nu pa moi se nunkei la'e lu lo do ckiku ma zvati li'u lu'u

13 views
Skip to first unread message

Alan Post

unread,
Sep 24, 2010, 10:39:35 PM9/24/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
.aionys., xorxes, and myself (.alyn.) have just played the first
ever game of "lo do ckiku ma zvati" on the mailing list xedbig.

"lo do ckiku ma zvati" is "Where are your Keys?," a language
learning game in which I'm an early adopter. I've been porting this
game to Lojban at the website http://lodockikumazvati.org/.

This game is designed to be played in person and spoken out loud,
and the dynamic is certainly different when played over a mailing
list.

This game only featured one of the three major aspects of "lo do
ckiku ma zvati." It did not feature signing words, and it did not
feature the interjection of techniques, tips for learning the
material presented.

Both xorxes and .aionys. have fluency in Lojban well beyond the
material we covered in this session. My intenion in playing was
to introduce .aionys. to the game, not to teach him Lojban. I
was concerned about holding his interest with such basic subject
matter, so once I established the basic framework of the game, I
accelerated play by introducing new vocabulary as rapidly as
possible. With less fluent players, the game could go more slowly,
depending on the fluency level of the participants.

I intend to clean this transcript up and publish it as a play
example. I've been asked what exactly is "lo do ckiku ma zvati,"
and this is now the best answer I've got.

I would love to hear questions about things you find interesting or
curious, corrections to the grammar, and any feedback you have,
either as you watched the game being played or see it here now.

The play session starts at the second "to'i" in this transcript.
Before that there is a brief discussion about the game.

If you have the patience to read through the text, I think it ends
on a good and funny note.

<++> pamoi
ni'o pa moi se nunkei la'e lu lo do ckiku ma zvati li'u lu'u

to'i .i vi casnu lo pa moi nunkei toi

.i la .alyn. cusku lu

.i mi djica lo nu do kelci
.i ta rokci xu

li'u .i la .aionys. cusku lu

.i.ua mi na ca djuno lo javni
.i mi cilre .ije mi ba kelci

li'u .i la .aionys. cusku lu

.i xu do ctuca mi

li'u .i la .alyn. cusku lu

.i ta rokci .i ta mo

li'u .i la .aionys. cusku lu

.i ju'ocu'i ti na rokci .i ti skami

li'u .i la selckikus. cusku lu

.i ta na morsi .i ta surla

li'u .i la .aionys. cusku lu

.i.ienai mi skami nu surla .i ri gunka

li'u .i la .alyn. cusku lu

.i si'o ta rokci ku xanri ko
.i ta rokci .i ta mo

li'u .i la .aionys. cusku lu

.i mi na jimpe .i mi na djuno lo javni

li'u .i la .alyn. cusku lu

.i javni porsi
.i rodo ca cilre la lojban.
.i lo tadni ku monfu'i lo ctuca
.i do te preti

li'u .i la .aionys. cusku lu

.yyyyyy. .i ju'ocu'i ta rokci

li'u

to'i lo vi pa moi nunkei ku cfari toi

.i la .alyn. cusku lu

.i ta ja'a rokci .i ko'a goi ta rokci .i ko'e goi ta grana .i ko'a
mo .i ko'e mo

li'u .i la .aionys. cusku lu

.i.uacai.ui .i ko'a rokci .i ko'e grana

li'u .i la .alyn. cusku lu

.i xu ko'a grana .i xu ko'e rokci

li'u .i la .aionys. cusku lu

.i.ienai na go'u .i.ienai na go'u

li'u .i la .alyn. cusku lu

.i do drani
.i ko'a na grana .i ko'a ja'a rokci .i ko'e na rokci .i ko'e grana
.i ko'a pe mi .i lo rokci pe mi .i ko'e pe do .i lo grana pe do
.i lo rokci pe mi xu .i lo grana pe mi xu

li'u .i la .aionys. cusku lu

.i.ie go'u .i.ienai na go'u .i ko'a du lo rokci pe do .i ko'e du lo
grana pe mi

li'u .i la .alyn. cusku lu

.i .ua ko'a je'a du lo rokci pe mi .ije ko'e je'a du lo grana pe do
.i xu do djica lo za'i ponse be lo grana pe do

li'u .i la .aionys. cusku lu

.i.iecu'i naja'a go'i .i xu do djica

li'u .i la .alyn. cusku lu

.i mi djica lo za'i ponse be lo grana pe do .i xu do dunda lo grana
pe do mi

li'u .i la .aionys. cusku lu

.i ca ko'a goi lo rokci pe mi .ije ko'e goi lo grana pe do

li'u .i la .aionys. cusku lu

.i go'i gi'o do dunda ko'a mi

li'u .i la .alyn. cusku lu

.i mi dunda ko'a do .ije do dunda ko'e mi
.i mi ponse lo grana pe do .ije do ponse lo rokci pe mi

li'u .i la .alyn. cusku lu

.i mi lebna lo rokci pe mi do
.i mi ponse ro da
.i do ponse no da

li'u .i la .aionys. cusku lu

.i.ie do ponse re da .ije ponse ro da ki'u lonu do lebna.uinai

li'u .i la xorxes cusku lu

.i mi lebna lo rokci .e lo grana do
.i mi renro lo rokci .e lo grana lo lalxu
.i a'o no da za'o tavla fi lo mabla rokci .e lo mabla grana

li'u .i la .alyn. cusku zo fa'o
<-->

--
.i ko djuno fi le do sevzi

Alan Post

unread,
Sep 24, 2010, 10:43:22 PM9/24/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
.aionys.,

As the other primary participant of the game, I'm specifically
curious about your impressions.

