![[Cartoon]](chap12.gif)
Although the lujvo ``fagyfesti'' is derived from the tanru ``fagri festi'', it
is not equivalent in meaning to it. In particular, ``fagyfesti'' has a
distinct place structure of its own, not the same as that of ``festi''.
(In contrast, the tanru does have the same place structure as ``festi''.)
The lujvo needs to take account of the places of ``fagri'' as well. When
a tanru is made into a lujvo, there is no equivalent of ``be
The exact workings of the lujvo-making algorithm, which takes a tanru
built from gismu (and possibly cmavo) and produces a lujvo from it, are
described in Chapter 4.
The tanru ``klama zdani'' will also have two places, namely those of ``zdani''.
Since a ``klama zdani'' is a type of ``zdani'', we can assume that all
goer-houses --- whatever they may be --- are also houses.
For something (call it z1) to qualify as a ``gerku zdani'' in
Lojban, it's got to be a house, first of all. For it to be a house, it's
got to house someone (call that z2). Furthermore, there's got to be a dog
somewhere (called g1). For g1 to count as a dog in Lojban, it's got to belong
to some breed as well (called g2). And finally, for z1 to be in the first
place of ``gerku zdani'', as opposed to just ``zdani'', there's got to be some
relationship (called r) between some place of ``zdani'' and some
place of ``gerku''. It doesn't matter which places, because if there's a
relationship between some place of ``zdani'' and any place of ``gerku'', then
that relationship can be compounded with the relationship between the places
of ``gerku'' --- namely, ``gerku'' itself --- to reach any of the other ``gerku''
places. Thus, if the relationship turns out to be between z2 and g2, we
can still state r in terms of z1 and g1: ``the relationship involves the
dog g1, whose breed has to do with the occupant of the house z1''.
As we have seen, no less than five elements are involved in the definition
of ``gerku zdani'': the house, the house dweller, the dog, the dog breed
(everywhere a dog goes in Lojban, a dog breed follows), and the relationship
between the house and the dog. Since tanru are explicitly ambiguous in
Lojban, the relationship r cannot be expressed within a tanru (if it
could, it wouldn't be a tanru any more!) All the other places, however, can
be expressed --- thus:
This is a fairly long way to go to try and work out how to say ``doghouse''!
The reader can take heart; we're nearly there. Recall that one of the
components involved in fixing the meaning of a tanru --- the one left
deliberately vague --- is the precise relation between the tertau and the
seltau. Indeed, fixing this relation is tantamount to giving an
interpretation to the ambiguous tanru.
Therefore, it is generally not appropriate to simply devise lujvo and decide
on place structures for them without considering one or more specific
usages for the coinage. If one does not consider specifics, one will
be likely to make erroneous generalizations on the relationship r.
In fact, the relationship will almost always be so close that the predicate
expressing r will be either the seltau or the tertau predicate itself.
This should come as no surprise, given that a word like ``zdani'' in Lojban is
a predicate. Predicates express relations; so when you're looking for a
relation to tie together ``le zdani'' and ``le gerku'', the most obvious
relation to pick is the very relation named by the tertau, ``zdani'': the
relation between a home and its dweller. As a result, the object which
fills the first place of ``gerku'' (the dog) also fills the second place of
``zdani'' (the house-dweller).
So what is the place structure of ``gerzda''? We're left with three places,
since the dweller, the ``se zdani'', turned out to be identical to the dog,
the ``gerku''. We can proceed as follows:
The place structure of ``gerku'' is:
But z2 is the same as g1; therefore, the tentative place structure for
``gerzda'' now becomes:
Despite the apparently conclusive nature of Example 3.5, our task is not yet
done: we still need to decide whether any of the remaining places should
also be eliminated, and what order the lujvo places should appear in. These
concerns will be addressed in the remainder of the chapter; but we are now
equipped with the terminology needed for those discussions.
