Lesson 21 repamoi seltadni Pro-sumti sumti cmavo We know by now that there are several kinds of pro-sumti. In this sublesson, we will explore and summarize ways of referring to sumti. We will indicate how to subscript pro-sumti, a technique that we will later learn can be applied to many other grammatical constructs. We will also discuss in some depth how the various forms of first person and second person pro-sumti are defined and used. Finally, we will explore the implications of one technique for defining pro-sumti, the relativized space scalars, as they apply to the system of tense and location. 21.1 First and Second Person cusku je tercusku cmavo Let us start with some simple pro-sumti: "mi" and "do", the first two that we learned. While simple in concept and expression, these really aren't that simple in usage. One of the few things that can be said is that "mi" and "do" are mutually exclusive; once you have defined one of them, the other is restricted from including any overlapping individuals (unless you in some way clearly indicate that you are talking to yourself). Of the two, "do" is the easier to define: "do" is 'lo te cusku', the person or persons to whom the speaker/writer/expressor is directing the expression. This need not necessarily be limited to those who directly hear or read the expression. As an example we will return to below, someone who gives an interview to the press may express something intended for the readers of the publication (who are not present). "mi" always includes the expressor. Of course, there is still the need to determine who else might be included; "mi" is not necessarily limited to just the expressor. "mi" can be translated either to "I/me" or to "We/us". Those English pronouns, however, are quite ambiguous. Who do they refer to? In Lojban, we have defined conventions that can aid in interpretation. We also have ways that an expressor can explicitly define his/her intent. The obvious way to define "mi" is with a restrictive relative phrase: "mi po'u la [cmene]" or "mi po'u lai [cmene]". In later lessons, we will see how to enumerate sets or lists of sumti values to fill in the relative phrase when several specific people are to be included in "mi". We can also use descriptions with "po'u" just as well, if the referent of the description is sufficiently well-described to be known to the listener: mi po'u ro lo prenu poi xabju la .iunaitydsteits. which is similar to the translation used in Lesson 5 (which used "... poi prenu ..."), but is more specific - it indicates that "mi" includes ALL of the people of the United States. "do" can be similarly defined using a relative clause. "do" may also be defined, even without using the word "do", when any vocative (selma'o COI or DOI) is used, except "mi'e"; "mi'e" is used, of course, to define "mi". "mi" and "do", once defined, retain the same definition until redefined. That redefinition requires a restrictive relative clause. There is a way, covered in a later lesson, of 'freeing' all definitions of pro-sumti with a single word, but there is no way to limit such effects only to "mi" or any other individual pro-sumti. As we said above, "mi" doesn't generally include "do" ("you"). This must be strongly qualified, however. "mi" doesn't include "do" provided that any of the words "do", "mi'o", "ko", or "do'o" or "ma'a" (which we will define in a moment) have been defined or used in the context of the discussion. If "do" has been defined or used, you must use "mi'o" ("me/we and you") to include "do" in a translation of "we". "mi'o" implicitly includes a reference to "do", so that after a reference to "mi'o", a reference to "mi" is clearly seen to not include "do". "ma'a", which means "me/we and you and others unspecified", similarly includes a reference to "do"; its use makes a later reference to "mi" a contrasting exclusion of "do". "do'o" denotes "you and others". In addition to these, "mi'a" is the remaining pro-sumti that is part of the first/second person set. It is symmetric to "do'o", and denotes "me and others, explicitly excluding anyone within 'do'." "mi'a" and "do" are mutually exclusive, like "mi" and "do". Similarly, "do'o" and "mi" are mutually exclusive. There will be examples of each of these following this section. We might want to use "mi" to include "do" (or at least to not necessarily exclude "do") whenever the expressor is expressing to an unknown or undefined audience. The English version of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution is such an example. When the writers used "We the people", they did not know whether the readers would be among 'the people' or not. So when they used "we", they certainly weren't automatically excluding the reader, nor were they automatically including a reader who wasn't "of the United States". Returning to "do", this pro-sumti is defined symmetrically with "mi". "do" doesn't include the speaker/expressor, nor does it include anyone previously defined to be included in "mi" (but see the note next paragraph). "do" always includes the referent of a vocative; a new vocative redefines "do". "do" can also be defined with a restrictive clause, and the definition can be changed with a new restrictive clause. (It is possible to 'talk to yourself': "doi mi", or to include "mi" in a restrictive definition of "do" in which case you are equating or incorporating the definition of "mi" into "do". You can also add "do" into "mi" using a restrictive clause definition. These are specific cases of using one convention to override another. When dealing with semantics - as opposed to grammar - Lojban users always try to find a plausible interpretation of what might otherwise be nonsense.) "mi'o" and "ma'a" are always dependent on the definition of "mi" and "do". They amount to combining or mixing the two together (and adding extras, in the case of "ma'a"). If you change the definition of either "mi" or "do", then a later reference to "mi'o" or "ma'a" may reference a different set than such a reference before the redefinition. Similarly, "do'o" and "mi'a" are dependent on the definitions of "do" and "mi", respectively. "ko" is, of course, defined identically to whatever "do" is at the moment. Clearly, first and second person pro-sumti are vague (not 'ambiguous') when their referent is not restricted in a relative clause or a vocative. This is in keeping with the normal practice for Lojban: you can be intentionally vague without being ambiguous, and you can be arbitrarily specific when this is necessary for communication. Remember, however, that communications is a partnership between speaker and listener; while the speaker can be intentionally (or unintentionally) vague, the listener is entitled to use her/his standards of plausibility to interpret the reference. Normally, this will mean that a vague "mi" refers to the actual speaker(s) only, and a vague "do" refers to those who actually listen to or read the expression. 21.2 Example mupli Try to read this on your own. Use the translation only if you must. lai KEpiulet. ba penmi lai mantygius. le sanmi pe la djuliet. KEpiulet. mantygius. djuliet: lemi lanzu ba klama ca le lamji djedi romios: lemi lanzu ba klama ba lenu ledo lanzu ba klama djuliet: mi'o ba jukpa ma pe ba le sanmi romios: mi'a nelci loi grute .i xu do'o nelci loi grute djuliet: mi'a milxe nelci loi grute .i mi'a mutce nelci loi titla nanba romios: mi'a nelci loi titla nanba .i.ai mi'o jukpa lo grute ke titla nanba djuliet: .ie.ui ma'a ba gleki citka lo grute ke titla nanba ba le sanmi 21.3 Translation Of The Example mupli xe fanva lai KEpiulet. ba penmi lai mantygius. le sanmi pe la djuliet. KEpiulet. mantygius. Capulets will meet Montagues at the meal pertaining to Juliet Capulet Montague. djuliet: lemi lanzu ba klama ca le lamji djedi My family will come on the adjacent day (tomorrow). romios: lemi lanzu ba klama ba lenu ledo lanzu ba klama My family will come after the event of your family coming. djuliet: mi'o ba jukpa ma pe ba le sanmi We will cook what? pertaining to after the meal? romios: mi'a nelci loi grute .i xu do'o nelci loi grute Me and others unspecified excluding you are fond of fruit. Is it true that you-and-others-unspecified (that aren't part of "mi'a") are fond of fruit?. djuliet: mi'a milxe nelci loi grute .i mi'a mutce nelci loi titla nanba Me and others unspecified excluding "do'o" are mildly fond of fruit. We are very fond of cake. romios: mi'a nelci loi titla nanba .i.ai mi'o jukpa lo grute ke titla nanba We (also) are fond of cake. (Intention!) We cook some fruit-cake. djuliet: .ie.ui ma'a ba gleki citka lo grute ke titla nanba ba le sanmi (Agree! Happy!) Me-and-you-and-others unspecified will happily eat some fruit- cake after the meal. 21.4 Quantification of Pro-sumti sumti cmavo nunkancu The discussion that follows applies to all pro-sumti, although it has specific applicability to the questions of defining and using first and second person pro-sumti. As stated in Lesson 5, when a description or a pro-sumti refers to an individual, that individual is taken to be a 'mass'. If "mi jgari le cukta" is referring to an individual "mi", then we are not claiming that every part of the individual is actively grasping the book. As with other mass individuals, if part of the mass performs an action, then the mass as a whole can be said to be performing the action. What happens when we talk of pro-sumti that are not singular, or that are non-specific as to singularity or plurality? The answer is that such pro-sumti are treated as a mass for default quantification. The default quantification value is "piro" ("all"). This means that "do klama", with a plural "do" means that all of the individuals within "do" come, not that a portion of the mass of "do" suffices for the whole. Note that this differs from the default quantification for "loi", "lei", and "lai" descriptions, for which "pisu'o" is the default quantifier before the description. It is generally assumed that any fractional quantifier on a pro-sumti similarly is treating the pro- sumti as a mass individual. If I say "pimu do bevri le botpi", I do not mean that half of one individual among you is doing the carrying, but that some half of the mass of 'you' is actively involved in the carrying (with the other half uninvolved). Unlike masses that are marked with descriptors, however, we can also treat pro-sumti as sets of individuals instead of masses. If we say "re do", we are treating "do" as a set of individuals, and selecting two of them, hence "two of you". Similarly, "pa do" translates as "one of you" and "ro do" translates as "each of you". The convention that results is that, if the quantifier is expressed as a fraction or portion, then it is a fraction of the mass individual; if it is a quantity greater than or equal to one, then it is treating the pro-sumti as a set, and selecting from that set. Note that if you select more than one from a set represented by a pro-sumti, you are implicitly stating that the pro- sumti is plural. (Warning - quantificational logic is a complex topic; it is not difficult to devise questions which are outside the scope of this course. You will seldom need to express ideas that require resolution of the 'gray' areas we cannot cover.) One way to help define a pro-sumti is to quantify it. This settles the question of singularity vs. plurality, among other things. We have two ways to specify the number of individuals in a pro- sumti set/mass without providing a list of the specific members. One way is with a restrictive clause: "do po'u re da [cu] klama" "You-who-are-identified-as-two-somethings come." Another way is to quantify the pro-sumti as a description: "le re do ku [cu] klama" "The two-of-you come." The English translation is misleading; as with all descriptions where a quantifier is provided after the descriptor, the "re" in the above example quantifies the number of individuals in the description - it does not select two out of the set of 'you'. 21.5 Back-Counting Pro-sumti ti'ernunkancu ke sumti cmavo There is one other kind of pro-sumti that we are going to talk about in this lesson, the 'back- counting' cmavo "ri", "ra", and "ru". These always refer to some previously defined sumti. By comparison, we know that "ko'a" pro-sumti can be used with the definition occurring after the usage of the pro-sumti. "ri" is the simplest and easiest to understand. It back references the just previous sumti. This can have several vital uses in 'normal' speech, which is heavily dominated by afterthoughts: "le cilce danlu cu melbi .i ri goi ko'a mabru" "The wild animal is beautiful. It (which I'll call ko'a) is a mammal." In this example, the speaker was talking, perhaps, about the animal he/she saw. Then, in afterthought, she/he (goi ko'e) realized that ko'e wanted to say something more about it. ko'e had not assigned it to a pro-sumti. Without "ri", ko'e would have had to repeat the sumti in full: "ko'a goi le cilce danlu". If the sumti had been even longer, this could be a distracting nuisance. A second use is in 'possessive' expressions such as: "la .alis. sipna vi leri kumfa" "Alice sleeps in her room." In this case, unless we have assigned a "ko'a"-series pro-sumti to "la .alis." previously, "ri" is the only way to avoid repeating "la .alis." twice in one sentence: "la .alis. sipna le la .alis. kumfa" "la .alis. sipna le kumfa po la .alis." both of which are quite clumsy and long-winded. How do we know what "ri" refers to? We simply look back to the next previous sumti which is 'significant'. A sumti is considered significant if there is some meaningful reason to use "ri" as a replacement for it. Simply speaking, nearly all of the pro-sumti are not significant. There is minimal advantage to saying: "ko'a sipna leri kumfa" instead of: "ko'a sipna leko'a kumfa" Similar argument eliminates using "ri" to stand for "mi" and "do" and their relatives. "ri" can replace "ti" and its relatives in some circumstances - those in which for some reason the speaker might necessarily be pointing to something else: "ti zmadu ti poi se jbena ri vau loni slabu" "These are more than those-which-are-born-to-them in age." The last example demonstrates the other major property of "ri": when counting back, you cannot refer to a sumti of which the "ri" will be a part. In the case given, the "ri" is part of the relative clause defining the second "ti", the x2 place of "zmadu"; it therefore cannot refer to the x2 place of "zmadu" as a whole. (You can use "ke'a", for that purpose, of course.) Similarly, a reference within a quotation cannot refer to the sumti that includes the quotation: le prenu cu cusku lu ri klama li'u In this example, "ri" cannot refer to the x2 place of "cusku", the quotation. In fact, in the case of quotations such as this, you cannot include anything outside of the 'quotation universe' in back- counting (such as "le prenu"), since you must back-count from the point of view of the person quoted, who obviously cannot have been referring to a sumti not yet expressed. (You can, on the other hand, refer from outside a quotation to a sumti on the inside.) The most important point about "ri" is that it is very ephemeral in definition. EVERY TIME IT IS USED, IT MUST BE RE-COUNTED. "ri" thus acts more like "ti" than like "ko'a", or "mi" which retain their definitions indefinitely. You can chain "ri" references together; "ri" itself is significant: "la djos. viska le tricu .i ri se jadni le ri jimca poi jorne ri vi le sirji" "Joe sees the tree. It is adorned by its branches which are joined to it at the straight (the trunk)." For each of the "ri"s after the first in this mildly stilted example, counting back points to the previous "ri". "ra" and "ru" are much simpler than "ri" to use: you needn't count back. "ra" is some previous sumti which is nearby. It perhaps is even the last one, which could be referred to by "ri". If "ri" is used in a sentence, however, "ra" always refers to something before "ri". "ru", like "ra" refers to an earlier sumti, but never the last one, and always before either "ri" or "ra". The first question that comes to everyone's mind now is "But Lojban is supposed to be unambiguous. How would a computer figure out what "ra" and "ru" refer to?" The answer is that, without exceptional plausibility programming, a computer could not. It would have to ask "ra ki'a" or "ru goi ma". Lojban is designed for humans, and only incidentally is it valuable for computers. This type of usage is something humans would use, because we are lazy and don't want to bother defining pro-sumti every time we want to use them in afterthought (which is when we would use "ra" and "ru".) We are dealing with a case of vagueness, semantic ambiguity, and not grammatical ambiguity. Just as tanru are vague and semantically ambiguous, but can be clarified on request, so are back-counted pro-sumti. As with all such 'convenience features', the speaker must be fair to the listener in the use of back- counting. In extremely convoluted sentence structures, it can be nearly impossible to figure out exactly which is the last significant sumti - remember that the listener isn't aware that the speaker is about to spring one of the back-counting pro-sumti on ru until ra actually does so. As the last sentence shows, use of "ra" and "ru" are somewhat easier to interpret than "ri" would be. Try having someone read the sentence aloud to you, and you can verify this. "ra" and "ru", by not being exactly back-counted, allow the speaker to retain their definitions for short periods of time. "ra" at the beginning of a sentence could reasonably refer to the same thing as "ra" at the end of the sentence, and "ru" assignments can reasonably last even longer. "ri", on the other hand, must be re-figured every time it is used, and thus is primarily used only to chain together immediate afterthoughts long enough to finish them of or to assigned them to a "ko'a"- series variable. The example at the end of the next section demonstrates some of these considerations. 21.6 On xi me zo xi You can, it turns out, back-count exactly to some sumti prior to the first one. You reference such additional back-counted sumti by appending a subscript onto "ri". A subscript is a quantifier which is appended using the cmavo "xi". There are several possible numbering conventions, as we'll see in a moment; the simplest is to assume that the first back-counted sumti is "ri" and the second is "ri xi re" ("ri2"), the third is "rixici", etc. The only easily translatable examples of this usage are when you want to talk of "the former" and "the latter" or similar references, and for some reason you want to avoid using "ra" (either because it would be too vague, or because it is already in use for another purpose). Creating an example: le gusta prenu cu bevri lo palta .i lo dakfu .i lo smuci .i lo forca .i la rik. pilno rixire .i la .alis. pilno riximu "... Rick uses it (a fork). Alice uses it (a spoon)." Do you get the same references for the two back-counted sumti as we did? As you can see, the back-counting gets large in a hurry. If someone reads this sentence to you, you are not easily going to be able to count the sumti in your head, especially if the speaker is continuing while you are trying to count. On the other hand, the speaker cannot use "ra" or "ru" meaningfully - there are too many possible referents in the example given. In natural speech, we suspect that people will simply repeat the sumti rather than try to use back- counting. In writing, where the reader can look back to count (as can the writer), subscripted back- counting pro-sumti may be useful (if only rarely). One thing is sure - if there hadn't been a way to do this designed into the language, someone would have quickly come up with an example that needed it. Subscripting is relatively new to the language, and has never been extensively used. As such, the numbering conventions are only tentative, and you can feel free to try others, provided that your listener is aware that you are doing so. Try playing with the following moderately complex example: "la djan. ckire lenu la djordj. troci lenu ri klama ti ta kei lenu cadzu .i rixixo ..." "John is grateful for the event of George trying to come to here from there by walking. It? ..." where "xo" is used to ask what subscript should be used to reference a given sumti. The following is the 'standard' method of back-counting the sumti from the indicated point: ri lenu cadzu rixire ta rixici ti rixivo ri(la djorj.) riximu lenu ri (la djorj.) klama ti ta rixixa la djorj. rixize lenu la djorj. troci lenu ri (la djorj.) klama ti ta lenu cadzu rixibi la djan. Can you come up with another counting method that is more useful? (If so, let la lojbangirz. know.) As one help, studies have shown that back references are almost always either to the very last sumti or to the first sumti of various previous sentences. This could suggest some other counting approach. The subscript that is attached can be any quantifier. Quantifiers need not be ordinary numbers: "ru" might be considered equivalent to "rixiso'i" ("rimany"), and "ra" is usually equivalent to "rixisu'ore" ("ri>=2"), though it can be used to access "rixipa". Subscripts have other uses besides in back-counting. If you run out of free variables in the "ko'a" or "fo'a" series, you can start with "ko'axire". Similarly, you can use "daxire" and other subscripted bound variables when you need more than the three of those provided in the Lojban cmavo. In order to find out a complete list of words and/or structures that can be subscripted within Lojban, see a reference list of cmavo (on "xi" subscripting), or examine the formal grammar definition. 21.7 Back-Counting Example ti'ernunkancu mupli la djeryldin. xolmz. meisn. cu facki lo melbi ke cizra spati .i ri xunre .i ri plana .i ri xabju le caxno vi le lalxu .i ra citka loi sfani .i ra citka la meris. .elen. mai,rs. .i ri pu penmi ra goi rixici ca lenu cadzu va le lalxu .i ru xenru lenu ri pu facki le spati Geraldine Holmes Mason discovers a beautiful type of strange plant. It (the plant) is red. It (still the plant) is fat. It (still the plant) inhabits the shallows in the lake. It (the plant - almost certainly not Geraldine, the shallows, or the lake) eats flies. It (probably still the plant) eats Mary Ellen Meyers. She (Mary Ellen) met it (which is back-counted to the last "ra" that we are assuming is the plant.) during the walking near the lake. She (something earlier than "ra" and thus necessarily Geraldine) regrets the event of she (again Geraldine) discovering the plant (At this point, "ra" is fairly vague - there is more than one plausible thing that Geraldine could regret discovering, such as Mary Ellen - if anything is left of her - yecch!), so we explicitly repeat the description of the plant. The usage of back-counting pro-sumti here is reasonable for a written story in a fairly informal mood. It probably is understandable even told orally, due to the small number of different sumti. Following are the ways it would have to be told if (1) we used "ko'a"-series variables, but only in afterthought since the mood is informal; (2) we use no back-counting cmavo. (1) la djeryldin. xolmz. meisn. cu facki lo melbi ke cizra spati .i ko'a goi lo melbi ke cizra spati cu xunre .i ko'a plana .i ko'a xabju le caxno vi le lalxu .i ko'a citka loi sfani .i ko'a citka la meris. .elen. mai,rs. .i la meris. .elen. mai,rs. pu penmi ko'a ca lenu cadzu va le lalxu .i ko'e goi la djeryldin. xolmz. meisn. xenru lenu ko'e pu facki le spati (2) la djeryldin. xolmz. meisn. cu facki lo melbi ke cizra spati .i le spati cu xunre .i le spati cu plana .i le spati cu xabju le caxno vi le lalxu .i le spati cu citka loi sfani .i le spati cu citka la meris. .elen. mai,rs. .i la meris. .elen. mai,rs. pu penmi le spati ca lenu cadzu va le lalxu .i la djeryldin. xolmz. meisn. xenru lenu la djeryldin. xolmz. meisn. pu facki le spati I'm sure that you can see that these two varieties are quite stilted, each in its own way. Neither sounds quite as relaxed (as human?) as the original version.