What went well? What went poorly? What was great? What was
boring?

I notice you used a lot of attitudinal indicators. Do you think
this should become part of the baseline game? Are you typical
or a-typical in this regard?

I'd like this material to develop into the best Lojban training
material it can be, so please give feedback with that in mind--
please don't be shy.

-Alan

Jonathan Jones

unread,
Sep 24, 2010, 10:54:15 PM9/24/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Alan Post <alan...@sunflowerriver.org> wrote:
.aionys.,

As the other primary participant of the game, I'm specifically
curious about your impressions.

What went well?  What went poorly?  What was great?  What was
boring?

Well, once I figured out what was going on, I'd say it all went fairly smoothly. The problem was figuring out, well, what was going on. I was especially confused when I asked how to play, and you replied "This is a rock." I was like, "WTF?" I didn't really think any of it was boring, although obviously .xorxes. disagreed. :) Obviously, the best part was when he threw the rock and the stick into the lake and told us to shut up about them, although that was also kind of the worst part since that was also the end of the game. :)
 
I notice you used a lot of attitudinal indicators.  Do you think
this should become part of the baseline game?  Are you typical
or a-typical in this regard?

Well, one of the very, very few things I know about the game is that it has techniques, like the rock, stick, I'm-sure-there's-a-third-one-we-never-got-to one in the game we did. I think it would be a great idea to have an attitudinal technique. So, if that's what you mean by baseline, then yes.

I honestly don't know if my use of attitudinals is typical or not. The reason I used them is because I feel that it is a shame not to use such wonderful words, and also, using them helps me to learn them. I actually remember that .u'u is "Sorry!" and .au is "Eureeka!", due pretty much entirely to the fact that I've been using them.

So, I wish it was typical?
 
I'd like this material to develop into the best Lojban training
material it can be, so please give feedback with that in mind--
please don't be shy.

-Alan

I think most of the people in both the Lojban and Lojban-Beginners groups would describe me as many things, but I doubt shy is one of them. :)

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

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

Alan Post

unread,
Sep 24, 2010, 11:09:23 PM9/24/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 08:54:15PM -0600, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> Well, once I figured out what was going on, I'd say it all went fairly
> smoothly. The problem was figuring out, well, what was going on. I was
> especially confused when I asked how to play, and you replied "This is a
> rock." I was like, "WTF?" I didn't really think any of it was boring,
> although obviously .xorxes. disagreed. :) Obviously, the best part was
> when he threw the rock and the stick into the lake and told us to shut up
> about them, although that was also kind of the worst part since that was
> also the end of the game. :)
>

Part of the problem here was that I was not fluent enough to
translate enough of the rules of play into Lojban, and Hedwig
required that I speak in Lojban. I had to think about it awhile
to be able to articulate a set of bootstrapping rules.

One thing I've learned from this play session is that playing
over e-mail is helped when each of the players understands and
approaches it as an improv performance. There are a set of
six or so core techniques for improv, but the topical one here
is "Yes, And." You say yes to whatever happens, and build the
story by adding elements to those already in play.

When we play next we'll just have to figure out what to do about
our stick and rock being in the lake, and what do to about xorxes.

We had just gotten to the part of the game that permits the greatest
level of improvisation, as demonstrated by xorxes seizing that
moment.

> I notice you used a lot of attitudinal indicators. Do you think
> this should become part of the baseline game? Are you typical
> or a-typical in this regard?
>
> Well, one of the very, very few things I know about the game is that it
> has techniques, like the rock, stick,
> I'm-sure-there's-a-third-one-we-never-got-to one in the game we did. I
> think it would be a great idea to have an attitudinal technique. So, if
> that's what you mean by baseline, then yes.
>
> I honestly don't know if my use of attitudinals is typical or not. The
> reason I used them is because I feel that it is a shame not to use such
> wonderful words, and also, using them helps me to learn them. I actually
> remember that .u'u is "Sorry!" and .au is "Eureeka!", due pretty much
> entirely to the fact that I've been using them.
>
> So, I wish it was typical?
>

Good enough for me! That is what I mean.

> I'd like this material to develop into the best Lojban training
> material it can be, so please give feedback with that in mind--
> please don't be shy.
> -Alan
>
> I think most of the people in both the Lojban and Lojban-Beginners groups
> would describe me as many things, but I doubt shy is one of them. :)
>

Wonderful. I think it is worth pointing out that while you and I
played the majority of this game, it is a game that permits a large
number of players. My first exposure to the game involved 20 of us
playing together. I hope to involve more of you, with varying
levels of fluency, as the game progresses.

-Alan

Jonathan Jones

unread,
Sep 24, 2010, 11:10:19 PM9/24/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Where I'm quoted as saying { .i.ienai mi skami nu surla .i ri gunka}, I meant to say {na surla}.

Again, me. At { .i.uacai.ui .i ko'a rokci .i ko'e grana} the {.i} in {.i ko'a} shouldn't be there.

This one isn't really a grammar issue: At { .i.iecu'i naja'a go'i .i xu do djica}, the {naja'a} was me trying to say, basically, "I'm cool either way". I couldn't find a midpoint cmavo between {na} and {ja'a}.

{.i ca ko'a goi lo rokci pe mi .ije ko'e goi lo grana pe do} is a few lines early. I said it after you said {.i mi dunda ko'a do .ije do dunda ko'e mi} but before you said {.i mi lebna lo rokci pe mi do}, because after the transfer of possession the {pe} was reversed. (Which also means that {lo rokci pe mi} should've been {pe do}. :) )

Alan Post

unread,
Sep 24, 2010, 11:14:18 PM9/24/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 09:10:19PM -0600, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> Where I'm quoted as saying { .i.ienai mi skami nu surla .i ri gunka}, I
> meant to say {na surla}.
>
> Again, me. At { .i.uacai.ui .i ko'a rokci .i ko'e grana} the {.i} in {.i
> ko'a} shouldn't be there.
>
> This one isn't really a grammar issue: At { .i.iecu'i naja'a go'i .i xu do
> djica}, the {naja'a} was me trying to say, basically, "I'm cool either
> way". I couldn't find a midpoint cmavo between {na} and {ja'a}.
>
> {.i ca ko'a goi lo rokci pe mi .ije ko'e goi lo grana pe do} is a few
> lines early. I said it after you said {.i mi dunda ko'a do .ije do dunda
> ko'e mi} but before you said {.i mi lebna lo rokci pe mi do}, because
> after the transfer of possession the {pe} was reversed. (Which also means
> that {lo rokci pe mi} should've been {pe do}. :) )
>

Oh right, I meant to ask you about that, because I saw you modeling
that in the game.

I originally used "pe do" and "pe mi" because I wanted to translate
the sentence: "I have your stick"

I need some way to say "I posses this stick which you own." (or the
inverse, "I own the stick which you posses.")

I thought that "pe" could be used in this way, so I could say: {.i
mi ponse lo grana pe do} and mean "I have your stick."

Is there a better way to express this? It has certainly be the most
difficult issue I've had translating material.

-Alan

Jonathan Jones

unread,
Sep 24, 2010, 11:20:20 PM9/24/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Well, technically, when the items were transferred, both {pe do} and {pe mi} are valid. You originally had the rock, so the rock was associated with you, {pe do}, when you gave it to me, it became associated with me, in the sense that I was holding it, but it was still associated with you as well, in the sense that you were it's former bearer. I can't remember off the top of my head, so I need to look this up before I go any further....

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Sep 24, 2010, 11:20:26 PM9/24/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Alan Post <alan...@sunflowerriver.org> wrote:
>
> I would love to hear questions about things you find interesting or
> curious, corrections to the grammar, and any feedback you have,
> either as you watched the game being played or see it here now.

Since we are outside of Hedwig now, I can proceed with the corrections
to the grammar: :)

>  li'u .i la .aionys. cusku lu
>
>    .i.ienai mi skami nu surla .i ri gunka

I assume that was meant to be: ".i ienai lo mi skami na surla"

>  li'u .i la .alyn. cusku lu
>
>    .i si'o ta rokci ku xanri ko

".i lo si'o ..."

>    .i ko'a pe mi .i lo rokci pe mi .i ko'e pe do .i lo grana pe do

Grammatical, but no predicates here. I assume you want:

.i ko'a me mi moi .i lo rokci cu me mi moi .i ko'e me do moi .i lo
rokci cu me do moi

>    .i lo rokci pe mi xu .i lo grana pe mi xu

Again, you are not really asking anything about your rock here.

>  li'u .i la .alyn. cusku lu
>
>    .i mi djica lo za'i ponse be lo grana pe do .i xu do dunda lo grana
>    pe do mi

"be" not needed there.

>  li'u .i la .aionys. cusku lu
>
>    .i ca ko'a goi lo rokci pe mi .ije ko'e goi lo grana pe do

"ca ku", but again no predicate.


>  li'u .i la .aionys. cusku lu
>
>    .i go'i gi'o do dunda ko'a mi

Not grammatical. "gi'o" connects bridi-tails only.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Jonathan Jones

unread,
Sep 24, 2010, 11:22:52 PM9/24/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com

Okay, so the three (I knew that part) tiers are pe, po, po'e, which are associated, specific to, and inalienable to, in order. So, if the rock is your rock and you are holding it, it is {lo rokci pe do po do}, whereas if I am holding it, it is {lo rokci pe mi po do}.

Jonathan Jones

unread,
Sep 24, 2010, 11:26:47 PM9/24/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com


2010/9/24 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Alan Post <alan...@sunflowerriver.org> wrote:
>
> I would love to hear questions about things you find interesting or
> curious, corrections to the grammar, and any feedback you have,
> either as you watched the game being played or see it here now.

Since we are outside of Hedwig now, I can proceed with the corrections
to the grammar: :)

>  li'u .i la .aionys. cusku lu
>
>    .i.ienai mi skami nu surla .i ri gunka

I assume that was meant to be: ".i ienai lo mi skami na surla"

What? {lo mi}? mi doesn't need a lo.... But yes about the nu->na bit.
 
>  li'u .i la .alyn. cusku lu
>
>    .i si'o ta rokci ku xanri ko

".i lo si'o ..."

>    .i ko'a pe mi .i lo rokci pe mi .i ko'e pe do .i lo grana pe do

Grammatical, but no predicates here. I assume you want:

.i ko'a me mi moi .i lo rokci cu me mi moi .i ko'e me do moi .i lo
rokci cu me do moi

>    .i lo rokci pe mi xu .i lo grana pe mi xu

Again, you are not really asking anything about your rock here.

>  li'u .i la .alyn. cusku lu
>
>    .i mi djica lo za'i ponse be lo grana pe do .i xu do dunda lo grana
>    pe do mi

"be" not needed there.

>  li'u .i la .aionys. cusku lu
>
>    .i ca ko'a goi lo rokci pe mi .ije ko'e goi lo grana pe do

"ca ku", but again no predicate.

Should I have used du instead of goi, then?

>  li'u .i la .aionys. cusku lu
>
>    .i go'i gi'o do dunda ko'a mi

Not grammatical. "gi'o" connects bridi-tails only.

Well, poo. I assume you know what I meant, so what is the correct way to say it?
 
mu'o mi'e xorxes

Jonathan Jones

unread,
Sep 24, 2010, 11:27:38 PM9/24/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:


2010/9/24 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Alan Post <alan...@sunflowerriver.org> wrote:
>
> I would love to hear questions about things you find interesting or
> curious, corrections to the grammar, and any feedback you have,
> either as you watched the game being played or see it here now.

Since we are outside of Hedwig now, I can proceed with the corrections
to the grammar: :)

>  li'u .i la .aionys. cusku lu
>
>    .i.ienai mi skami nu surla .i ri gunka

I assume that was meant to be: ".i ienai lo mi skami na surla"

What? {lo mi}? mi doesn't need a lo.... But yes about the nu->na bit.

Correction. {lo mi skami}. I'm an idiot. Thanks for pointing that out. .u'u.u'i
 

Alan Post

unread,
Sep 24, 2010, 11:27:41 PM9/24/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 12:20:26AM -0300, Jorge Llamb�as wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Alan Post <alan...@sunflowerriver.org> wrote:
> >
> > I would love to hear questions about things you find interesting or
> > curious, corrections to the grammar, and any feedback you have,
> > either as you watched the game being played or see it here now.
>
> Since we are outside of Hedwig now, I can proceed with the corrections
> to the grammar: :)
>

Indeed!

I will mention here that:

a) I received permission from all of the participants of the game to
repost this material from Hedwig *and* to talk about grammar
issues that arose during play.
b) I will not be reposting play sessions for any games involving players
new to Lojban. Hedwig is a safe place to speak Lojban, and I intend
to continue hosting games there, with the desire to attract
players who may not be comfortable speaking Lojban on other
lists. The event of posting this transcript was special, due to it
being the first game palyed and my players all being fluent Lojbanists.

-Alan

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Sep 24, 2010, 11:34:22 PM9/24/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I didn't really think any of it was boring,
> although obviously .xorxes. disagreed. :) Obviously, the best part was when
> he threw the rock and the stick into the lake and told us to shut up about
> them, although that was also kind of the worst part since that was also the
> end of the game. :)

Actually, I thought Luke's "that's what she said" moment was pretty
funny, but you two severely scolded him for it and it was censored
from the transcript.

Alan Post

unread,
Sep 24, 2010, 11:36:18 PM9/24/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 12:20:26AM -0300, Jorge Llamb�as wrote:
> Grammatical, but no predicates here. I assume you want:
>
> .i ko'a me mi moi .i lo rokci cu me mi moi .i ko'e me do moi .i lo
> rokci cu me do moi
>

I can't tell you how much trouble I had with this. Actually, I can:

http://lodockikumazvati.org/prekarni/20100414_le_vajrai_se_tadni_draft/

Thank you so much for this, as this issue is the #1 thing that
drives me crazy about my current translation effort, but I didn't
know how to fix it.

-Alan

Alan Post

unread,
Sep 24, 2010, 11:39:27 PM9/24/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com

Ah, yes. I made that choice. It wouldn't have appeared in the
final transcript one way or the other, but anyone who would like
to read it can find it in the xedbig archives!

Actually, in all the play sessions I've done with "Where are your
Keys?," that particular line has never come up.

So Luke, I owe you a dollar.[1]

-Alan

1: I'm not sure how widespread that phrase is, but 'round here we
give out one dollar for every unique word combination spoken.