The first is that it might be very difficult for a hearer or reader, who
has no preconceived idea of what concept the lujvo is intended to convey,
to work out what the place structure actually is. Instead, he or she would
have to make use of a lujvo dictionary every time a lujvo is encountered in
order to work out what a ``se jbopli'' or a ``te klagau'' is. But this would
mean that, rather than having to learn just the 1300-odd gismu place structures,
a Lojbanist would also have to learn myriads of lujvo place structures
with little or no apparent pattern or regularity to them. The purpose of
the guidelines documented in this chapter is to apply regularity and to make
it conventional wherever possible.
The second reason is related to the first: if the veljvo of the lujvo
has not been properly selected, and the places for the lujvo are formulated
from scratch, then there is a risk that some of the places formulated
may not correspond to any of the places of the gismu used in the veljvo of
the lujvo. If that is the case --- that is to say, if the lujvo places are
not a subset of the veljvo gismu places --- then it will be very difficult
for the hearer or reader to understand what a particular place means, and
what it is doing in that particular lujvo. This is a topic that will be
further discussed in Section 14.
However, second-guessing the place structure of the lujvo is useful in
guiding the process of subsequently eliminating places from the veljvo.
If the Lojbanist has an idea of what the final place structure should look
like, he or she should be able to pick an appropriate veljvo to begin with,
in order to express the idea, and then to decide which places are relevant
or not relevant to expressing that idea.
In this case the s1 place of ``sonci'' is redundant, since it is equivalent to
the b1 place of ``banli''. Therefore the place structure of ``balsoi'' need not
include places for both s1 and b1, as they refer to the same thing. So the
place structure of ``balsoi'' is at most
Why so? Because not only is the j1 place (the one who pays attention)
equivalent to the t1 place (the hearer), but the j2 place (the thing
paid attention to) is equivalent to the t2 place (the thing heard).
However, although ``gerselzda'' is a valid lujvo, it doesn't translate
``doghouse''; its first place is the dog, not the doghouse. Furthermore, it
is more complicated than necessary; ``gerzda'' is simpler than ``gerselzda''.
From the reader's or listener's point of view, it may not always be obvious
whether a newly met lujvo is symmetrical or asymmetrical, and if the latter,
what kind of asymmetrical lujvo. If the place structure of the lujvo isn't
given in a dictionary or elsewhere, then plausibility must be applied, just
as in interpreting tanru.
A asymmetrical interpretation of ``karcykla'' that is strictly analogous to the
place structure of ``gerzda'', equating the kl2 (destination) and ka1 (car)
places, would lead to the place structure
But in general we go about in cars, rather than going to cars, so a far
more likely place structure treats the ka1 place as equivalent to the kl5
place, leading to
For ``zdani'', on the other hand, there is no dependency between the places.
When we know the identity of a house-dweller, we have not determined the
house, because a dweller may dwell in more than one house. By the same
token, when we know the identity of a house, we do not know the identity of
its dweller, for a house may contain more than one dweller.
Informally put, the reason this has happened --- and it happens a lot with
seltau places --- is that the third place was describing not the doghouse,
but the dog who lives in it. The sentence
Specifically,
Sometimes the dependency is between a single place of the tertau and
the whole event described by the seltau. Such cases are discussed
further in Section 13.
We could resolve such problems on a case-by-case basis for each lujvo
(Section 14 discusses when this is actually necessary), but case-by-case
resolution for run-of-the-mill lujvo makes the task of learning lujvo place
structures unmanageable. People need consistent patterns to make sense of
what they learn. Such patterns can be found across gismu place structures
(see Section 16), and are even more necessary in lujvo place structures.
Case-by-case consideration is still necessary; lujvo creation is a subtle art,
after all. But it is helpful to take advantage of any available regularities.
The motivation for this rule is the parallelism between the lujvo bridi-schema
The best way to approach such lujvo is to continue to classify them as based
on binary tanru, the only difference being that the seltau or the tertau
or both is itself a lujvo. So it is easiest to make sense of ``bavlamdei''
as having two components: ``bavla'i'', ``next'', and ``djedi''. If we know
or invent the lujvo place structure for the components, we can
compose the new lujvo place structure in the usual way.
