cu-alike for other situations

13 views
Skip to first unread message

Robin Lee Powell

unread,
Oct 31, 2010, 1:31:17 PM10/31/10
to lojba...@lojban.org
Something that I and some others have talked about on IRC a few
times is "Wow, cu is pretty useful when deeply nested; wouldn't it
be nice to have something like that that could work in other places
besides before the selbri?".

This turns out to be surprisingly tricky; many ideas have been shown
to be unworkable.

I think I might finally have something: mark FA as needing
terminator closure before it. Example:

mi denpa le nu do xruti fi le nu zutse

vs.

mi denpa le nu do xruti cu fi le nu zutse

"cu fi" means "close terminators, at least one, until a fi is
allowed". More than one cu would be allowed there, with the obvious
effect.

Please note that I am NOT attached to "cu" here; a postfix new cmavo
(i.e. "fi xu'u"), or whatever, would be fine. (IIRC postfix is
easier in terms of grammatical simplicity, but it's been a while).

-Robin

--
http://singinst.org/ : Our last, best hope for a fantastic future.
Lojban (http://www.lojban.org/): The language in which "this parrot
is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this sentence is false"
is "na nei". My personal page: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/

Luke Bergen

unread,
Oct 31, 2010, 2:14:43 PM10/31/10
to lojba...@lojban.org, loj...@googlegroups.com

So in this system "cu" becomes a generic shortcut for <insert all terminators that are applicable except for vau>?

... sounds cool if I'm understanding it correctly (probably not)

> --
> 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.
>

Robin Lee Powell

unread,
Oct 31, 2010, 2:20:23 PM10/31/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Oh, it might be a {vau} too. It certainly is in the cases below;
it's substituting for {kei vau ku}.

I wasn't proposing that it be general; that's been the problem in
the past. Trying to make a "pop back a sentence" general cmavo runs
into a lot of problems. I was just thinking about adding {cu FA} to
{cu SELBRI}.

-Robin

> lojban+un...@googlegroups.com <lojban%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.


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

--

Luke Bergen

unread,
Oct 31, 2010, 3:34:50 PM10/31/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Ok, so the general rule when reading a piece of text and encountering a {cu} is "ok, whatever comes next, it's applied to the main selbri (either it is the main selbri, or it's going in the FV slot)".  Does that sound right?  Can {CU} be followed by BAI?  How about tags in general?  It seems inconsistent to say that {cu fi} is good but {cu ca} is not.  FA and PU behave the same in nearly all other respects.  Why should they be different here?

For the record, I think it's a great idea.  It seems a shame that with as useful as {cu} is, it's only allowed to be used to "pop out" to the main selbri.

Robin Lee Powell

unread,
Oct 31, 2010, 3:37:03 PM10/31/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 03:34:50PM -0400, Luke Bergen wrote:
> Ok, so the general rule when reading a piece of text and
> encountering a {cu} is "ok, whatever comes next, it's applied to
> the main selbri (either it is the main selbri, or it's going in
> the FV slot)". Does that sound right?

No. Next outer bridi, not "main" bridi, whatever that might mean.
Same as {cu} works now:

mi djica le nu le klama cu xunre

> Can {CU} be followed by BAI? How about tags in general? It seems
> inconsistent to say that {cu fi} is good but {cu ca} is not. FA
> and PU behave the same in nearly all other respects. Why should
> they be different here?

Good point.

> For the record, I think it's a great idea. It seems a shame that
> with as useful as {cu} is, it's only allowed to be used to "pop
> out" to the main selbri.

--

Luke Bergen

unread,
Oct 31, 2010, 3:51:13 PM10/31/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Wait, my understanding of {cu} was that it breaks out to the "main bridi".  Maybe I've been misunderstanding it up to this point.

If I say:

lo nu do poi se cinri lo nu bajra cu cumki

Would this be ungrammatical because the first abstraction we come to is missing a selbri?  Or because the outermost bridi is missing a selbri?

Robin Lee Powell

unread,
Oct 31, 2010, 3:54:03 PM10/31/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 03:51:13PM -0400, Luke Bergen wrote:
> Wait, my understanding of {cu} was that it breaks out to the "main
> bridi". Maybe I've been misunderstanding it up to this point.
>
> If I say:
>
> lo nu do poi se cinri lo nu bajra cu cumki
>
> Would this be ungrammatical because the first abstraction we come
> to is missing a selbri? Or because the outermost bridi is missing
> a selbri?

It's perfectly grammatical, it's just not a sentence; it's a single
sumti describing an event, with "cumki" as the selbri for the event:

text
sumti6
|- CMAVO
| LE: lo
|- tanruUnit2
|- CMAVO
| NU: nu
|- sentence
|- sumti5
| |- CMAVO
| | KOhA: do
| |- relativeClause1
| |- CMAVO
| | NOI: poi
| |- bridiTail3
| |- tanruUnit2
| | |- CMAVO
| | | SE: se
| | |- BRIVLA
| | gismu: cinri
| |- sumti6
| |- CMAVO
| | LE: lo
| |- tanruUnit2
| |- CMAVO
| | NU: nu
| |- BRIVLA
| gismu: bajra
|- CMAVO
| CU: cu
|- BRIVLA
gismu: cumki


Compare "lo nu do poi se cinri lo nu bajra cu cumki cu xunre":

text
sentence
|- sumti6
| |- CMAVO
| | LE: lo
| |- tanruUnit2
| |- CMAVO
| | NU: nu
| |- sentence
| |- sumti5
| | |- CMAVO
| | | KOhA: do
| | |- relativeClause1
| | |- CMAVO
| | | NOI: poi
| | |- bridiTail3
| | |- tanruUnit2
| | | |- CMAVO
| | | | SE: se
| | | |- BRIVLA
| | | gismu: cinri
| | |- sumti6
| | |- CMAVO
| | | LE: lo
| | |- tanruUnit2
| | |- CMAVO
| | | NU: nu
| | |- BRIVLA
| | gismu: bajra
| |- CMAVO
| | CU: cu
| |- BRIVLA
| gismu: cumki
|- CMAVO
| CU: cu
|- BRIVLA
gismu: xunre

-Robin

Arnt Richard Johansen

unread,
Oct 31, 2010, 3:59:43 PM10/31/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:31:17AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> Something that I and some others have talked about on IRC a few
> times is "Wow, cu is pretty useful when deeply nested; wouldn't it
> be nice to have something like that that could work in other places
> besides before the selbri?".
>
> This turns out to be surprisingly tricky; many ideas have been shown
> to be unworkable.
>
> I think I might finally have something: mark FA as needing
> terminator closure before it. Example:
>
> mi denpa le nu do xruti fi le nu zutse
>
> vs.
>
> mi denpa le nu do xruti cu fi le nu zutse

I don't understand what neither the problem nor the solution is. Can you translate the second sentence into current Lojban, please?

--
Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/
Your speaker should [...] not be suffering for a cold, or cough, or a
hangover. If something goes wrong [...] it is important that the speaker has
as similar a voice as with the original recording, waiting for another cold
to come along is not reasonable, (though some may argue that the same
hangover can easily be induced).
--Building Synthetic Voices, by Alan W. Black and Kevin A. Lenzo

Robin Lee Powell

unread,
Oct 31, 2010, 4:01:57 PM10/31/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 08:59:43PM +0100, Arnt Richard Johansen
wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:31:17AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > Something that I and some others have talked about on IRC a few
> > times is "Wow, cu is pretty useful when deeply nested; wouldn't
> > it be nice to have something like that that could work in other
> > places besides before the selbri?".
> >
> > This turns out to be surprisingly tricky; many ideas have been
> > shown to be unworkable.
> >
> > I think I might finally have something: mark FA as needing
> > terminator closure before it. Example:
> >
> > mi denpa le nu do xruti fi le nu zutse
> >
> > vs.
> >
> > mi denpa le nu do xruti cu fi le nu zutse
>
> I don't understand what neither the problem nor the solution is.
> Can you translate the second sentence into current Lojban, please?

mi denpa le nu do xruti kei vau ku fi le nu zutse

(yes, I know you don't need all three, but I certainly could come up
with an example where you did need 3 terminaters)

I wouldn't say it's a *problem*, just that something like this is a
nice-to-have.

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Oct 31, 2010, 5:17:31 PM10/31/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Robin Lee Powell
<rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 08:59:43PM +0100, Arnt Richard Johansen
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:31:17AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>> >
>> > mi denpa le nu do xruti cu fi le nu zutse
>>
>> I don't understand what neither the problem nor the solution is.

Me neither.

>> Can you translate the second sentence into current Lojban, please?
>
> mi denpa le nu do xruti kei vau ku fi le nu zutse

(should be "vau kei ku")

> (yes, I know you don't need all three, but I certainly could come up
> with an example where you did need 3 terminaters)

Can you give a realistic example of when this would be useful, then?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Robin Lee Powell

unread,
Oct 31, 2010, 5:19:48 PM10/31/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 06:17:31PM -0300, Jorge Llamb�as wrote:
> > (yes, I know you don't need all three, but I certainly could
> > come up with an example where you did need 3 terminaters)
>
> Can you give a realistic example of when this would be useful,
> then?