Jonathan Jones

unread,
Sep 24, 2010, 11:39:42 PM9/24/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
2010/9/24 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>

I didn't scold him. I said I thought it was bad joke. Did I forget to mention my amusement... I did. Oops. Please mentally amend the {.i.oicairo'e } to {.i.u'icai.oicairo'e}

Alan Post

unread,
Sep 24, 2010, 11:42:06 PM9/24/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 09:39:42PM -0600, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> Actually, I thought Luke's "that's what she said" moment was pretty
> funny, but you two severely scolded him for it and it was censored
> from the transcript.
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
> I didn't scold him. I said I thought it was bad joke. Did I forget to
> mention my amusement... I did. Oops. Please mentally amend the
> {.i.oicairo'e } to {.i.u'icai.oicairo'e}
>

And hey,

On that note, I thought I left myself wide open for additional jokes.

-Alan

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Sep 24, 2010, 11:51:04 PM9/24/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Alan Post <alan...@sunflowerriver.org> wrote:
>
> I need some way to say "I posses this stick which you own." (or the
> inverse, "I own the stick which you posses.")
>
> I thought that "pe" could be used in this way, so I could say: {.i
> mi ponse lo grana pe do} and mean "I have your stick."

That's more "I own your stick".

For "I'm holding the stick you own" you can use "mi jgari lo grana po do".

Jonathan Jones

unread,
Sep 24, 2010, 11:52:42 PM9/24/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
2010/9/24 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>

Ha! You're too late! I already told him about {po}! So there! :P .u'i zo'o

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Sep 24, 2010, 11:53:27 PM9/24/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Okay, so the three (I knew that part) tiers are pe, po, po'e, which are
> associated, specific to, and inalienable to, in order. So, if the rock is
> your rock and you are holding it, it is {lo rokci pe do po do}, whereas if I
> am holding it, it is {lo rokci pe mi po do}.

Insert "zi'e" there, otherwise you are saying that he owns himself,
and then he owns you.

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Sep 24, 2010, 11:56:31 PM9/24/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/9/24 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>

>>
>> >    .i ca ko'a goi lo rokci pe mi .ije ko'e goi lo grana pe do
>>
>> "ca ku", but again no predicate.
>
> Should I have used du instead of goi, then?

I prefer "me", but "du" will do too.

>> >    .i go'i gi'o do dunda ko'a mi
>>
>> Not grammatical. "gi'o" connects bridi-tails only.
>
> Well, poo. I assume you know what I meant, so what is the correct way to say
> it?

.ijo

Jonathan Jones

unread,
Sep 24, 2010, 11:59:22 PM9/24/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
2010/9/24 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>

.i ki'ecai mi na djica lonu da pensi lodu'u de ponse mi

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Sep 25, 2010, 12:01:21 AM9/25/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 12:52 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/9/24 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>

>>
>> For "I'm holding the stick you own" you can use "mi jgari lo grana po do".
>
> Ha! You're too late! I already told him about {po}! So there! :P .u'i zo'o

Fine, as long as you don't use "po'e" there, especially if Luke is around.

Jonathan Jones

unread,
Sep 25, 2010, 12:01:50 AM9/25/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
2010/9/24 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>

.i ki'ecai mi morji

(I noticed jbofi'e doesn't like it when ki'e isn't immediately followed by the person the ki'e is directed at. This is annoying to me, as I would think it obvious that I am thanking the person I am speaking to....)

Jonathan Jones

unread,
Sep 25, 2010, 12:03:01 AM9/25/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com


2010/9/24 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>

.i.u'i di'u se cusku le ninmu zo'o

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Sep 25, 2010, 12:08:06 AM9/25/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 1:01 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> .i ki'ecai mi morji
>
> (I noticed jbofi'e doesn't like it when ki'e isn't immediately followed by
> the person the ki'e is directed at. This is annoying to me, as I would think
> it obvious that I am thanking the person I am speaking to....)

I don't know why jbofi'e doesn't like it, but it means you are
thanking yourself. You can use ".i'o" if you want just an attitudinal
rather than a vocative.

Alan Post

unread,
Sep 25, 2010, 1:08:49 AM9/25/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com

I think the meaning truer to the intent of the game is "I own your
stick." In physical play, the objects are arranged on the table
with proximity determining ownership. So "my" stick would be in
front of me, and someone takes it by moving it from in front of
me to in front of them.

They don't hold it after that, because their hands need to be free
to continue signing.

Alan Post

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 9:47:19 AM9/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 12:20:26AM -0300, Jorge Llamb�as wrote:
> > � �.i ko'a pe mi .i lo rokci pe mi .i ko'e pe do .i lo grana pe do

>
> Grammatical, but no predicates here. I assume you want:
>
> .i ko'a me mi moi .i lo rokci cu me mi moi .i ko'e me do moi .i lo
> rokci cu me do moi
>

I am trying to learn how {mi moi} relates to {pe mi} and {po mi}.

I understand that pe/po are relative phrases, and I'm not sitting in
front of the reference grammar so I don't know why {pa moi broda} is
gramatical whereas {mi moi broda} is not.

If I say {.i lo broda ku me mi moi}, I understand that to mean
"broda is in set of my things (and events, states, &c?), but where does
this fall with regards to pe/po? Can you possess something in my set,
as in the (non-grammatical) ".i do ponse lo mi moi rokci"? To make this
grammatical do I say ".i do ponse lo mi rokci"? Or am I saying "you
posses the me type-of rock?

Thank you!

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 10:04:17 AM9/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Alan Post <alan...@sunflowerriver.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 12:20:26AM -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote:
>> >    .i ko'a pe mi .i lo rokci pe mi .i ko'e pe do .i lo grana pe do
>>
>> Grammatical, but no predicates here. I assume you want:
>>
>> .i ko'a me mi moi .i lo rokci cu me mi moi .i ko'e me do moi .i lo
>> rokci cu me do moi
>
> I am trying to learn how {mi moi} relates to {pe mi} and {po mi}.

"mi moi" by itself is not grammatical. The construct is "ME sumti MOI
[MEhU]", which converts the sumti into a selbri.

> I understand that pe/po are relative phrases, and I'm not sitting in
> front of the reference grammar so I don't know why {pa moi broda} is
> gramatical whereas {mi moi broda} is not.

Because "pa" and "mi" are in different selma'o.

> If I say {.i lo broda ku me mi moi}, I understand that to mean
> "broda is in set of my things (and events, states, &c?), but where does
> this fall with regards to pe/po?

It's a general relationship, like "pe". The place structure of "ME
sumti MOI" is "x1 is sumti's by relationship x2", so you can always
make it more specific by adding a specific x2.

> Can you possess something in my set,
> as in the (non-grammatical) ".i do ponse lo mi moi rokci"?

The grammatical form would be "do ponse lo me mi moi rokci".

> To make this
> grammatical do I say ".i do ponse lo mi rokci"?  Or am I saying "you
> posses the me type-of rock?

That's also correct, and equivalent to "do ponse lo rokci pe mi". "pe
mi" attaches to the sumti "lo rokci", "me mi moi" is a tanru unit that
forms a tanru with "rokci".

Alan Post

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 10:45:54 AM9/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:04:17AM -0300, Jorge Llamb�as wrote:
> > I understand that pe/po are relative phrases, and I'm not sitting in
> > front of the reference grammar so I don't know why {pa moi broda} is
> > gramatical whereas {mi moi broda} is not.
>
> Because "pa" and "mi" are in different selma'o.
>

Here is the answer I wanted to look up earlier:

BNF:

tanru-unit-2<152> ~= ...
ME # sumti /MEhU#/ [MOI #]
| (number | lerfu-string) MOI #
...

Rats:
tanru-unit-2 <- ...
ME-clause free* (sumti / lerfu-string) MEhU-clause? free* MOI-clause? free*
/ (number / lerfu-string) MOI-clause free*
...

moi has two places it is grammatical, one when dealing with numbers
and the other when used with ME. I was not previously aware that
the non-numerical use of MOI required ME.

.i mu'o mi'e .alyn.

Alan Post

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 12:12:02 PM9/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:04:17AM -0300, Jorge Llamb�as wrote:
> >�Can you possess something in my set,

> > as in the (non-grammatical) ".i do ponse lo mi moi rokci"?
>
> The grammatical form would be "do ponse lo me mi moi rokci".
>
> > To make this
> > grammatical do I say ".i do ponse lo mi rokci"? �Or am I saying "you
> > posses the me type-of rock?
>
> That's also correct, and equivalent to "do ponse lo rokci pe mi". "pe
> mi" attaches to the sumti "lo rokci", "me mi moi" is a tanru unit that
> forms a tanru with "rokci".
>

I believe I understand this well enough. In the context of {lo do
ckiku ma zvati}, I believe these are equivalent?:

.i do ponse lo rokci pe mi
.i do ponse lo me mi moi rokci


.i do ponse lo mi rokci

.i mu'o mi'e .alyn.

Krzysztof Sobolewski

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 1:01:47 PM9/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Dnia poniedziałek, 27 września 2010 o 16:04:17 Jorge Llambías napisał(a):
> The construct is "ME sumti MOI
> [MEhU]", which converts the sumti into a selbri.

Can you point to a section of CLL where it's described? I think it's the first time I see this construct and I read The Reference (almost) cover to cover ;) It seems to me that {moi} is the first overloaded cmavo I encountered... Can you insert other MOI there? What do they mean in this context?
--
Ecce Jezuch
"Drones since the dawn of time compelled to live your sheltered lives
Not once has anyone ever seen such a rise of pure hypocracy
I'll instigate I'll free your mind I'll show you what I've known all this time
God Hates Us All, God Hates Us All" - K. King

signature.asc

Alan Post

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 1:18:18 PM9/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 07:01:47PM +0200, Krzysztof Sobolewski wrote:
> Dnia poniedziałek, 27 września 2010 o 16:04:17 Jorge Llambías napisał(a):
> > The construct is "ME sumti MOI
> > [MEhU]", which converts the sumti into a selbri.
>
> Can you point to a section of CLL where it's described? I think it's the first time I see this construct and I read The Reference (almost) cover to cover ;) It seems to me that {moi} is the first overloaded cmavo I encountered... Can you insert other MOI there? What do they mean in this context?

MOI is all over the place in the CLL:

http://dag.github.com/cll/3/9/ # used, but not described
http://dag.github.com/cll/5/12/
http://dag.github.com/cll/5/13/
http://dag.github.com/cll/5/9/
http://dag.github.com/cll/9/7/ # used, but not described
http://dag.github.com/cll/17/11/
http://dag.github.com/cll/18/10/
http://dag.github.com/cll/18/11/
http://dag.github.com/cll/18/12/
http://dag.github.com/cll/18/21/
http://dag.github.com/cll/18/23/
http://dag.github.com/cll/18/26/

The one of these you are interested in is here:

http://dag.github.com/cll/18/11/

I personally think it could use a bit of fleshing out, it glosses
over a lot very fast.

Krzysztof Sobolewski

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 1:38:57 PM9/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Dnia poniedziałek, 27 września 2010 o 19:18:18 Alan Post napisał(a):
> The one of these you are interested in is here:
>
> http://dag.github.com/cll/18/11/

Ah indeed, ki'e.

> I personally think it could use a bit of fleshing out, it glosses
> over a lot very fast.

Yeah, no wonder I didn't remember it...

"It is perfectly possible to use non-numerical sumti after “me” and before a member of MOI, producing strange results indeed:"

Is it "perfectly possible" because there's no way to prevent it with grammar itself, i.e. it's a bug that became a feature? ;) Because I still don't have an idea what {me mi moi} would mean (me-th?).
--
Ecce Jezuch
"-Oh, yeah, that was really cool! Huh, huh / -No, that also sucked...
-What do you know, asswipe? / -We know everything, buttmunch"
- Beavis & St. Peter

signature.asc

Alan Post

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 1:50:15 PM9/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 07:38:57PM +0200, Krzysztof Sobolewski wrote:
> Dnia poniedziałek, 27 września 2010 o 19:18:18 Alan Post napisał(a):
> > The one of these you are interested in is here:
> >
> > http://dag.github.com/cll/18/11/
>
> Ah indeed, ki'e.
>
> > I personally think it could use a bit of fleshing out, it glosses
> > over a lot very fast.
>
> Yeah, no wonder I didn't remember it...
>
> "It is perfectly possible to use non-numerical sumti after “me” and before a member of MOI, producing strange results indeed:"
>
> Is it "perfectly possible" because there's no way to prevent it with grammar itself, i.e. it's a bug that became a feature? ;) Because I still don't have an idea what {me mi moi} would mean (me-th?).

You can compose the meaning by looking at the definition of me and
moi:

me:

x1 is a mass formed from the set x2 of n members,
one or more of which is/are x3

moi:

x1 is the (n)th member of set x2 when ordered by rule x3 [by standard x4]

So one could take {me mi moi} to be:

x1 is a member of the mass of those things that are mine.

I've been thinking about it like giving a name/description to a set,
rather than counting the element of a set number-wise.

Other intrepretation is most certainly welcome! It doesn't seem accidental,
as a special rule was made for it.

Luke Bergen

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 1:50:59 PM9/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
hmmm.

{barda traji fa lo nu me mi moi fo lo mi pendo}

no, that's not right.  I'm trying to think of an example where it actually would make sense to talk about the me-th member in a set of people.

{lo traji cu me mi moi lo mi pendo lo ka barda} maybe?

that {cu} is necessary right?  If the {me} turns what follows into a selbri then the {mi moi} would get sucked up in to a tanru with {traji} right?

Alan Post

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 1:54:22 PM9/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
I was just about to comment that it this point in the CLL, the
authors stopped trying to create examples that teach and started
going for anything they cared to throw at the reader. My general
impression of the CLL is that the quality of the examples degrades
as the book progresses, and it is a shame that the one example of
this use given involves uneeded grammar that obscures the main
point. (If there is a main point...)

-Alan

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 01:50:59PM -0400, Luke Bergen wrote:
> hmmm.
> {barda traji fa lo nu me mi moi fo lo mi pendo}
> no, that's not right. I'm trying to think of an example where it actually
> would make sense to talk about the me-th member in a set of people.
> {lo traji cu me mi moi lo mi pendo lo ka barda} maybe?
> that {cu} is necessary right? If the {me} turns what follows into a
> selbri then the {mi moi} would get sucked up in to a tanru with {traji}
> right?
>
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Krzysztof Sobolewski

> <[1]jez...@interia.pl> wrote:
>
> Dnia poniedzia�ek, 27 wrze�nia 2010 o 19:18:18 Alan Post napisa�(a):


> > The one of these you are interested in is here:
> >

> > [2]http://dag.github.com/cll/18/11/


>
> Ah indeed, ki'e.
> > I personally think it could use a bit of fleshing out, it glosses
> > over a lot very fast.
>
> Yeah, no wonder I didn't remember it...
>
> "It is perfectly possible to use non-numerical sumti after "me" and
> before a member of MOI, producing strange results indeed:"
>
> Is it "perfectly possible" because there's no way to prevent it with
> grammar itself, i.e. it's a bug that became a feature? ;) Because I
> still don't have an idea what {me mi moi} would mean (me-th?).
> --
> Ecce Jezuch
> "-Oh, yeah, that was really cool! Huh, huh / -No, that also sucked...
> -What do you know, asswipe? / -We know everything, buttmunch"
> - Beavis & St. Peter
>

> --
> 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.
>
> References
>
> Visible links
> 1. mailto:jez...@interia.pl
> 2. http://dag.github.com/cll/18/11/

Krzysztof Sobolewski

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 2:10:55 PM9/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Dnia poniedziałek, 27 września 2010 o 19:50:15 Alan Post napisał(a):
> You can compose the meaning by looking at the definition of me and
> moi:
>
> me:
>
> x1 is a mass formed from the set x2 of n members,
> one or more of which is/are x3

I think you quoted a definition of {mei}, not {me} :)

me:
convert sumti to selbri/tanru element; x1 is specific to [sumti] in aspect x2.

