Random thoughts and notes on lojban, including both CLL-focused and experimental stuff, as well as my own insane, uninformed ideas on how to break the language...

Random Lojban Thoughts

<*WARNING* I am not a linguist and I have very limited practice in parsing or grammar construction, and my grasp of Lojban is still terrible, so I am absolutely making shit up here.>

broda(T0<sumti> ko'a, T1<sumti> ko'e, T2<sumti> ko'i, T3<sumti> ko'o, T4<sumti> ko'u) -> <bridi>
lo(<selbri> broda(T0<sumti> _, ...)) -> T0<partial_sumti>
lo(<sumti> ko'a, <selbri> broda(T0<sumti>, ...)) -> T0<partial_sumti>
ku(<partial_sumti> ko'a) -> <sumti>
la(<any> text) -> <partial_sumti>
be(<selbri> broda, <sumti> ko'a) -> <partial_selbri>
bei(<partial_selbri> broda, <sumti> ko'a) -> <partial_selbri>
be'o(<partial_selbri> broda) -> <selbri>

.i mi viska lo mlatu -> viska(mi, ku(lo(mlatu)))
.i lo mi mamta cu viska do -> viska(ku(lo(mi, mamta)), do)

.i bridi = .i bridi vau
ko'a broda ko'e ko'i ko'o ko'u = ko'a cu broda be ko'e bei ko'i bei ko'o bei ko'u be'o
ko'a broda ko'e ko'i ko'o ko'u = ko'a ko'e broda ko'i ko'o ko'u = ko'a ko'e ko'i broda ko'o ko'u = ko'a ko'e ko'i ko'o broda ko'u = ko'a ko'e ko'i ko'o ko'u broda -> broda(ko'a, ko'e, ko'i, ko'o, ko'u)
broda ko'a ko'e ko'i ko'o = zo'e poi broda ko'a ko'e ko'i ko'o  -> ∃ zo'e broda(zo'e, ko'a, ko'e, ko'i, ko'o)
lo broda = zo'e poi broda -> ∃ zo'e broda(zo'e)
lo ko'a broda = lo broda pe ko'a
ko'a pe ko'e = ko'e ponse ko'a -> ∃ ko'a ponse(ko'e) ? Does pe -> ponse make sense?
lo broda pe ke'a = da me ke'a ponse lo broda ? Does pe -> ponse make sense?
tau ko'a = ko'a jai co'e
ko'a jai broda = lo su'u ko'a co'e cu broda

PROPOSITION: su'i
su'i: tag cmavo; x1 is an abstract representation of x2<brivla>; convert x1 to an abstraction with <x1> as its type. 
-> su'u = su'i co'e, nu = su'i fasnu, du = su'i bridi, ka = su'i ckaji, etc.

lo ke'a broda = da me ke'a ponse zo'e poi broda ?
nu = fasnu ? nu = x1 su'u lo fasnu
du = bridi ?
ka = ckaji ?

ki'u = krinu, ri'a = rinka, mu'i = mukti
<why> = ki'u | ri'a | mu'i, <why exp> = krinu | rinka | mukti

broda <why> brode = lo ka brode cu <why exp> lo ka broda
<why> broda brode = lo ka broda cu <why exp> lo ka brode

.i mi viska lo mlatu -> .i mi cu viska be zo'e poi mlatu be zo'e be'o ku vau

--------

Based on Nick Nicholas's gadri report in 2003 (http://www.lojban.org/tiki/gadri+report,+aug+2003), lojban suffers from ill-defined article rules.

So I was thinking: the justification for xorlo reform was a question of epistomology. { lo } was too broad, talking about veridicality (objective truth), so everyone used { le } because questions of subjective perception prevented the common usage of { lo }. Then xorxes proposed "we can't know anything for sure, we should accept that our perceptions are flawed. Remove the restrictions of veridicality for { lo } and redefine { lo } to be "The/a thing(s), left to context", and { le } to be "The/a thing(s) that the listener/reader knows I'm talking about". However, since "left to context" is now the hotness in Lojban, that means { le } is now mostly useless and is, indeed, largely unused in modern post-xorlo lojban.

Step in the right direction, but that is all now plagued by Nick's complaints about plurality, masses, and general ambiguity. He uses the terms "intensional" and "extensional", both of which I think are horribly misleading for what they are supposed to represent.

le broda -> The (default singular) thing that fits broda, left to context. (iterable group of size 1)
lei broda -> The (default singular) group of things such that each member of the group, but not necessarily the group itself, conforms to broda, left to context. (iterable, packaged group of size N)
lo broda -> A group with members such that, as a group, at least fit broda, but each member may or may not conform to broda, left to context.
loi broda -> Group(s) that conform to broda, left to context.
lo'i broda -> The "broda" supertype. In English, the "cats" part of "I like cats".
la cmevla -> The (default singular) thing that is named "cmevla"
lai cmevla -> The (default singular) group of things that, as a group, are called "cmevla", but some or all members may also be called "cmevla".

What does this change?

"I like the cat" -> .i mi nelci tau le mlatu -> "I like something about one particular cat".
"I like the cats" -> .i mi nelci tau lei mlatu -> "I like something about each cat in one particular group of cats"
"I like the cats" -> .i mi nelci tau lo mlatu -> "I like something about a group of cats as a whole"
"I like the cats" -> .i mi nelci tau loi mlatu -> "I like something about various groups consisting of cats"
"I like cats" -> .i mi nelci tau lo'i mlatu -> "I like something about things that are classified as cats"
"I like Cat" -> .i mi nelci tau la mlatu -> "I like something about the thing called 'mlatu'"
"I like Cats" -> .i mi nelci tau lai mlatu -> "I like something about the thing(s) called 'mlatu'"

There are two examples that come up rather often when talking about plurality and group identity with regards to gadri. They are "I like chocolate" and "The people carry the piano". The first is addressed with { lo'i } in { .i mi nelci tau lo'i cakla }. Next, each person in the group cannot be said to carry the piano, but the *group* satisfies that condition, therefor { lo } is sufficient to indicate, given context, that the group is involved in carrying the piano { .i lo prenu cu bevri le pipno }.

<*WARNING* I am not a linguist and I have very limited practice in parsing or grammar construction, and my grasp of Lojban is still terrible, so I am absolutely making shit up here.>