I found the example as-is perfectly useful; to me it is much easier
to think "I want to do the x3 of the next outer bridi now" and just
*say that* then have to figure out what I need to close to achieve
that result. The way I proposed fits the way I think about the
language a lot better.

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Oct 31, 2010, 5:27:58 PM10/31/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Robin Lee Powell
<rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
>
> I found the example as-is perfectly useful; to me it is much easier
> to think "I want to do the x3 of the next outer bridi now" and just
> *say that* then have to figure out what I need to close to achieve
> that result.  The way I proposed fits the way I think about the
> language a lot better.

How does the proposed "cu fi" differ from the current "vau fi" then?

"vau" tells you to terminate the current bridi and move on.

Robin Lee Powell

unread,
Oct 31, 2010, 5:31:23 PM10/31/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com

I seem to recall cases where vau wasn't sufficient to do what I
want, but nothing's coming to mind at the moment. The next time
that happens I'll try to take note.

John E Clifford

unread,
Oct 31, 2010, 5:40:23 PM10/31/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
All this is a little outside my range, but Logjan has a history of right hand
end problems, both in specifying them and in using those specs correctly. Any
device that does this efficiently and surely would be universally welcomed
(after the carping about details and destroying the purity of the language are
over, of course).


----- Original Message ----
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, October 31, 2010 4:31:23 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] cu-alike for other situations

-Robin

--

Pierre Abbat

unread,
Oct 31, 2010, 6:24:11 PM10/31/10
to lojba...@lojban.org
On Sunday 31 October 2010 13:31:17 Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> Something that I and some others have talked about on IRC a few
> times is "Wow, cu is pretty useful when deeply nested; wouldn't it
> be nice to have something like that that could work in other places
> besides before the selbri?".
>
> This turns out to be surprisingly tricky; many ideas have been shown
> to be unworkable.
>
> I think I might finally have something: mark FA as needing
> terminator closure before it. Example:
>
> mi denpa le nu do xruti fi le nu zutse
>
> vs.
>
> mi denpa le nu do xruti cu fi le nu zutse
>
> "cu fi" means "close terminators, at least one, until a fi is
> allowed". More than one cu would be allowed there, with the obvious
> effect.
>
> Please note that I am NOT attached to "cu" here; a postfix new cmavo
> (i.e. "fi xu'u"), or whatever, would be fine. (IIRC postfix is
> easier in terms of grammatical simplicity, but it's been a while).

I don't think "cu" should be used like this. As currently defined, "cu" is the
predicate marker, and is very similar to "i" in Tok Pisin, which I learned
before Lojban. Using "cu" to mark that "fi" closes terminators is too weird
to me. If you can make some other cmavo work with "fi", I might be in favor
of it.

Pierre

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

Jonathan Jones

unread,
Oct 31, 2010, 6:27:35 PM10/31/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:40 PM, John E Clifford <kali9...@yahoo.com> wrote:
All this is a little outside my range, but Logjan has a history of right hand
end problems, both in specifying them and in using those specs correctly.  Any
device that does this efficiently and surely would be universally welcomed
(after the carping about details and destroying the purity of the language are
over, of course).
 
It seems to me that this kind of construct would make most if not elidable terminators basically unneccesary. I could be wrong on that, and I'm not stating a desire for that to happen.
 
In any case, if there are cases where "vau FA" isn't enough, I think it would make most sense to alter the grammar of {vau} so that it /is/ enough, rather than creating another word. I don't personally think using {cu} in that respect is a good idea, but I do like the idea of having a word that does as Robin proposes.



--
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 )

Luke Bergen

unread,
Oct 31, 2010, 7:03:02 PM10/31/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
I think I've been misunderstanding {cu} for a long time now so I'd like to get that straightened out before I try to weigh in any further on this topic.

So, currently {cu} will break you out to the next appropriate bridi (i.e. the next bridi that is waiting for a selbri) and not necessarily out to the "main" bridi?  If this is true, then I understand why people are asking why {vau} would not work.  

Lindar

unread,
Oct 31, 2010, 8:09:13 PM10/31/10
to lojban
Huh... I hate it.
It makes sense, it's probably very useful, I'll probably back it, but
I hate it... a lot.
IMO should be a different word (I already have trouble understanding
what's been said when I hear {cu broda cu brode}, so making it a
different word would be nice.

Maybe {qu} could be used? =D

I'd like to, before we jump into anything, see if {vau} doesn't solve
your problems for this purpose, but it sounds like a decent idea. It
would serve to further differentiate the already existent dialects.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages