---

From: Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 9:08 AM

Subject: Re: [lojban] Should I quit learning Lojban?

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.

[la gleki]

On Saturday, April 27, 2013 7:01:38 PM UTC+4, clifford wrote:

The fact that you *can* do something in Lojban  is not terribly important; the orange-in-the-sky tanru could obviously be well-formed and meaningful.  But it wouldn't be a name without the 'la' to bring in the thing which bears it.  The point about Northern Tlo"n and property languages generally is that descent doesn't happen

Really sorry. I'm not as smart as you in this philosophy. Of course {tsani ke kandi narju} isn't a name. Although what else could exist in the sky that is pale orange in color?

What does "descent" mean? That there is no {la} and no referential use of words in this Tlon language? Again sorry but not all of us are logicians here.

[John E Clifford]

Well, for one thing there could be several moons or the mother ship or .... 

Yes, descent is the drop from a property to an instance.  Now, it may be that something like that drop occurs to a cluster of properties (not the right word, of course) which is unique in the domain, but that still functions (I suppose) like any other property, being subsumed, overlapping or subsuming other properties.

---

From: la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com

Cc: John E Clifford <kali9...@yahoo.com>

Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 10:17 AM

[John E Clifford]

Cooler heads have suggested that the basic (unmarked) relation in a property language would be overlap, not pervasion.  Since the two are duals, that would mean that my sentence would be something like "not humanity non-mortality" (of course, overlap could be defined from pervasion, too, in the same way).  I suppose there would be some more basic way of stating pervasion an a property language, since it is important  (and better definitions, too -- see the whole history orf Navya-Nyaya).

---

From: John E Clifford <kali9...@yahoo.com>
To: "loj...@googlegroups.com" <loj...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 10:39 AM

[la gleki]

On Saturday, April 27, 2013 7:39:34 PM UTC+4, clifford wrote:

Well, for one thing there could be several moons or the mother ship or .... 

Yes, descent is the drop from a property to an instance.  Now, it may be that something like that drop occurs to a cluster of properties (not the right word, of course) which is unique in the domain, but that still functions (I suppose) like any other property, being subsumed, overlapping or subsuming other properties.

In {la .alis. cu remna} Alice can refer to several people as well. Referential use of {le} can help if two participants of the conversation have agreed for which object to use it however even in that case there might be misunderstanding ( what if speaker A called an apple {le plise} but the speaker B unlike the speaker B noticed several apples around).

Other brivla in Lojban are all properties.

I guess in {lo plise cu xunre} {xunre} is a property, right?

Then for me the following raising doesn't mean much.

{mi viska lo plise noi xunre}

{mi viska lo xunre}

And of course lo plise = zo'e noi plise.

(If we for the first time in our life see an orange we might call it {ti plise ga'a mi'a}, so {plise} is also a property).

So I just can't see why Lojban is SAE.

I have the following case unsolved:

<quote>The classic contrast between an SAE language and a process one is the name of a wet spot in the Grand Canyon area.  The Anglos call it Weeping Spring, a thing with a property.  The Hopi call it Whiting Downward, a process.</quote>

How to say "I'm near the whiting downward" in this language then?

I guess in Lojban we can't say {mi jibni lo nu farlu}. How can i be near a process? I can only be near some atoms taking part in that process.

How do the Hopi solve this problem?

[Pierre Abbat]

On Saturday, April 27, 2013 22:26:34 la gleki wrote:
> In {la .alis. cu remna} Alice can refer to several people as well.
> Referential use of {le} can help if two participants of the conversation
> have agreed for which object to use it however even in that case there
> might be misunderstanding ( what if speaker A called an apple {le plise}
> but the speaker B unlike the speaker B noticed several apples around).
>
> Other brivla in Lojban are all properties.
> I guess in {lo plise cu xunre} {xunre} is a property, right?
>
> Then for me the following raising doesn't mean much.
> {mi viska lo plise noi xunre}
> {mi viska lo xunre}
>
> And of course lo plise = zo'e noi plise.
>
> (If we for the first time in our life see an orange we might call it {ti
> plise ga'a mi'a}, so {plise} is also a property).
>
> So I just can't see why Lojban is SAE.

SAE sensu stricto includes Romance, Germanic, and various other European
languages. SAE sensu lato includes, as far as I can see, all of Indo-European,
Finno-Ugric, Turkic, Semitic, and probably other families. Either way, it's
defined by properties of the language, not by belonging to certain families.

Lojban is definitely not SAE s.s. I think it is not SAE s.l. either, but
appears to be because most Lojbanists are native speakers of SAE languages. If
we raised Lojban speakers for whom e.g. "le blabi cu mlatu" or "se mlatu le
blabi" were no stranger a construction than "le mlatu cu blabi", Lojban as
they spoke it would not be SAE s.l.

I'm not sure I understand "things with holes and things to plug the holes",
but unlike all the language families I listed above, Lojban has no adjectives.
Lojban does have nouns, but their use is severely restricted compared to SAE
languages, common nouns being generally expressed by verbs.

> I have the following case unsolved:
> <quote>The classic contrast between an SAE language and a process one is
> the name of a wet spot in the Grand Canyon area. The Anglos call it
> Weeping Spring, a thing with a property. The Hopi call it Whiting
> Downward, a process.</quote>
>
> How to say "I'm near the whiting downward" in this language then?
> I guess in Lojban we can't say {mi jibni lo nu farlu}. How can i be near a
> process? I can only be near some atoms taking part in that process.
> How do the Hopi solve this problem?

I'd say it in Lojban "mi jibni le mo'ini'a blabi" (or "la mo'ini'a blabi"
since it's a name). I don't know Hopi. I assume you do not mean "mo'ini'a
merlanu".

Pierre
--
The Black Garden on the Mountain is not on the Black Mountain.

[la gleki]

On Sunday, April 28, 2013 10:27:20 AM UTC+4, Pierre Abbat wrote:

On Saturday, April 27, 2013 22:26:34 la gleki wrote:
> In {la .alis. cu remna} Alice can refer to several people as well.
> Referential use of {le} can help if two participants of the conversation
> have agreed for which object to use it however even in that case there
> might be misunderstanding ( what if speaker A called an apple {le plise}
> but the speaker B unlike the speaker B noticed several apples around).
>
> Other brivla in Lojban are all properties.
> I guess in {lo plise cu xunre} {xunre} is a property, right?
>
> Then for me the following raising doesn't mean much.
> {mi viska lo plise noi xunre}
> {mi viska lo xunre}
>
> And of course lo plise = zo'e noi plise.
>
> (If we for the first time in our life see an orange we might call it {ti
> plise ga'a mi'a}, so {plise} is also a property).
>
> So I just can't see why Lojban is SAE.

SAE sensu stricto includes Romance, Germanic, and various other European
languages. SAE sensu lato includes, as far as I can see, all of Indo-European,
Finno-Ugric, Turkic, Semitic, and probably other families. Either way, it's
defined by properties of the language, not by belonging to certain families.

As far as I remember [sei u'i mi morji jenai vedli ;) ] the first written record in human history was a Sumerian record that said "A new divine Sun has appeared in the sky". We can assume that it was a supernova star (I don't remember in what constellation it is located now).

This is a funny fact because then the human written history starts with the fact of dealing with property language and actually extending unique objects to properties.

So what, Sumerian is also SAE and property-lang at the same time like English? What's the point?

That inhabitants of Tlon *had* to use only properties in their speech?  But as I show everything can be seen as properties.

Lojban is definitely not SAE s.s. I think it is not SAE s.l. either, but
appears to be because most Lojbanists are native speakers of SAE languages. If
we raised Lojban speakers for whom e.g. "le blabi cu mlatu" or "se mlatu le
blabi" were no stranger a construction than "le mlatu cu blabi", Lojban as
they spoke it would not be SAE s.l.

I'm not sure I understand "things with holes and things to plug the holes",
but unlike all the language families I listed above, Lojban has no adjectives.

isn't NOI or even tanru adjectives?

 

Lojban does have nouns, but their use is severely restricted compared to SAE
languages, common nouns being generally expressed by verbs.

Really? You mean that only KOhA, {zo'e}, {da}, cmene etc. are nouns?

I've never had any problems with {lo ... ku}  even though it is a derivation of zo'e + NOI.

brivla are always verbs. (mlatu = to-be-a-cat etc.)

> I have the following case unsolved:
> <quote>The classic contrast between an SAE language and a process one is
> the name of a wet spot in the Grand Canyon area.  The Anglos call it
> Weeping Spring, a thing with a property.  The Hopi call it Whiting
> Downward, a process.</quote>
>
> How to say "I'm near the whiting downward" in this language then?
> I guess in Lojban we can't say {mi jibni lo nu farlu}. How can i be near a
> process? I can only be near some atoms taking part in that process.
> How do the Hopi solve this problem?

I'd say it in Lojban "mi jibni le mo'ini'a blabi" (or "la mo'ini'a blabi"
since it's a name).

Exactly. But {le blabi}  is a noun.

I don't know Hopi. I assume you do not mean "mo'ini'a
merlanu".

Yes, I want Hopi's solution, not lojbanic cheating.

[John E Clifford]

This is all getting very confusing to me; I either don't get the point of various comments or I don't see the relevance of them to what I think is the topic at hand (which long ago ceased to be about learning Lojban -- we ought to change the title).  Let try to sort some things out for my own benefit.

SAEss is a late derivative (and probably the result of a misunderstanding) of SAEsl, a term Whorf apparently coined.  It happens that all of the ss languages are also sl, which reenforces the confusion.

The fact that Lojban has adjectives and verbs and common nouns -- or doesn't -- is largely irrelevant to the question whether it is a SAE ("thing"), property, process or sensation language.  It can (more or less by design) reproduce the effects of all sorts of languages, but to do so, it must convert properties or processes or sensations into things.  Well, not convert actually, since they already are in Lojban -- a property is a set of things (and sets are things, too) or a function (another thing) from worlds (things) to such sets.  I assume that the converse would happen in a process or property  or sensation language, with things represented by properties or processes or sensations, as the case might be. 

Nor does the fact that an NP can refer to several things matter or even that it does in a particular situation (xorlo -- in one of its later and more solid forms  -- to the rescue.   Note that {le broda} refers to just what it does and the existence of other things like that are irrelevant, unlike {lo broda}in some circumstances).  (the bit about {zo'e} is one of the stranger myths, since {zo'e} is merely a contradictory word without a real use -- a weak foundation for anything -- while {lo}, for example, is quite precise and clear).

I don't get the Sumerian story (I would have assumed it was announcing a new king, for one thing).  The translation into English is, inevitably thing-language; don't know what the original was like but I don't see anything particularly property languageish here.

Is the unclarity just a confusion between verbs and processes, adjectives and properties, nouns and things?  It seems so, though I don't believe any of us actually has such confusions (though I have to admit that Whorf might).

But we do talk as though we had this.  I suspect (without great confidence, admittedly) that property / process /sensation grammars start S => NP + VP.  The difference is somewhere else and I don't know where it is, exactly.

---

From: la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 5:16 AM

Subject: Re: [lojban] Should I quit learning Lojban?

[Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG]

John E Clifford wrote:
> This is all getting very confusing to me; I either don't get the point
> of various comments or I don't see the relevance of them to what I think
> is the topic at hand (which long ago ceased to be about learning Lojban
> -- we ought to change the title). Let try to sort some things out for
> my own benefit.
> SAEss is a late derivative (and probably the result of a
> misunderstanding) of SAEsl, a term Whorf apparently coined. It happens
> that all of the ss languages are also sl, which reenforces the confusion.
> The fact that Lojban has adjectives and verbs and common nouns -- or
> doesn't -- is largely irrelevant to the question whether it is a SAE
> ("thing"), property, process or sensation language.

lo, loka lopu'u, and loli'i should be able to express these,
respectively (and we have a few other abstractors as well. Whether they
semantically match the targeted languages is less clear.

I guess you might argue that sticking lo on a property, process, etc
makes it grammatically a "thing", but I think that is an artifact of
translating the expressions into English, where sumti become grammatical
nouns or gerunds. Nora has always looked at brivla as being more
verblike than any other part of speech, with the various cmavo acting on
the grammatical roles but not really changing the Lojban semantics
(though again translating the semantics into English tends to invoke
English parts of speech).

I am still remembering my efforts at translating Nootka, wherein I
expressed entire sentences as complex tanru, never using any sumti at all.

> It can (more or
> less by design) reproduce the effects of all sorts of languages, but to
> do so, it must convert properties or processes or sensations into
> things.

No. cmavo convert brivla into sumti or mexso or ..., but none of those
are necessarily "things".

[shanoxilt]

On Sunday, April 28, 2013 5:40:50 PM UTC-4, clifford wrote:

This is all getting very confusing to me; I either don't get the point of various comments or I don't see the relevance of them to what I think is the topic at hand (which long ago ceased to be about learning Lojban -- we ought to change the title). 

This is part of the reason why I am so ambivalent about continuing to learn Lojban. Fundamental concepts in and about this language are still undecided. These issues should have been solved years ago. :\

 

[la gleki]

shanoxilt, this is not the discussionabout Lojban. This is the discussion about other languages that are incompatible with Lojban or Indo-European languages. 

There are no problems in using Lojban. We are just trying to find some exotic examples of expressing human thought.

All basic fundamental concepts in Lojban are transparent.

 

[John E. Clifford]

As noted earlier, we should have changed the label on this thread a while back.  Lojban is not a puzzle; the question whether to call it SAE is 1) irrelevant to its use and understanding. And2) depends upon definitions of SAE.  Don't worry about it unless you like philosophical ( I.e., verbal and pointless) disputes.

Sent from my iPad

--

[John E Clifford]

Well, the "standard semantics" of Lojban makes the referents of all 'lo broda' expressions things in the operant sense,  "the salient node in the upward semilattice on the extension of {broda} under jest ) (part-whole)", so anything between all the brodas and a microscopic speck of broda goo, as the case requires.

The Nootka experience is directly relevant here, since what you got from sentences were, in Lojban, merely complex selbri, not bridi at all for lack of a  sumti.  Nootka is apparently a property or process language which can express complete sentences without a reference to things.  Add it to the list.

---

From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" <loj...@lojban.org>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 8:39 PM

Subject: Re: [lojban] Should I quit learning Lojban?

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG]

John E Clifford wrote:
> Well, the "standard semantics" of Lojban makes the referents of all 'lo
> broda' expressions things in the operant sense, "the salient node in
> the upward semilattice on the extension of {broda} under jest )
> (part-whole)", so anything between all the brodas and a microscopic
> speck of broda goo, as the case requires.

Since when does Lojban have a standard semantics? Not while I worked on
the design - I knew (and still know) that I have too little
understanding of semantics to standardize anything.

I tried at times to come up with rules of thumb useful for English
speakers learning Lojban (i.e translation strategies), but I don't think
I ever codified any of them, and certainly never made them part of the
language definition.

> The Nootka experience is directly relevant here, since what you got from
> sentences were, in Lojban, merely complex selbri, not bridi at all for
> lack of a sumti. Nootka is apparently a property or process language
> which can express complete sentences without a reference to things.

The example I worked from, mentioned in some article, was in fact a
sentence expressed as a single word, presumably a brivla in Lojban
terms, so that was how I tried to translate it.

If Nootka is indeed a property language, then probably other languages
from the same family are, as well. I think that was Pacific Northwest
Amerind - no idea what other languages are related.

[John E. Clifford]

Well, standard among those who care about such things (the logic that keeps creeping in despite the best efforts of speakers and word makers).

Sent from my iPad

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

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.

[la gleki]

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 6:37:10 PM UTC+4, clifford wrote:

Well, standard among those who care about such things (the logic that keeps creeping in despite the best efforts of speakers and word makers).

Please, stop posting about this in this topic. A separate one has been created.

[Michael Turniansky]

  I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "non-logical 'or'"?

 --gejyspa

On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 6:53 AM, iesk <pa....@gmx.de> wrote:

ni'o la selpa'i ku cusku di'e
>ni'o ie lo tokpona cu xamgu gi'a sampu

ni'o sei banbau se'u zo gi'a logji valsi  .i mi te smuni lodo jufra la'e zoi. aficalanguidjavlajbanistan. Toki Pona is good or simple .aficalanguidjavlajbanistan. mu'a  .i ti'e lo si'o xamgu keiku ju'e lo si'o sampu keiku se sidbo pa da lo selbau be lo tokpona sei dei jai nandu  .i mi kucli .ibo da'i ma xe fanva zoi. gic. Toki Pona is good, or simple .gic. sei me'o slaka bu cu se jundi .i va'i za'e friti su'ore lo valsi fi'o se tavla fi lo mintu

{gi'a} is a logical connector. In the context of Selpa'i's sentence, a non-logical 'or' could also be expected. Phrasing things differently to encircle the intended meaning. How to do that in Lojban?

Also, my use of {mintu} is nonsense, I fear (mintu ma?).

[MorphemeAddict]

I'm not sure this is the same thing, but how does one distinguish in Lojban between the ORs in "Coffee, or tea?", i.e., a choice between alternatives, vs. the logical OR with truth values. 

stevo

[John E Clifford]

Presumably the question involves one of the logical "or" (preferably {a}) and the correct answer is to name one, say "neither" or say "both", the implicit question being "Which do you want?".  You could also use sets for the same purpose of laying out the available alternatives, if there were more than two.  The choice is one thing, not a disjunction exactly, the disjunction merely spells out the parameters (you could use {onai} then both "neither" and "both" would be rejecting the offering).

---

From: MorphemeAddict <lyt...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] 'good or simple' vs 'good, or simple'

[Jonathan Jones]

The problem is, of course, that you're trying to do something explicitly in Lojban that is done /implicitly/ in the English phrase "Would you like coffee or tea?" {.i do djica tu'a loi ckafi ji loi tcati}

It should be noted that even in the English question, "both" and "neither" are still acceptable -though uncommon- answers. There is nothing about the English question that forbids a choice of "both" or "neither", it is merely social customs that makes such answers verboten.

This very thing is talked about in the logical connectives section of the CLL.

http://dag.github.io/cll/14/13/

It's also been discussed quite a bit in the tiki:

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Do+you+want+coffee+or+tea%3F

Basically, the gist is, if you want someone to choose amongst a set of mutually exclusive items, and you're using OR, you're asking the wrong question.

What you should be saying in such situations is more akin to: "Choose one of: coffee, tea"

.i.e'u cuxna lo pamei lo ckafi .e lo tcati

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 )

[Jacob Errington]

Just throwing this out there.

If the GIJA reform were to go through, then making new connectives would be shockingly simple, as we wouldn't need to make ~6 varieties of the same connective. That being said, it would be perfectly possible with GIJA in place to make a new connective to be understood as separating a list of alternatives from which the speaker is to choose only one. Sadly, the disadvantage is that this connective based system is poorly extensible; how would we use it say "select 2" or 5 or 12 of the options. Subscripting is a solution, I suppose.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

[Jacob Errington]

On 18 May 2013 09:04, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:

If the GIJA reform were to go through, then making new connectives would be shockingly simple, as we wouldn't need to make ~6 varieties of the same connective. That being said, it would be perfectly possible with GIJA in place to make a new connective to be understood as separating a list of alternatives from which the speaker 

I mean *listener*. 

[Jonathan Jones]

On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:

Just throwing this out there.

If the GIJA reform were to go through, then making new connectives would be shockingly simple, as we wouldn't need to make ~6 varieties of the same connective. That being said, it would be perfectly possible with GIJA in place to make a new connective to be understood as separating a list of alternatives from which the listener is to choose only one. Sadly, the disadvantage is that this connective based system is poorly extensible; how would we use it say "select 2" or 5 or 12 of the options. Subscripting is a solution, I suppose.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

Whereas what we have now is easily extended. {.i.e'u cuxna lo mumei ...}

[Ian Johnson]

On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

The problem is, of course, that you're trying to do something explicitly in Lojban that is done /implicitly/ in the English phrase "Would you like coffee or tea?" {.i do djica tu'a loi ckafi ji loi tcati}

It should be noted that even in the English question, "both" and "neither" are still acceptable -though uncommon- answers. There is nothing about the English question that forbids a choice of "both" or "neither", it is merely social customs that makes such answers verboten.

This very thing is talked about in the logical connectives section of the CLL.

http://dag.github.io/cll/14/13/

It's also been discussed quite a bit in the tiki:

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Do+you+want+coffee+or+tea%3F

Basically, the gist is, if you want someone to choose amongst a set of mutually exclusive items, and you're using OR, you're asking the wrong question.

What you should be saying in such situations is more akin to: "Choose one of: coffee, tea"

.i.e'u cuxna lo pamei lo ckafi .e lo tcati

You shouldn't have logical "and" there; I concede that the irrealis attitudinal scope can be argued to fix it, but it's more weird than it needs to be. {.e'o cuxna pa da lo ckafi ce lo tcati} (or, in the idiom that doesn't think sets matter in everyday discourse, {.e'o cuxna pa da lo ckafi joi lo tcati}).

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

[Jonathan Jones]

I just copied it directly from the tiki page. You should voice your concerns there.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Ian Johnson <blindb...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

.i.e'u cuxna lo pamei lo ckafi .e lo tcati

You shouldn't have logical "and" there; I concede that the irrealis attitudinal scope can be argued to fix it, 

How? Neither (what I believe is the correct expansion):

.e'u ge cuxna lo pamei lo ckafi gi cuxna lo pamei lo tcati

nor:

ge .e'u cuxna lo pamei lo ckafi gi .e'u cuxna lo pamei lo tcati 

(which I don't think is the correct expansion) are anything like what is wanted.

[Ian Johnson]

With great handwaving you could argue that there just isn't an expansion. I personally would likely read it as the first expansion, which is of course not what is desired. I agree that it is a bad idea.

[Michael Turniansky]

Either I'm completely misunderstanding the situtations being described here, or people have rejected for soem reason the ji/je'i/ge'i/gi''i mechanism,  which you have completely avoided (as has the webpage pointed to)??

do djica lo ckafi ji lo tcati   -- done.

                --gejyspa

--

[John E Clifford]

 The oldest solution may yet be the best.

---

From: Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:00 PM

Subject: Re: [lojban] 'good or simple' vs 'good, or simple'

[Ian Johnson]

On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

Either I'm completely misunderstanding the situtations being described here, or people have rejected for soem reason the ji/je'i/ge'i/gi''i mechanism,  which you have completely avoided (as has the webpage pointed to)??

do djica lo ckafi ji lo tcati   -- done.

                --gejyspa

I think most of us would say you need {tu'a} there. ta'o nai The arguable problem with that is that connectives that fail to fully specify the truth table, such as {.o nai} and {.a}, are valid answers to a {ji} question, but may fail to inform the person asking the question of what they should do. When tsani and I talked about this we concluded that the natural workaround to this isn't a fundamentally different construct, but instead telling the person that they're being unhelpful, as you would in the analogous situation with English. For example:

A: .i do djica tu'a lo ckafi ji lo tcati

B: .i .a

A: .i na'i .i sarcu fa lo nu mi djuno lo du'u mi bevri ma kau do

B: .i ua .i .e nai

[John E. Clifford]

Well, {tu'a} is always a good idea with {djica} , though probably less a problem here than often.  As for the incomplete answer, that is a problem with any version of this that involves a question.  Consider the "Yes, please" answer in English.

Sent from my iPad

--

[MorphemeAddict]

I remember this now as a Loglan cleverness. It extends to multiple items ji it can be used with only two?

stevo

[MorphemeAddict]

I understand the use of {.a} here to mean "either one; it doesn't matter or I don't care". Why is this unhelpful? It happens in life all the time. 

stevo

--

[Jacob Errington]

On 19 May 2013 17:24, MorphemeAddict <lyt...@gmail.com> wrote:

I understand the use of {.a} here to mean "either one; it doesn't matter or I don't care". Why is this unhelpful? It happens in life all the time. 

stevo

Yes of course, but Ian's example was simply demonstrating a case when such an answer is unacceptable, as it might be. The connective system can here be seen as a double-edged sword, really: we can use it to concisely say, "bring me either or both; I don't care," but in cases where the listener must select only one option from a list of alternatives, we are at a bit of a disadvantage. The natural, in-conversation solution involving {na'i} makes sense though, as Ian outlined. 

[Ian Johnson]

On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 5:22 PM, MorphemeAddict <lyt...@gmail.com> wrote:

I remember this now as a Loglan cleverness. It extends to multiple items ji it can be used with only two?

stevo

You just use it more than once to get more than one answer; the downsides are that you have to just adopt the convention that the answers come in order, and also that you have to separate them by {.i} for grammatical reasons. So for example:

A: .i do djica tu'a lo ckafi ji lo tcati ji lo djacu

B: .i .e nai .i .e nai

[Michael Turniansky]

   Okay, I agree that formally, I do need a tu'a for a djica 2 (although I have always argued against that, although this is neither here nor there).  And yes, I have always thought that we should have a "choose from list" cmavo, for cases of >2 choices.  I was just wondering why in the particular case being bandied about, the "?"connectors weren't being mentioned.

          --gejyspa

On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Ian Johnson <blindb...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

[iesk]

Le vendredi 17 mai 2013 22:21:29 UTC+2, gejyspa a écrit :

  I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "non-logical 'or'"?

 --gejyspa

Well, as in ‘it is good, or simple‘, where the ‘or’ is not used for truth-functionality (TTTF), but an alternative phrasing of the same claim.

[eng]
It is good or simple.
→ It could be not good.
→ It could be not simple.

[jbo]
ko'a xamgu gi'a sampu
→ se cumki lo du'u ko'a na xamgu
→ se cumki lo du'u ko'a na sampu

[eng]
It is good, or simple.
→ It is good, which amounts to saying it is simple.

[jbo]
? ko'a xamgu co sampu
? ko'a xamgu sampu
? ko'a xamgu .i sampu
? ko'a xamgu gi'e sampu
? ko'a xamgu ku'a sampu
? ko'a xamgu cei sampu
? ko'a xamgu to'i sampu toi

Is there a casual way of throwing two or more words at your tersku to outline the intended meaning without committing to those words’ logical relations? Or is that just not the way they talk in Lojbanistan?

-iesk

[Michael Turniansky]

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 5:53 AM, iesk <pa....@gmx.de> wrote:

[eng]
It is good, or simple.
→ It is good, which amounts to saying it is simple.

ko'a xamgu va'iju'e sampu

    --gejyspa

[iesk]

{va'i}, yes. And {ju'e} ... not bad! ki'e do 

[Michael Turniansky]

  The problem is that you can't use the va'i alone in that sentence.  Being a UI, it doesn't disturb the underlying grammar, and xamgu sampu would tanruize.  That's why I had to add the ju'e.

    --gejyspa

--

[iesk]

Le lundi 20 mai 2013 15:41:32 UTC+2, gejyspa a écrit :

  The problem is that you can't use the va'i alone in that sentence.  Being a UI, it doesn't disturb the underlying grammar, and xamgu sampu would tanruize.  That's why I had to add the ju'e.

    --gejyspa

Yes, that's what I found so clever about it ;) 

[Pierre Abbat]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 02:53:43 iesk wrote:
> [eng]
> It is good, or simple.
> → It is good, which amounts to saying it is simple.
>
> [jbo]
> ? ko'a xamgu co sampu
> ? ko'a xamgu sampu
> ? ko'a xamgu .i sampu
> ? ko'a xamgu gi'e sampu
> ? ko'a xamgu ku'a sampu
> ? ko'a xamgu cei sampu
> ? ko'a xamgu to'i sampu toi
>
> Is there a casual way of throwing two or more words at your tersku to
> outline the intended meaning without committing to those words’ logical
> relations? Or is that just not the way they talk in Lojbanistan?

I'd say "ko'a xamgu va'i sampu", maybe with a conjunction next to "va'i".

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