> Other intrepretation is most certainly welcome! It doesn't seem accidental,
> as a special rule was made for it.

It would appear so, although CLL seems to imply that ME..MEhU is supposed to me mainly a parenthesis around a complex number, that is later passed to MOI.
--
Ecce Jezuch
"Jon: I think setting goals is very important.
Garfield: Good idea. Without a goal, how would you know when you failed?"

signature.asc

Alan Post

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 2:13:51 PM9/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com

let me try this again:

me mi moi => me_x1 me (me_x2= (moi_x1=mi) moi)

so the x2 of me is {mi moi} and the x1 of moi is {mi}

x1 is a mass formed from the set of x2={mi moi} of n members
x1={me} is the (n)th member of set x2 when ordered by rule x3 [by standard x4]

Alan Post

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 2:16:41 PM9/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 12:13:51PM -0600, Alan Post wrote:
> let me try this again:
>
> me mi moi => me_x1 me (me_x2= (moi_x1=mi) moi)
>
> so the x2 of me is {mi moi} and the x1 of moi is {mi}
>
> x1 is a mass formed from the set of x2={mi moi} of n members
> x1={me} is the (n)th member of set x2 when ordered by rule x3 [by standard x4]
>

And after a correction from Krzysztof Sobolewski:

me mi moi:

me: convert sumti to selbri/tanru element; x1 is specific to [sumti]

in aspect x2={mi moi}.

moi: x1={me} is the (n)th member of set x2 when ordered by rule x3
[by standard x4]

Thank you! What did I get wrong?

Lindar

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 3:18:51 PM9/27/10
to lojban
regarding ki'e, the reason it wants the person thanked is because it's
in selma'o COI, just like je'e, vi'o, doi, and others.

Also, re pe/po.
pe mi is my chair at work or the friend of a friend.
po mi is the chair I bought last week or the sandwhich I brought for
lunch.

Luke Bergen

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 3:27:19 PM9/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
and po'e mi would be like "my arm" or "my father".  

It always confused me that people listed them like that (pe, po, po'e).  I still get tripped up thinking things like "oh, so then for attaching incidental info I would use ne, .... no, .. no'e?"

I'm still trying to train myself to think of it as
poi - noi
pe - ne
po'u - no'u

and po and po'e are like their own little beasts.  Which brings up another question.  Why no incidental versions of {po} and {po'e}?  All the other restrictive markers have incidental counterparts.

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 6:26:01 PM9/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Luke Bergen <lukea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> poi - noi
> pe - ne
> po'u - no'u
> and po and po'e are like their own little beasts.  Which brings up another
> question.  Why no incidental versions of {po} and {po'e}?  All the other
> restrictive markers have incidental counterparts.

The question I would ask instead is why bother with "po" and "po'e" at all?

"po" can only be useful to someone really obsessed with property,
otherwise "pe" works just fine, and in the cases when it's really
important to emphasize a property relationship, then you can always
say "poi se ponse". What's so special about the "ponse" relationship
that it needs a special shortcut word?

So you don't really need an incidental version of "po", you can just
use "noi se ponse" if the need ever arises.

As for "po'e", it is really hard to come up with an example where you
would use "po'e" instead of "be". "po'e" doesn't really make much
sense for a language like Lojban where all the words are intrinsically
relationships. And I don't even know what you would do with an
incidental version of "po'e", since even the restrictive version is so
useless. What did you need it for?

Luke Bergen

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 6:44:23 PM9/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
I dunno what I would need it for, it just bothers me that it breaks the symmetry.

hmmm, I imagine some religious texts might find a use for {lo pruxi po'e mi}?

2010/9/27 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>
--

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 6:51:06 PM9/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Luke Bergen <lukea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I dunno what I would need it for, it just bothers me that it breaks the
> symmetry.
> hmmm, I imagine some religious texts might find a use for {lo pruxi po'e
> mi}?

But wouldn't they use "lo pruxi be mi"? If the soul is part of the
person, why would they use a word that doesn't mean what they mean? If
they have qualms about using "pruxi be" surely they would choose some
other word that means "x1 is the soul of x2" and not one that means
something else.

Luke Bergen

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 8:23:01 PM9/27/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
I see what you're saying.  I chose {pruxi} because it only has an x1 so {be} doesn't work for it.  But if a relationship between two things is stronger than {pe} than maybe it's not the right word to begin with if {be} doesn't work for expressing the relationship.

2010/9/27 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages