5)

pure numbers, which usually begin with ``li''.

Here are a few examples of each kind of sumti:

1.2)	e'osai ko sarji la lojban.
	Please support Lojban!

1.3)	mi cusku lu e'osai li'u le tcidu
	I express ``Please!'' to-the reader.

1.4)	ti mitre li ci
	This measures-in-meters the-number three.
	This is three meters long.

Most of this chapter is about descriptions, as they have the most complicated syntax and usage. Some attention is also given to names, which are closely interwoven with descriptions. Pro-sumti, numbers, and quotations are described in more detail in Chapter 7, Chapter 18, and Chapter 19 respectively, so this chapter only gives summaries of their forms and uses. See Section 13 through Section 15 for these summaries.

2. The three basic description types

	le	LE	the, the one(s) described as
	lo	LE	some, some of those which really are
	la	LA	the one(s) named
	ku	KU	elidable terminator for LE, LA

2.1)	le zarci
	one-or-more-specific-things-each-of-which-
		I-describe-as being-a-market
	the market

2.2)	le zarci
		cu barda
	one-or-more-specific-things-which-I-describe as	``markets''
		is/are-big.
	The market is big.
	The markets are big.

Now consider the following strange-looking example:

2.3)	le nanmu cu ninmu
	one-or-more-specific-things-which-I-describe as ``men''
		are women
	The man is a woman.
	The men are women.

In all descriptions with ``le'', the listener is presumed to either know what I have in mind or else not to be concerned at present (perhaps I will give more identifying details later). In particular, I might be pointing at the supposed man or men: Example 2.3 would then be perfectly intelligible, since ``le nanmu'' merely clarifies that I am pointing at the supposed man, not at a landscape, or a nose, which happens to lie in the same direction.

The second descriptor dealt with in this section is ``lo''. Unlike ``le'', ``lo'' is nonspecific:

2.4)	lo zarci
	one-or-more-of-all-the-things-which-really are-markets
	a market
	some markets

2.5

lo nanmu cu ninmu Some man is a woman. Some men are women.

The last descriptor of this section is ``la'', which indicates that the selbri which follows it has been dissociated from its normal meaning and is being used as a name. Like ``le'' descriptions, ``la'' descriptions are implicitly restricted to those I have in mind. (Do not confuse this use of ``la'' with its use before regular Lojbanized names, which is discussed in Section 12.) For example:

2.6)	la cribe pu finti le lisri
	the-one-named ``bear'' [past] creates the story.
	Bear wrote the story.

2.7)	la stace pu citka lo cirla
	The-one-called ``Honest/Frank'' [past] eats some cheese.

English-speakers typically would not do this, as we tend to be more attached to the sound of our names than their meaning, even if the meaning (etymological or current) is known. Speakers of other languages may feel differently. (In point of fact, ``Frank'' originally meant ``the free one'' rather than ``the honest one''.)

It is important to note the differences between Example 2.6 and the following:

2.8)	le cribe pu finti le lisri
	One-or-more-specific-things-which-I-describe-as a-bear
		[past] creates the story.
	The bear(s) wrote the story.

2.9)	lo cribe pu finti le lisri
	One-or-more-of-the-things-which-really are-bears
		[past] creates the story.
	A bear wrote the story.
	Some bears wrote the story.

(The notion of a ``really existing, objectively defined bear'' raises certain difficulties. Is a panda bear a ``real bear''? How about a teddy bear? In general, the answer is ``yes''. Lojban gismu are defined as broadly as possible, allowing tanru and lujvo to narrow down the definition. There probably are no necessary and sufficient conditions for defining what is and what is not a bear that can be pinned down with complete precision: the real world is fuzzy. In borderline cases, ``le'' may communicate better than ``lo''.)

So while Example 2.6 could easily be true (there is a real writer named ``Greg Bear''), and Example 2.8 could be true if the speaker is sufficiently peculiar in what he or she describes as a bear, Example 2.9 is certainly false.