In this case, ``bavla'i'' is given the place structure
If the last place sounds unimportant to you, notice that what counts
legally as a ``sword'', rather than just a ``knife'', depends on the length
of the blade (the cutoff point varies in different jurisdictions). This
fifth place of ``cladakyxa'i'' may not often be explicitly filled, but it is
still useful on occasion. Because it is so seldom important, it is best
that it be last.
Here we can see that se1 (what is suggested) is equivalent to f1 (the law),
and we get a normal symmetrical lujvo. The final place structure is:
But look now at the place structure of ``blakanla'': it is a symmetrical lujvo,
so the place structure is:
We end up being most interested in talking about the second place, not the
first (we talk much more of people than of their eyes), so ``se'' would
almost always be required.
What is happening here is that we are translating the tertau wrongly,
under the influence of English. The English suffix ``-eyed'' does not mean
``eye'', but someone with an eye, which is ``selkanla''.
Because we've got the wrong tertau (eliding a ``se'' that really should be
there), any attempt to accommodate the resulting lujvo into our guidelines
for place structure is fitting a square peg in a round hole. Since they can
be so misleading, lujvo with SE rafsi elided from the tertau should be
avoided in favor of their more explicit counterparts: in this case,
``blaselkanla''.
It is all right to replace the phrase ``se klama'' with ``selkla'', and
the places of ``selkla'' are exactly those of ``se klama''. But consider the
related lujvo ``dzukla'', meaning ``to walk to somewhere''. It is a symmmetrical
lujvo, derived from the veljvo ``cadzu klama'' as follows:
We can swap the k1 and k2 places using ``se dzukla'', but we cannot directly
make ``se dzukla'' into ``seldzukla'', which would represent the veljvo
``selcadzu klama'' and plausibly mean something like ``to go to a walking
surface''. Instead, we would need ``selkemdzukla'', with an explicit rafsi
for ``ke''. Similarly, ``nalbrablo'' (from ``na'e barda bloti'') means
``non-big boat'', whereas ``na'e brablo'' means ``other than a big boat''.
But we can also say it is ``selselgekmau''. Two ``se'' cmavo in a row
cancel each other (``se se gleki'' means the same as just ``gleki''), so there
would be no good reason to have ``selsel'' in a lujvo with that meaning.
Instead, we can feel free to interpret ``selsel-'' as ``selkemsel-''. The rafsi
combinations ``terter-'', ``velvel-'' and ``xelxel-'' work in the same way.
Other SE combinations like ``selter-'', although they might conceivably mean
``se te'', more than likely should be interpreted in the same way, namely
as ``se ke te'', since there is no need to re-order places in the way
that ``se te'' provides. (See Chapter 9.)
The selbri ``nu klama [kei]'' has only one place, the event-of-going, but
the full five places exist implicitly between ``nu'' and ``kei'', since a full
bridi with all sumti may be placed there. In a lujvo, there is no room
for such inside places, and consequently the lujvo ``nunkla'' (``nun-'' is
the rafsi for ``nu''), needs to have six places:
Here the first place of ``nunklama'' is the first and only place of ``nu'', and
the other five places have been pushed down by one to occupy the second
through the sixth places. Full information on ``nu'', as well as the other
abstractors mentioned in this section, is given in Chapter 11.
It is not uncommon for abstractors to participate in the making of more
complex lujvo as well. For example, ``nunsoidji'', from the veljvo
A ``nunsoidji'' might be someone who is about to enlist, whereas a ``soidji''
might be a camp-follower.
In accordance with the procedure for analyzing three-part lujvo given
in Section 8, we will first create an intermediate lujvo, ``nuncti'', whose
veljvo is ``nu citka [kei]''. By the rules given in Section 12, ``nuncti'' has
the place structure
But it is also possible to omit the n1 place itself! The n1 place describes
the event brought about; an event in Lojban is described as a bridi,
by a selbri and its sumti; the selbri is already known (it's the seltau),
and the sumti are also already known (they're in the lujvo place structure).
So n1 would not give us any information we didn't already know.
In fact, the n1=g2 place is dependent on c1 and c2 jointly --- it does not
depend on either c1 or c2 by itself. Being dependent and derived from the
seltau, it is omissible. So the final place structure of ``nunctikezgau'' is:
(You can't ``do an eater''/``gasnu lo citka'', with the meaning of ``do'' as
``bring about an event''; so the seltau must refer to an event, ``nu citka''.
The English slang meanings of ``do someone'', namely ``socialize with someone''
and ``have sex with someone'', are not relevant to ``gasnu''.)
So we can simply use ``ctigau'' with the same place structure as ``nunctikezgau'':
In addition, ``gasnu''-based lujvo can be built from what we would consider
nouns or adjectives in English. In Lojban, everything is a predicate, so
adjectives, nouns and verbs are all treated in the same way. This is
consistent with the use of similar causative affixes in other languages.
For example, the gismu ``litki'', meaning ``liquid'', with the place
structure
While ``likygau'' correctly represents ``causes to be a liquid'', a different
lujvo based on ``galfi'' (meaning ``modify'') may be more appropriate for
``causes to become a liquid''. On the other hand, ``fetsygau'' is unsafe,
because it could mean ``agent in the event of something becoming female''
(the implicit-abstraction interpretation) or simply ``female agent'' (the
parallel interpretation), so using implicit-abstraction lujvo is always
accompanied with some risk of being misunderstood.
1.1) ti fagri festi
That is-fire waste.
contains a tanru which can be reduced to the lujvo in:
1.2) ti fagyfesti
That is-fire-waste.
That is-ashes.
2. The meaning of tanru: a necessary detour
2.1) x1 is a nest/house/lair/den for inhabitant x2
(but in this chapter we will use simply ``house'', for brevity), and the gismu
``klama'' has five:
2.2) x1 goes to destination x2 from origin point x3
via route x4 using means x5
2.3) la blabi zdani cu gerku be fa la spot.
bei la sankt. berNARD. be'o
zdani la bil. klinton.
The White House is-a-dog (namely Spot
of-breed Saint Bernard)
type-of-house-for Bill Clinton.
3. The meaning of lujvo
3.1) z1 is a nest/house/lair/den of z2
3.2) g1 is a dog of breed g2
3.3) z1 is a house for dweller z2 of breed g2
which can also be written
3.4) z1 is a house for dog g1 of breed g2
or more concisely
3.5) z1 is a house for dweller/dog z2=g1 of breed g2
4. Selecting places
5. Symmetrical and asymmetrical lujvo
5.1) ``banli'': b1 is great in property b2 by standard b3
``sonci'': s1 is a soldier of army s2
5.2) b1=s1 is a great soldier of army s2
in property b2 by standard b3
5.3) ``tirna'': t1 listens to t2 against background noise t3
``jundi'': j1 pays attention to j2
and the place structure of the lujvo is:
5.4) j1=t1 listens to j2=t2 against background noise t3
5.5) s1 is housed by nest s2
and so the three-part lujvo ``gerselzda'' would have the place structure
5.6) s1=g1 is a dog housed in nest s2 of dog breed g2
5.7) ka1 is a car carrying ka2 propelled by ka3
5.8) kl1 goes to car kl2=ka1 which carries ka2
propelled by ka3 from origin kl3
via route kl4 by means of kl5
5.9) kl1 goes to destination kl2 from origin kl3
via route kl4 by means of car kl5=ka1
carrying ka2 propelled by ka3.
instead.
6. Dependent places
6.1) z1 is the house dwelt in by dog z2=g1
6.2) la mon. rePOS. gerzda la spat.
Mon Repos is a doghouse of Spot.
really means
6.3) la mon. rePOS. zdani la spat. noi gerku
Mon Repos is a house of Spot, who is a dog.
since that is the interpretation we have given ``gerzda''. But that in turn
means
6.4) la mon. rePOS. zdani la spat noi ke'a gerku zo'e
Mon Repos is a house of Spot, who is a dog
of unspecified breed.
6.5) la mon. rePOS. zdani la spat.
noi ke'a gerku la sankt. berNARD.
Mon Repos is a house of Spot,
who is a dog of breed St. Bernard.
and in that case, it makes little sense to say
6.6) la mon. rePOS. gerzda la spat.
noi ke'a gerku la sankt. berNARD. ku'o
la sankt. berNARD.
Mon Repos is a doghouse of Spot,
who is a dog of breed St. Bernard,
of breed St. Bernard.
6.7) ``calku'': ca1 is a shell/husk around ca2 made of ca3
``cinki'': ci1 is an insect/arthropod of species ci2
6.8) ci1=ca2 is a beetle of species ci2
with not a single place of ``calku'' surviving independently!
6.9) d1 is a building housing school c1
teaching subject c3 to audience c4
even though c3 and c4 are plainly dependent on c1. The other places of
``ckule'', the location (c2) and operators (c5), don't seem to be necessary
to the concept ``school building'', and are dependent on c1 to boot, so
they are omitted. Again, the need for case-by-case consideration of
place structures is demonstrated.
7. Ordering lujvo places.
7.1) di'e jdaselsku la dong.
This-utterance is-a-prayer somehow-related-to-Dong.
we must be able to know if Dong is the person making the prayer, giving the
meaning
7.2) This is a prayer by Dong
or is the entity being prayed to, resulting in
7.3) This is a prayer to Dong
7.4) b1=s1 is a great soldier of army s2
in property b2 by standard b3
just what appears in Example 5.1. In fact, all place structures shown
until now have been in the correct order by the conventions of this section,
though the fact has been left tacit until now.
7.5) b1 bansoi s2 b2 b3
b1 is-a-great-soldier of-army-s2
in-property-b2 by-standard-b3
and the more or less equivalent bridi-schema
7.6) b1 sonci s2 gi'e banli b2 b3
b1 is-a-soldier of-army-s2 and
is-great in-property-b2
by-standard-b3
where ``gi'e'' is the Lojban word for ``and'' when placed between two partial
bridi, as explained in Chapter 14.
7.7) ``danlu'': d1 is an animal of species d2
``mikce'': m1 is a doctor to patient m2 for ailment m3
using treatment m4
and the lujvo place structure is:
7.8) m1 is a doctor for animal m2=d1 of species d2
for ailment m3 using treatment m4
8. lujvo with more than two parts.
8.1) b1=l1 is next after b2=l2
making it a symmetrical lujvo. We combine this with ``djedi'', which has the
place structure:
8.2) duration d1 is d2 days long (default 1)
by standard d3
8.3) d1=b1=l1 is a day following b2=l2,
d2 days later (default 1) by standard d3
8.4) ``clani'': c1 is long in direction c2 by standard c3
``dakfu'': d1 is a knife for cutting d2
with blade made of d3
``xarci'': xa1 is a weapon for use against xa2
by wielder xa3
8.5) xa1=d1=c1 is a long-sword for use against xa2=d2
by wielder xa3, with a blade made of d3,
long measured by standard c3.
9. Eliding SE rafsi from seltau
9.1) ``stidi'': agent st1 suggests idea/action st2
to audience st3
``flalu'': f1 is a law specifying f2 for community f3
under conditions f4 by lawgiver f5
9.3) f1=se1 is a bill specifying f2 for community f3
under conditions f4 by suggester se2
to audience/lawgivers f5=se3
or, relabeling the places,
9.4) f1=st2 is a bill specifying f2 for community f3
under conditions f4 by suggester st1
to audience/lawgivers f5=st3
where the last place (st3) is probably some sort of legislature.
10. Eliding SE rafsi from tertau
10.1) la djak. cu blakanla
Jack is-a-blue-eye
because Jack is not an eye, ``kanla'', but someone with an eye, ``se kanla''.
At best we can say
10.2) la djak. cu se blakanla
Jack is-the-bearer-of-blue-eyes
10.3) xe1=s1 is a blue eye of xe2=s2
11. Eliding KE and KEhE rafsi from lujvo
11.1) [ke] bakni rectu [ke'e] panlo
( bovine meat ) slice
because of the usual Lojban left-grouping rule. But there doesn't seem to be
much difference between that veljvo and
11.2) bakni ke rectu panlo [ke'e]
bovine ( meat slice )
11.3) zekri ke nenri klama [ke'e]
crime ( inside go )
to go within, criminally
because the alternative,
11.4) [ke] zekri nenri [ke'e] klama
(crime inside) go
doesn't make much sense. (To go to the inside of a crime? To go into a place
where it is criminal to be inside --- an interpretation almost identical
with Example 11.3 anyway?)
11.5) xamsi ke calku curnu
ocean type-of (shell worm)
11.6) [ke] xamsi calku [ke'e] curnu
(ocean shell) type-of worm
11.7) ``cadzu'': c1 walks on surface c2 using limbs c3
``klama'': k1 goes to k2 from k3 via route k4 using k5
``dzukla'': c1=k1 walks to k2 from k3 via route k4
using limbs k5=c3 on surface c2
12. Abstract lujvo
12.1) k1 comes/goes to k2 from k3 via route k4 by means k5.
12.2) nu1 is the event of k1's coming/going to k2 from k3
via route k4 by means k5.
12.3) ni1 is the amount of k1's coming/going to k2 from k3
via route k4 by means k5, measured on scale ni2.
12.4) nu sonci kei djica
event-of being-a-soldier desirer
has the place structure
12.5) d1 desires the event of (s1 being a soldier of army s2)
for purpose d3
12.6) d1 desires (a soldier of army s2) for purpose d3
12.7) mi jai rinka le nu do morsi
I am-associated-with causing the event-of your death.
I cause your death.
explained in Chapter 11, to be rendered with lujvo:
12.8) mi jaxri'a le nu do morsi
I am-part-of-the-cause-of the event-of your dying.
13. Implicit-abstraction lujvo
13.1) ``nu'': n1 is an event
``citka'': c1 eats c2
``gasnu'': g1 does action/is the agent of event g2
13.2) n1 is the event of c1 eating c2
13.3) g1 is the actor in the event n1=g2 of c1 eating c2
13.4) g1 is the actor in the event of c1 eating c2
13.5) agent g1 causes c1 to eat c2
g1 feeds c2 to c1.
13.6) b1 replaces b2 in circumstances b3
can form the lujvo ``basygau'', with the place structure:
13.7) g1 (agent) replaces b1 with b2 in circumstances b3
where both ``basti'' and ``basygau'' are translated ``replace'' in English,
but represent different relations: ``basti'' may be used with no mention
of any agent doing the replacing.
13.8) l1 is a quantity of liquid of composition l2
under conditions l3
can give ``likygau'', meaning ``to liquefy'':
13.9) g1 (agent) causes l1 to be a quantity of liquid
of composition l2 under conditions l3.
13.10) event r1 causes event r2 to occur
are closely related to those based on ``gasnu''. However, ``rinka'' is less
generally useful than ``gasnu'', because its r1 place is another event rather
than a person: ``lo rinka'' is a cause, not a causer. Thus the place
structure of ``likyri'a'', a lujvo analogous to ``likygau'', is
13.11) event r1 causes l1 to be a quantity of liquid
of composition l2 under conditions l3
and would be useful in translating sentences like ``The heat of the sun
liquefied the block of ice.''
14. Anomalous lujvo