Similarly, compare the following two examples, which are analogous to Example 2.8 and Example 2.9 respectively:

2.10)	le remna pu finti le lisri
	The human being(s) wrote the story.

2.11)	lo remna pu finti le lisri
	A human being wrote the story.
	Some human beings wrote the story.

The elidable terminator for all descriptions is ``ku''. It can almost always be omitted with no danger of ambiguity. The main exceptions are in certain uses of relative clauses, which are discussed in Chapter 8, and in the case of a description immediately preceding the selbri. In this latter case, using an explicit ``cu'' before the selbri makes the ``ku'' unnecessary. There are also a few other uses of ``ku'': in the compound negator ``naku'' (discussed in Chapter 15) and to terminate place-structure, tense, and modal tags that do not have associated sumti (discussed in Chapter 9 and Chapter 10).

3. Individuals and masses

	lei	LE	the mass I describe as
	loi	LE	part of the mass of those which really are
	lai	LA	the mass of those named

3.1)	le prenu cu bevri le pipno
	One-or-more-of-those-I-describe-as persons
		carry the piano.
	The person(s) carry the piano.

Suppose the context of Example 3.1 is such that you can determine that I am talking about three persons. What am I claiming? I am claiming that each of the three persons carried the piano. This claim can be true if the persons carried the piano one at a time, or in turns, or in a variety of other ways. But in order for Example 3.1 to be true, I must be willing to assert that person 1 carried the piano, and that person 2 carried the piano, and that person 3 carried the piano.

But suppose I am not willing to claim that. For in fact pianos are heavy, and very few persons can carry a piano all by themselves. The most likely factual situation is that person 1 carried one end of the piano, and person 2 the other end, while person 3 either held up the middle or else supervised the whole operation without actually lifting anything. The correct way of expressing such a situation in Lojban is:

3.2)	lei prenu cu bevri le pipno
	The-mass-of-one-or-more-of-those-I-describe-as persons
		carry the piano.

3.3)	loi cinfo cu xabju le fi'ortu'a
	part-of-the-mass-of-those-which-really are-lions
		dwell in-the African-land.
	The lion dwells in Africa.
	Lions dwell in Africa.

3.4)	loi glinanmu cu xabju le fi'ortu'a
	part-of-the-mass-of-those-which-really are-English-men
		dwell in-the African-land.
	The Englishman dwells in Africa.

Note that the Lojban mass articles are sometimes translated by English plurals (the most usual case), sometimes by English singulars (when the singular is used to express typicalness or abstraction), and sometimes by singulars with no article:

3.5)	loi matne cu ranti
	part-of-the-mass-of-that-which-really
		is-a-quantity-of-butter is-soft.
	Butter is soft.

The mass name descriptor ``lai'' is used in circumstances where we wish to talk about a mass of things identified by a name which is common to all of them. It is not used to identify a mass by a single name peculiar to it. Thus the mass version of Example 2.5,

3.6)	lai cribe pu finti
		le vi cukta
	the-mass-of-those-named ``bear'' [past] creates
		the nearby book.
	The Bears wrote this book.

4. Masses and sets

	le'i	LE	the set described as
	lo'i	LE	the set of those which really are
	la'i	LA	the set of those named

4.1)	lo ratcu cu bunre
	one-or-more-of-those-which-really-are rats are-brown.
	Some rats are brown.

4.2)	loi ratcu
		cu cmalu
	part-of-the-mass-of-those-which-really-are rats
		are-small.
	Rats are small.

4.3)	lo'i ratcu cu barda
	The-set-of rats is-large.
	There are a lot of rats.

The mass of rats is small because at least one rat is small; the mass of rats is also large; the set of rats, though, is unquestionably large -- it has billions of members. The mass of rats is also brown, since some of its components are; but it would be incorrect to call the set of rats brown --- brown-ness is not the sort of property that sets possess.

Lojban speakers should generally think twice before employing the set descriptors. However, certain predicates have places that require set sumti to fill them. For example, the place structure of ``fadni'' is:

x1 is ordinary/common/typical/usual in property x2 among the members of set x3

Why is it necessary for the x3 place of ``fadni'' to be a set? Because it makes no sense for an individual to be typical of another individual: an individual is typical of a group. In order to make sure that the bridi containing ``fadni'' is about an entire group, its x3 place must be filled with a set:

4.4)	mi fadni fi lo'i lobypli
	I am-ordinary among the-set-of Lojban-users.
	I am a typical Lojban user.

Note that the x2 place has been omitted; I am not specifying in exactly which way I am typical --- whether in language knowledge, or age, or interests, or something else. If ``lo'i'' were changed to ``lo'' in Example 4.4, the meaning would be something like ``I am typical of some Lojban user'', which is nonsense.

5. Descriptors for typical objects

	lo'e	LE	the typical
	le'e	LE	the stereotypical

5.1)	lo'e cinfo cu xabju le fi'ortu'a
	The-typical lion dwells-in the African-land.
	The lion dwells in Africa.

5.2)	lo'e glinanmu cu xabju le fi'ortu'a
		na.e le gligugde
	The-typical English-man dwells-in the African-land
		(Not!) and the English-country.
	The typical Englishman dwells not in Africa
		but in England.

5.3)	le'e xelso merko
		cu gusta ponse
	The-stereotypical Greek-type-of American
		is-a-restaurant-type-of owner.
	Lots of Greek-Americans own restaurants.

5.4)	le'e skina cu se finti ne'i la xali,uyd.
	The-stereotypical movie is-invented in Hollywood.

6. Quantified sumti

	ro	PA	all of/each of
	su'o	PA	at least (one of)

Every Lojban sumti may optionally be preceded by an explicit quantifier. The purpose of this quantifier is to specify how many of the things referred to by the sumti are being talked about. Here are some simple examples contrasting sumti with and without explicit quantifiers:

6.1)	do cadzu le bisli
	You walk-on the ice.

6.2)	re do cadzu le bisli
	Two-of you walk-on the ice.

(This rule does not mean that there is no way to specify a number which is vague. The sentence

6.3)	mi ponse su'o ci cutci
	I possess at-least three shoes.

Now consider Example 6.1 again. How many of the listeners are claimed to walk on the ice? The answer turns out to be: all of them, however many that is. So Example 6.1 and Example 6.4:

6.4)	ro do cadzu le bisli
	All-of you walk-on the ice.

6.5)	mi cusku lu do cadzu le bisli li'u
	I express [quote] you walk-on the ice [unquote].
	I say, ``You walk on the ice.''

What is the implicit quantifier of the quotation ``lu do cadzu le bisli li'u''? Surely not ``ro''. If ``ro'' were supplied explicitly, thus:

6.6)	mi cusku ro lu do cadzu le bisli li'u
	I express all-of [quote] you walk-on the ice [unquote].

The Lojban cmavo meaning ``at least'' is ``su'o'', and if no ordinary number follows, ``su'o'' means ``at least once''. (See Example 6.3 for the use of ``su'o'' with an ordinary number). Therefore, the explicitly quantified version of Example 6.5 is

6.7)	mi cusku su'o lu do cadzu
		le bisli li'u
	I express at-least-one-of [quote] you walk-on
		the ice [unquote].
	I say one or more instances of ``You walk on the ice''.
	I say ``You walk on the ice''.

If an explicit ordinary number such as ``re'' were to appear, it would have to convey an exact expression, so

6.8)	mi cusku re lu do cadzu le bisli li'u
	I express two-of [quote] you walk-on the ice [unquote].

7. Quantified descriptions

	piro	PA	the whole of
	pisu'o	PA	a part of

7.1)	re le gerku cu blabi
	two-of the dogs are-white.
	Two of the dogs are white.

For example, the context of Example 7.1 supposedly told us that ``le gerku'' referred to some three specific dogs. This assumption can be made certain with the use of an explicit inner quantifier:

7.2)	re le ci gerku cu blabi
	two-of the three dogs are-white.
	Two of the three dogs are white.

You may also specify an explicit inner quantifier and leave the outer quantifier implicit:

7.3)	le ci gerku cu blabi
	the three dogs are-white.
	The three dogs are white.

Smaller quantifiers are possible for sets, and refer to subsets. Thus ``pimu le'i nanmu'' is a subset of the set of men I have in mind; we don't know precisely which elements make up this subset, but it must have half the size of the full set. This is the best way to say ``half of the men''; saying ``pimu le nanmu'' would give us a half-portion of one of them instead! Of course, the result of ``pimu le'i nanmu'' is still a set; if you need to refer to the individuals of the subset, you must say so (see ``lu'a'' in Section 10).

The case of outer quantifiers for individual descriptors (including ``le'', ``lo'', ``la'', and the typical descriptors ``le'e'' and ``lo'e'') is special. When we refer to specific individuals with ``le'', we mean to refer to all of those we have in mind, so ``ro'' is appropriate as the implicit quantifier, just as it is appropriate for ``do''. Reference to non-specific individuals with ``lo'', however, is typically to only some of the objects which can be correctly described, and so ``su'o'' is the appropriate implicit quantifier, just as for quotations.

From the English-speaking point of view, the difference in structure between the following example using ``le'':

7.4)	[ro] le ci gerku cu blabi
	[all-of] those-described-as three dogs are-white.
	The three dogs are white.

7.5)	ci lo [ro] gerku cu blabi
	three-of those-which-are [all] dogs are-white
	Three dogs are white.

Using exact numbers as inner quantifiers in lo-series descriptions is dangerous, because you are stating that exactly that many things exist which really fit the description. So examples like

7.7)	[su'o] lo ci gerku cu blabi
	[some-of] those-which-really-are three dogs are-white

Nevertheless, inner quantifiers are permitted on ``lo'' descriptors for consistency's sake, and may occasionally be useful.

Note that the inner quantifier of ``le'', even when exact, need not be truthful: ``le ci nanmu'' means ``what I describe as three men'', not ``three of what I describe as men''. This follows from the rule that what is described by a ``le'' description represents the speaker's viewpoint rather than the objective way things are.

8. Indefinite descriptions

By a quirk of Lojban syntax, it is possible to omit the descriptor ``lo'', but never any other descriptor, from a description like that of Example 7.5; namely, one which has an explicit outer quantifier but no explicit inner quantifier. The following example:

8.1)	ci gerku [ku] cu blabi
	Three dogs are white.

Indefinite descriptions must fit this mold exactly: there is no way to make one which does not have an explicit outer quantifier (thus ``*gerku cu blabi'' is ungrammatical), or which has an explicit inner quantifier (thus ``*reboi ci gerku cu blabi'' is also ungrammatical --- ``re ci gerku cu blabi'' is fine, but means ``23 dogs are white'').

Note: Example 6.3 also contains an indefinite description, namely ``su'o ci cutci''; another version of that example using an explicit ``lo'' would be:

8.2)	mi ponse su'o ci lo cutci
	I possess at-least three things-which-really-are shoes
	I own three (or more) shoes.

As stated in Section 2, most descriptions consist of just a descriptor and a selbri. (In this chapter, the selbri have always been single gismu, but of course any selbri, however complex, can be employed in a description. The syntax and semantics of selbri are explained in Chapter 5.) In the intervening sections, inner and outer quantifiers have been added to the syntax. Now it is time to discuss a description of a radically different kind: the sumti-based description.

A sumti-based description has a sumti where the selbri would normally be, and the inner quantifier is required --- it cannot be implicit. An outer quantifier is permitted but not required.

A full theory of sumti-based descriptions has yet to be worked out. One common case, however, is well understood. Compare the following:

9.1)	re do cu nanmu
	Two-of you are-men.

9.2)	le re do cu nanmu
	The two-of you are men.

Here is another group of examples:

9.3)	re le ci cribe cu bunre
	Two-of the three bears are-brown.

9.4)	le re le ci cribe cu bunre
	The two-of the three bears are-brown.

9.5)	pa le re le ci cribe cu bunre
	One-of the two-of the three bears are-brown.

10. sumti qualifiers

	la'e	LAhE	something referred to by
	lu'e	LAhE	a reference to
	tu'a	LAhE	an abstraction involving

	lu'a	LAhE	an individual/member/component of
	lu'i	LAhE	a set formed from
	lu'o	LAhE	a mass formed from
	vu'i	LAhE	a sequence formed from

	na'ebo	NAhE+BO	something other than
	to'ebo	NAhE+BO	the opposite of
	no'ebo	NAhE+BO	the neutral form of
	je'abo	NAhE+BO	that which indeed is

	lu'u	LUhU	elidable terminator for LAhE and NAhE+BO

10.1)	mi viska lu le xunre cmaxirma li'u
	I see [quote] the red small-horse [unquote]

But Example 10.1 doesn't work: it says that you see a piece of text ``The Red Pony''. That might be all right if you were looking at the cover of the book, where the words ``The Red Pony'' are presumably written. (More precisely, where the words ``le xunre cmaxirma'' are written -- but we may suppose the book has been translated into Lojban.)

What you really want to say is:

10.2)	mi viska le selsinxa be
		lu le xunre cmaxirma li'u
	I see the thing-represented-by
		[quote] the red small-horse [unquote]

The x2 place of ``selsinxa'' (the x1 place of ``sinxa'') is a sign or symbol, and the x1 place of ``selsinxa'' (the x2 place of ``sinxa'') is the thing represented by the sign. Example 10.2 allows us to use a symbol (namely the title of a book) to represent the thing it is a symbol of (namely the book itself).

This operation turns out to be needed often enough that it's useful to be able to say:

10.3)	mi viska la'e lu le xunre cmaxirma li'u [lu'u]
	I see the-referent-of
		[quote] the red small-horse [unquote].

By introducing a sumti qualifier, we correct a false sentence (Example 10.1), which too closely resembles its literal English equivalent, into a true sentence (Example 10.3), without having to change it overmuch; in particular, the structure remains the same. Most of the uses of sumti qualifiers are of this general kind.

The sumti qualifier ``lu'e'' provides the converse operation: it can be prefixed to a sumti referring to some thing to produce a sumti referring to a sign or symbol for the thing. For example,

10.4)	mi pu cusku lu'e le vi cukta
	I [past] express a-symbol-for the nearby book.
	I said the title of this book.

The equivalent form not using a sumti qualifier would be:

10.5)	mi pu cusku le sinxa be le vi cukta
	I [past] express the symbol-for the nearby book.

The other sumti qualifiers follow the same rules. The cmavo ``tu'a'' is used in forming abstractions, and is explained more fully in Chapter 11. The triplet ``lu'a'', ``lu'i'', and ``lu'o'' convert between individuals, masses, and sets; ``vu'i'' belongs to this group as well, but creates a sequence, which is similar to a set but has a definite order. (The set of John and Charles is the same as the set of Charles and John, but the sequences are different.) Here are some examples:

10.6)	mi troci tu'a le vorme
	I try some-abstraction-about the door.
	I try (to open) the door.

Most of the following examples make use of the cmavo ``ri'', belonging to selma'o KOhA. This cmavo means ``the thing last mentioned''; it is equivalent to repeating the immediately previous sumti (but in its original context). It is explained in more detail in Chapter 7.

10.7)	lo'i ratcu cu barda
		.iku'i lu'a ri cmalu
	the-set-of rats is-large.
		But some-members-of it-last-mentioned is-small
	The set of rats is large,
		but some of its members are small.

10.8)	lo ratcu cu cmalu
		.iku'i lu'i ri barda
	some rats are-small.
		But the-set-of them-last-mentioned is-large.
	Some rats are small, but the set of rats is large.

10.9)	mi ce do girzu
		.i lu'o ri gunma
		.i vu'i ri porsi
	I in-a-set-with you are-a-set.
		The-mass-of it-last-mentioned is-a-mass.
		The-sequence-of it-last-mentioned is-a-sequence
	The set of you and me is a set.
		The mass of you and me is a mass.
		The sequence of you and me is a sequence.

Finally, the four sumti qualifiers formed from a cmavo of NAhE and ``bo'' are all concerned with negation, which is discussed in detail in Chapter 15. Here are a few examples of negation sumti qualifiers:

10.10)	mi viska na'ebo le gerka
	I see something-other-than the dog.

This compound, ``na'ebo'', is the most common of the four negation sumti qualifiers. The others usually only make sense in the context of repeating, with modifications, something already referred to:

10.11)	mi nelci loi glare cidja
		.ije do nelci
			to'ebo ri
		.ije la djein. nelci
			no'ebo ra
	I like part-of-the-mass-of hot-type-of food.
		And you like
			the-opposite-of the-last-mentioned.
		And Jane likes
			the-neutral-value-of something-mentioned.
	I like hot food, and you like cold food,
		and Jane likes lukewarm food.

11. The syntax of vocative phrases

Vocative phrases are not sumti, but are explained in this chapter because their syntax is very similar to that of sumti. Grammatically, a vocative phrase is one of the so-called ``free modifiers'' of Lojban, along with subscripts, parentheses, and various other constructs explained in Chapter 19. They can be placed after many, but not all, constructions of the grammar: in general, after any elidable terminator (which, however, must not then be elided!), at the beginnings and ends of sentences, and in many other places.

The purpose of a vocative phrase is to indicate who the person being addressed is, or to indicate to that person that he or she ought to be listening. A vocative phrase begins with a cmavo of selma'o COI or DOI, all of which are explained in more detail in Chapter 13. Sometimes that is all there is to the phrase:

11.1)	coi
	[greetings]
	Hello.

11.2)	je'e
	[acknowledgement]
	Uh-huh.
	Roger!

11.2)	coi. djan.
	Hello, John.

A pause is required (for morphological reasons) between a member of COI and a name. You can use ``doi'' instead of a pause:

11.3)	coi doi djan.
	Hello, John.

11.4)	doi djan.
	John!

11.5)	coi xunre pastu nixli
	Hello, (red-type-of dress)-type-of girl.
	Hello, girl with the red dress!

11.6)	co'o la bab. .e la noras.
	Goodbye, Bob and Nora.

11.7)	coi le xunre pastu nixli
	Hello, the-one-described-as red-dress girl!

11.8)	doi la djan.
	The-one-named John!

The meaning of a vocative phrase that is within a sentence is not affected by its position in the sentence: thus Example 11.9 and Example 11.10 mean the same thing:

11.9)	doi djan. ko klama mi
	John, come to me!

11.10)	ko klama mi doi djan.
	Come to me, John!

As usual for this chapter, the full syntax of vocative phrases has not been explained: relative clauses, discussed in Chapter 8, make for more possibilities.

12. Lojban names

First of all, there are two different kinds of things usually called ``names'' when talking about Lojban. The naming predicates of Section 2 are just ordinary predicates which are being used in a special sense. In addition, though, there is a class of Lojban words which are used only to name things: these can be recognized by the fact that they end in a consonant followed by a pause. Some examples:

12.1)	djan. meris. djein. .alis.
	John.  Mary.  Jane.  Alice.

Names of this kind have two basic uses in Lojban: when used in a vocative phrase (see Section 11) they indicate who the listener is or should be. When used with a descriptor of selma'o LA, namely ``la'', ``lai'', or ``la'i'', they form sumti which refer to the persons or things known by the name.

12.2)	la djonz. klama le zarci
	Jones goes to-the store.
	The Joneses go to-the store.

12.3)	lai djonz. klama le zarci
	The-mass-of Joneses go to-the store.
	The Joneses go to the store.

In Example 12.2, the significance is that all the persons (perhaps only one) I mean to refer to by the name ``djonz.'' are going to the store. In Example 12.3, the Joneses are massified, and only some part of them needs to be going. Of course, by ``djonz.'' I can mean whomever I want: that person need not use the name ``djonz.'' at all.

The sumti in Example 12.2 and Example 12.3 operate exactly like the similar uses of ``la'' and ``lai'' in Examples 2.5 and 3.6 respectively. The only difference is that these descriptors are followed by Lojban name-words. And in fact, the only difference between descriptors of selma'o LA (these three) and of selma'o LE (all the other descriptors) is that the former can be followed by name-words, whereas the latter cannot.

There are certain limitations on the form of name-words in Lojban. In particular, they cannot contain the letter-sequences (or sound-sequences) ``la'', ``lai'', or ``doi'' unless a consonant immediately precedes within the name. Reciprocally, every name not preceded by ``la'', ``lai'', ``la'i'', or ``doi'' must be preceded by a pause instead:

12.4)	coi .djan.
	Hello, John.

12.5)	zo .djan. cmene mi
	The-word ``John'' is-the-name-of me.
	My name is John.

In Example 12.4 and Example 12.5, ``.djan.'' appears with a pause before it as well as after it, because the preceding word is not one of the four special cases. These rules force names to always be separable from the general word-stream.

Unless some other rule prevents it (such as the rule that ``zo'' is always followed by a single word, which is quoted), multiple names may appear wherever one name is permitted, each with its terminating pause:

12.6)	doi djan. pol. djonz.
		le bloti cu klama fi la niuport. niuz.
	John Paul Jones,
		the boat comes (to somewhere) from Newport News.

	English name		invalid Lojban name	valid Lojban names

	Doyle			*doi,l			do'il or dai,l
	Lyra			*lairas			ly'iras
	Lottie (American pron.)	*latis			LYtis. or lotis.

12.7)	lojban.
	Lojban

13.1)	mi prami do
	I love you.

13.2)	le cribe goi ko'a cu xekri
		.i ko'a citka le smacu
	The bear defined-as it-1 is-black.
		It-1 eats the mouse.

13.3)	ro da poi prenu
		cu prami pa de poi finpe
	All somethings-1 which-are persons
		love one something-2 which-is a-fish.
	All persons love a fish (each his/her own).

13.4)	le cribe cu batci vo'a
	The bear bites what-is-in-the-x1-place.
	The bear bites itself.

13.5)	mi klama la frankfurt. ri
	I go to-Frankfurt from-the-referent-of-the-last-sumti
	I go from Frankfurt to Frankfurt (by some unstated route).

13.6)	mi klama la frankfurt. zo'e zo'e zo'e
	I go to-Frankfurt from-unspecified via-unspecified
		by-means-unspecified.

13.7)	ko muvgau ti ta tu
	you [imperative] move this-thing from-that-nearby-place
		to-that-further-away-place
	Move this from there to over there!

13.8)	li re su'i re du li vo
		.i la'e di'u jetnu
	The-number two plus two equals the-number four.
		The-referent-of the-previous-utterance is-true.

13.9)	mi viska le mlatu ku
		poi zo'e zbasu ke'a
		loi slasi
	I see the cat(s)
		such-that something-unspecified makes it/them (the cats)
		from-a-mass-of plastic.
	I see the cat(s) made of plastic.

13.10)	do klama ma
	You go to-what-sumti?
	Where are you going?

14.1)	mi cusku lu mi'e djan. li'u
	I say the-text [quote] I-am John [unquote].
	I say ``I'm John''.

14.2)	mi cusku lo'u li mi le'u
	I say the-words [quote] ``li mi'' [unquote].
	I say ``li mi''.

14.3)	mi cusku zo .ai
	I say the-word ``.ai''.

14.4)	mi cusku zoi kuot. I'm John .kuot
	I say ``I'm John''.

15.1)	li vo
	the-number four
	4

15.2)	li re su'i re
	the-number two plus two
	$2\; +\; 2$

15.3)	li .abu bopi'i xy. bote'a re
		su'i by. bopi'i xy. su'i cy.
	the-number a times x to-power 2
		plus b times x plus c
	$ax2+\; bx\; +\; c$

15.4)	me'o vo
	the-expression four
	``4''

15.5)	me'o re su'i re
	the-expression two plus two
	``$2+2$''