Lesson 19
pasomoi seltadni

Descriptions
selgadri



Given the variety of ways that we have to restrict sumti, you will
perhaps not be surprised to find that some of the most common have
been given abbreviated forms when used with descriptions.  A
description, after all, may be fairly complex; requiring that the
restriction be put at the end may constrain the emphasis, or simply be
hard to understand.  For comparison, the English: "the coming-of-age
party which pertains to me" is more difficult to understand than "my
coming-of-age party"; the former is de-emphasizing the important
association with me by hiding it at the end of a long description.


19.1
'Possessives' and Tensed sumti
srana gerna .ije temci sumti

Lojban has one major short cut for dealing with 'possessives' of the
kind discussed in Lesson 18.  We can use:

le mi cukta
"the me-book"

as an alternative expression for:

le cukta pe mi
"the book which pertains to me"

The generic form for what we will call a 'possessive' construction is
"le [any sumti] [any selbri] ku".  We call the restricting sumti
'possessive' only because there is no other word for it in English;
the quote marks will help to remind you that these 'possessives' do
not necessarily indicate true possession.  (In fact, some kinds of
complex sumti may not appear in this construction, but they are all
beyond the scope of this text.)

The single sentence by which Alice could have asked Fred most
specifically for the book she wanted can now be given.  It is:

doi fred.  .i ko [cu] cpacu <{lemi cukta [ku]} {poi se gacri <da {poi
xunre jadni blabi ku'o}> ku'o}> <{le tanxe [ku]} {poi jubme <va mi>}>

doi fred.  .i ko cpacu lemi cukta poi se gacri da poi xunre jadni
blabi ku'o ku'o le tanxe poi jubme va mi

"O, Fred!  Get my book which is covered by something which is
white-surrounded-red from the box which is serving as a table near
me."

The two "ku'o"s are needed to ensure that "the box ..." is treated as
a place of "cpacu".  Note that when the 'possessor' is a member of
KOhA selma'o, the pro-sumti is often combined with the "le" descriptor
in written form: "lemi", "ledo", "leko'a", or "leda".  This is merely
a visual aid to remind the reader that the pro-sumti is part of the
qualification of the description, and not part of the description
itself.

We can put any untagged sumti of the types given thus far in the
position of the 'possessor', and any selbri in the description.  We
cannot put a tagged sumti in the 'possessor' position.  If you need to
restrict a sumti by using a tagged sumti, you must use "pe".

By saying that we can put any selbri in the description, however, we
include the possible use of a tense-inflected selbri.  We can thus
say:

le {pu jubme} [ku] cu tanxe
le pu jubme cu tanxe

The former table is-a-box.

and we can put a 'possessive' on this:

lemi pu jubme cu tanxe

The pertaining-to-me former table is-a-box.

A couple of additional examples of 'possessive' sumti show the
potential for this form:

le la djan. cukta
"the pertaining-to-John book"

le le tadni ku cukta
"the pertaining-to-the-student book"

le le tadni [ku] po'u la djan. cukta
"the pertaining-to-the-student-who-is-identified-as-John book"


19.2
Descriptive Vocatives; la Descriptions
*** gi'e me zo la selgadri

What does a child use to address her/his father in Lojban?  In many
cultures, the given name is not always appropriate for direct address
among social unequals.  In other cases, one may not know another
person's name.  How can you say "Hey, you with the red hair" in
Lojban?

The answer is that vocatives such as "coi.", "doi", "ke'o.", etc. can
take a description or a pro-sumti instead of a name.  The set of
descriptions that can be used is somewhat more constrained than that
permitted for "le", but relative clauses can be used in the vocative.
We will go into details of these complex vocatives in lesson 10.  For
now, we wish to note a basic similarity between "le" and "la".

If you can address someone with a description: "doi patfu", you need a
corresponding way to refer to that description as a 'name'.
Remembering that "la" denotes "the one(s) that I am calling ...", you
can perhaps see that nothing in that denotation says that the 'tail'
has to be a name.  If we can address someone with a description, we
must be able to describe that someone in a sumti as "the one(s) that I
am calling [description]".  Indeed, Lojban allows this.

In fact Lojban allows ANY description which can be preceded with "le"
to also be preceded by "la".  The only grammatical difference between
selma'o LE and selma'o LA is that selma'o LA can be followed by a
member of selma'o CMENE - a true name in the sense of morphology -
while LE cannot.  ("la" descriptions end with a possibly elidable
"ku", just as do "le" descriptions.)

The semantic distinction between "la" and "le" then becomes a matter
of how you wish to refer to something.  At times, I call my cat (who
has a name) "doi mlatu" addressing him as "O Cat" as directed in the
Broadway musical 'Cats'.  If I talk about my cat, I may thus use "le
mlatu" (the one I describe to be a cat), but this is actually quite
weak in these circumstances.  I can describe ANYTHING to be a cat,
even if it isn't one.  (If this seems illogical, note that I might
refer to a carved wooden figure of a cat as "le mlatu", though it
wouldn't pass the biological criteria of felinity.)  I can be more
specific in referring to my cat as "la mlatu"; in normal
circumstances, this is the only cat I ever address by that name.  If I
need to be more specific, I can attach a relative phrase: "la mlatu po
mi" (if one can ever be said to 'possess' a cat), or the
pseudo-possessive "lami mlatu".


19.3
Turning Lojban Words into Names
nu binxo lo lojbo valsi lo cmene

Having opened up the bounds of what can be named with "la", let us
complete the picture of names that was introduced in Lesson 2.  In
that lesson, we only talked about how to Lojbanize a non-Lojban name.
We have, however, since then, occasionally thrown in other types of
names, made from Lojban words, without ever giving any rules for doing
so.

The reason is simple; there are almost no rules.  The only requirement
is that you follow the morphological restriction of making the 'name'
end with a consonant.  There are certain conventions, or possibilities
to consider, so we will briefly note them here.

If you wish to make a Lojban brivla into a morphological name (as
opposed to just preceding it with "la" in a name description) you need
to get rid of the final vowel.  If this results in an unpronounceable
ending (as in changing "pelxu" to "pelx.") you can alternatively add a
consonant; 'n' and 's' have typically been favored consonants due to
euphony, but you are not required to use either in particular.  Note
that when you use an unconventional method of making a name, it
becomes harder for a listener to determine the etymology.  However,
Lojban has had far too little usage as a language to constrain people
into using the existing conventions.

When you use a gismu as a name, dropping the final vowel always gives
a different result than any other gismu, since no two gismu differ
only by the final vowel (The only exception is the special series of
brivla variables: "broda", "brode", "brodi", "brodo", and "brodu",
which have no independent meanings to be confused.)

Another approach, giving a shorter name, is to use a consonant-final
rafsi as a basis for a name associated with a gismu.  The bilingual
implications of this form the basis for one of the comic strips shown
at the end of this lesson.  Since rafsi heavily overlap the set of
cmavo, beware that the name that results from a rafsi may suggest
other things based on similar cmavo.

rafsi are used in building lujvo, or compound brivla, and all of them
end in vowels.  Again, you can drop final vowels, or you can append a
consonant, just as with gismu.

While the resulting name is similar enough to the original to suggest
the etymology, the name is not the brivla; some such names could turn
out to be identical to a Lojbanized name from another language.

The capability to use descriptions as names allows for one
coincidental circumstance.  The Euro-American feminine name "Katrina"
makes a nice Lojban name without Lojbanizing it: "ka trina" denotes
the property of attractiveness in the broad sense of that which
attracts something else.  Perhaps there will be many junior Lojbanists
of the next generation named "katrin." or called "la ka trina".


19.4
Veridical Descriptions
nunjetnu selgadri

We have hinted at a significant property of "le" description in some
of our examples.  This property now becomes important, so we will
discuss it.  The term used in discussing the property is 'veridical'.

Logicians are very concerned with the nature of truth and falsity, and
what makes a statement true or false.  Designing Lojban to support
predicate logic required careful considerations of the implications of
each element with regard to the truth or falsity of the resulting
expression.  We will start to address some of these issues starting in
this sublesson.

The term "veridical" refers to the effect some portion of the
statement on the truth or falsity of the expression.  Specifically, if
an element of an expression either directly or indirectly makes a
claim or assertion which can be assigned a truth value, that element
is considered veridical.

Attitudinal indicators are not veridical.  They indicate or express
emotions; the expressions are not independently verifiable as true or
false, and in any case have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the
expression they are found within.  Whether you are happy about a
state, or certain about it, or believe it true, or want it to be true,
it isn't necessarily true.  In any case, they are meant to serve the
partially subconscious ejaculative emotional expressions found in
nearly every language; we cannot presume that any subconscious
activity can be evaluated by the standards of truth or falsity.

We can and do evaluate Lojban bridi by such standards.  A bridi
sentence may be interpreted as a claim or assertion of truth.  We are
concerned with how various components of the bridi affect this truth
value.

Some effects are obvious; negation of a bridi with na reverses the
truth value of the sentence.

Descriptions are an area where the question of veridicality is
significant, and indeed is basic to the denotations of the cmavo
descriptors that label them.

For example, "la" is not veridical.  You can call a referent anything
you want; it is still the same thing, has the same properties; the
same claims about it will be true.  When we say that "la" denotes
"that which I am calling ...", we emphasize the personal nature of a
name, as well as the fact that a name is simply a convenient label for
something we wish to refer to.

Is "le" veridical?  The answer is no.  Just as naming with "la"
implicitly indicates that the speaker picks the label, "le" implicitly
indicates that the speaker as chooses how to describe the referent.
This description is merely a convenience; it serves its purpose if
both speaker and listener are able to identify the referent from the
description, WHETHER OR NOT THE DESCRIPTION IS ACCURATE.  "le" means
"that which I am describing with the bridi relationship ...".  If, per
the last section, I refer to the carving of a cat by saying "le mlatu
cu bunre", the fact that the carving isn't really a cat has nothing to
do with whether it is brown.  The statement can be true, even if I'm
mistaken and its really a carving of a dog - provided of course that
you, as listener, can identify what thing I'm erroneously describing
as a cat.

All of the forms of relative clauses that we have covered, the
'restrictive' forms implicitly or explicitly include a bridi which the
referent of the relativized sumti must meet.  "poi" of course, makes
this bridi explicit.  "po'u" implies a "du" bridi; "po" and "po'e"
implies some form of "ponse"; "pe" implies "srana" (see Lesson 7
vocabulary for this word).  It isn't clear whether the term
'veridical' is appropriate here; the implicit or explicit bridi
expresses a relationship about the referent of the sumti, even if the
sumti is a "le" description.  The "le" does not claim that the
description is accurate, or even that the referent exists; the
restrictive clause or phrase may be such that the result does not
exist.  (For example, in the sentence "The horse that speaks French
climbs the ladder.", the fact that no horse speaks French probably
makes the sentence meaningless; for it to be meaningful, there must be
something described by the speaker as "the horse" must also satisfy
the relative clause "that speaks French".  If such a referent exists,
then it is possible to evaluate the truth or falsity of the
predication on "climbing the ladder".

If I say:

"le cmalu crino prenu cu vitke mi"
"The thing(s) that I am describing as small-green-person(s) visit me."

the question of truth is whether whatever it is I am describing as
"little green persons" really visit me, and not whether they are
"little", or "green", or "persons", or whether there are such things
as "little green persons".  Only the relationship of "vitke" is
relevant to truth.  The bridi of the description is rendered
non-veridical by labelling it as a personal description with "le".

On the other hand, in the related expression:

"da poi cmalu crino prenu cu vitke mi"
"Some x1 which is/are small-green-person(s) visit me."

the relative clause makes a meaningful and veridical claim.  It claims
that there is a non-null subset of the universe (which is labelled as
"da") for which the bridi "da poi cmalu crino prenu" is true.  If
there is no such subset, then the restrictive clause restricts out the
entire universe: there are no "da"s meeting the restrictive conditions
such that "vitke" describes their relationship to me.


19.5
lo
me zo lo

It would be convenient to be able to refer to a description
veridically: to be able to state a description and mean that I (the
speaker) am referring to something which actually is a member of the
set meeting the description I've used.  We do so with the descriptor
"lo", a member of selma'o LE sharing identical grammar with "le"
though an obviously different semantics.

"lo mlatu" means "a referent which is a subset of the set which
accurately meets the x1 sumti of the bridi relationship referred to as
'mlatu'".  We usually shorten this as "one or more members of the set
of 'mlatu'".

Description with "lo" is very similar to specification with "da poi",
and is equally veridical. If I say "da poi ke'a mlatu cu citka le
rectu", I state that there exists a non-null subset which can be
restrictively identified as meeting the x1 place of the bridi "mlatu".
having identified this non-null subset, I state further that the
members of this subset eat meat.

The only difference between "da poi" and "lo" is that "lo" does not
claim that the subset referred to actually refers to anything. "lo"
can refer to the members of an empty or null set, whereas "da poi"
cannot.

"lo" often is translated into English as the indefinite article ("a"
or "some", although this can be tricky.

"lo cmalu crino prenu cu vitke mi"
"A(Some) small-green-person(s) visit(s) me."

The description is veridical in that whatever I am describing with the
sumti "lo cmalu crino prenu" must meet that description.  Then, any
such referent must also meet the main bridi and be something that fits
the x1 place of "vitke mi".  If there is nothing that meets the
description, then the set of little green persons that I am describing
is empty, and I am claiming that "the empty set of little green
persons visits me" which is quite true.

As you can see, this is not quite what we mean by the indefinite
article in English.  "da poi" is actually a more accurate translation
of the indefinite article, but it differs structurally from English
indefinite article and thus is difficult to use in literal
translation.  If you are dealing with a non-empty set in your
description, however, "lo" is quite fine as an indefinite article.
Unlike the English article, the denotation of "lo" is logically quite
specific.


19.5
Quantifying lo Descriptions
nu kancu loi me zo lo selgadri

Because "lo" deals with sets that really meet the descriptions, the
quantification of these sets is more vital to evaluating the
description than is the comparable quantification of a "le"
description.

If we refer to "pa le re nanmu", we are describing "one of the two
things which we are describing as men".  Since "le" doesn't require
that they referents really be men, but only that they be things which
are mutually understood by speaker and listener to refer to men, how
we count them is a somewhat subjective matter.  In most cases, we can
presume that there are two members in the set I am describing, and
furthermore, that I am selecting one of these for use in the bridi to
which this sumti applies.

If I say "pa lo re nanmu", I make a much stronger claim.  I am of
course selecting one member from the set of things which really are
men to discuss; I am also stating that this set is enumerated as
having two members.

Thus, if I say "pa lo re nanmu cu klama", the statement is false.  The
quantified veridical description says that I am referring to one of
the two that constitutes the entirety of the universe of men.  In my
universe, there are more than two men, so the statement cannot be
true.

This doesn't mean that you never want to quantify the set described by
"lo".  You may, through restrictive clauses, delimit the set to
something which is accurately enumerable, in which case stating how
many are in the set is useful information.  Don't we wish that the
advertisements that talk about "9 out of 10 doctors" described the set
of doctors with sufficient accuracy that "lo" description could be
used?

When you quantify "lo" such that the set is non-empty, "lo" becomes
identical in meaning to "da poi", and accurately translates many
usages of the indefinite article: "ci lo dinju" can be literally
translated as "some three buildings" or more commonly "three
buildings"; "ci da poi dinju" has an identical translation.


19.6
Indefinite Descriptions
nal*** selgadri

People like short cuts for frequently expression forms, and Lojbanists
will be no exception.  It turns out that we have a short cut for
quantification of veridical descriptions that exactly parallels the
English.  The last example: "ci lo dinju" or "ci da poi dinju", can be
shortened to "ci dinju".  Such abbreviated expression is the closest
we can come in Lojban to the generalized indefinite article of
English:

"pa djedi"	"One day"
"ze mensi"	"Seven sisters"
"so'u nixli"	"Some girls"
"no karce"	"No cars"
"pa nu jbena"	"A birth"

Indefinite sumti can be restricted using relative clauses; these
relative clauses, which do not have descriptors at the front, also
need only one "ku" at the end (and a second one is ungrammatical):

ze mensi {poi merko [ku]} cu klama
ze mensi poi merko cu klama
"Seven sisters who are 'American' come."

Finally, indefinite sumti can be compounded two levels without
requiring a descriptor; this is the first example we can present where
"boi" after a number is not elidable:

pa boi ze mensi
"one of the seven which are sisters"


19.7
Mass Description
gunma selgadri

We will deal with one more aspect of description in this lesson, one
which is seldom noticed by English speakers.  This is the concept of
massified description.  The fact that we do not notice massification
does not mean that it isn't in the English language.

When we say "Chickens lay eggs", we don't mean to imply that
everything that is a chicken lays eggs.  Obviously, only adult female
chickens do, and perhaps not all of them.  Furthermore, not all eggs
are laid by chickens.  You can perhaps see that neither of "le" nor
"lo" are correct descriptors in the sentence:

"___ sovda cu jbena ___ jipci"

There are times when we want to refer to a group of similar items as
if the group were one thing.  We have several predicating terms for
this in English: 'team', 'group', 'mass', collection', 'jointly', etc.
We do not have a clear way in English to make the distinction of a
mass individual without the predicating term; the semantics of
individual words is used to distinguish whether they refer to
individuals, plurals, or masses collected into a massified individual
(The latter occurs pedantically in English descriptions, as in 'The
chicken is an egg-layer.').  As such, English has a large number of
collectivizing terms, especially for animals and plants, and irregular
forms for collectivizing other things.  Some other languages make more
obvious use of the distinction between individuals and their unitary
mass.

It is important to realize that a mass is a singular entity.  You, for
example, are a single entity composed of a mass of individual cells.
Assuming that 'you' are holding this book up, this is equivalent to
saying that 'the mass of individual cells which comprises you' is
holding this book up.  Yet none of the individual cells is actually
holding anything, and most of the cells don't even have contact with
the book.  Actually, some finite part of the whole mass of cells,
namely your hands, is teaming up to support the book.

Similarly, if "you live in the United States", you probably only live
in one of the fifty states.  You may, when crossing a boundary, live
in two states at the same time.  Very few people live in all 50
states, even treating their entire lives as a single entity.  Many
people spend part of their lives out of the United States; they may
still be described using the above sentence.  There are apparently two
massified concepts involved in this sentence.  One treats the United
States as a single massified location; the other describes your life
as a single massified time period.

When we talk about such masses, we are usually talking about portions
of the whole mass that are fulfilling the condition claimed for the
whole mass.  It may be incidentally true that the whole may meet the
claimed condition, but a massified description does not necessarily
imply this.

Incidentally, Trobriand Islanders treat massified description as the
normal case.  Each rabbit is treated as representing the massified set
of rabbitdom.  When one sees a rabbit, one says that "I see
Mr. Rabbit.", where the proper noun is being used to show the
massified nature.  (English simply fails to convey this concept when
it is not used in an English-like manner.)

The concept of mass is carried in Lojban to its logical conclusion: if
even one cell alone is supporting the book, then the mass - you - is
supporting the book.  In short, anything true of any one component of
the mass is true of the mass as a whole.  A claim about mass
individuals doesn't say that there are no portions of the mass for
which the claim is not true - in fact, it may almost necessarily imply
such exceptions, since one could explicitly state the claim for each
individual (using "lo") just as easily.

It is generally assumed that any Lojban description or pro-sumti
referring to an individual refers to that individual as a mass:

mi bevri le cukta

does not presume that all portions of "me" (or "us") are actively
involved in the carrying.

le verba cu bevri le cukta

similarly makes no claims about all portions of the child or children
are involved in the carrying.

When we want to explicitly treat plural sets as a mass, however, we
need to be able to make the distinction that cannot be easily made in
English.  If I say:

pimu lo remna cu nakni

I am claiming that exactly one-half (.5) of a human being is male, out
of all of those in the 'universe of discourse', which isn't true.  We
have no wish to bisect any member of the human race.  We need some
form of description that allows us to clearly deal with the mass as a
whole.


"loi", "lei", "lai"

Lojban has three descriptor cmavo for mass description, corresponding
to the three non-massified descriptors.  Thus "loi" is the massified
version of "lo", "lei" is the massified version of "le", and "lai" is
the massified version of "la".

In the last example, if I say: 

pimu loi remna cu nakni

I am claiming that half of the mass of humans, treated as an
individual, is (are) male.  (There is ambiguity in English as to
whether massified nouns are singular or plural - examples can be found
for each interpretation being the preferred choice).  Using "loi"
there is no implication that anyone has to be cut in half.  The
default quantifier after "loi" always includes "ro":

pimu loi ro remna cu nakni

(If you want to enumerate the set, you put that enumeration after the "ro":

loi roze djedi pe le ca jeftu cu ckaji loi carvi

describes the mass of the seven days of this week as being
characterized by rain.  It is not necessary that it rain constantly on
each day, or even that rain occurs on each day for this sentence to be
true.  Technically, if part of one day is characterized by rain, the
sentence is true.

Of course, in the example given, we are likely to infer that it rained
on each day, since

le ca jeftu cu ckaji loi carvi

would more simply say the same thing without mentioning or enumerating
the days of the week.)

Going back to our example in the last section, we can correctly say
that:

"loi sovda cu jbena loi jipci"
"Chickens lay eggs."


The equivalents of "lei" and "lai" are less commonly found in English
usage in ways that are clearly massified.  They refer to massified
concepts of course, but they refer to specific ones that the speaker
has in mind.  The specific mass that the speaker has in mind ("lei" or
"lai") is part of the larger mass of all things implied by the
description ("loi").  For all three, the statement being true for part
of the mass makes the massified expression true.  Thus, if:

"lei sovda cu jbena lei jipci"
"The chickens lay the eggs."

is true, and the things being described as chickens and eggs really
are chickens and eggs, then:

"loi sovda cu jbena loi jipci"
"Chickens lay eggs."

is also true.  Yet clearly, something different is being said.  We are
indicating in the sentence using "lei" that there are particular eggs
and chickens that we have in mind, and that the statement is true of
these particular masses - a more restricted statement than the "loi"
phrase.  In fact, to say the identical statement using "loi", we would
need to restrict the sets of chickens and eggs being massified using
relative clauses.

Names are inherently a restricted set, restricted to those which a
speaker has in mind.  Massification with "lai" thus corresponds to
massification with "lei" more than massification with "loi".  English
equivalents of "lai" are even harder to find.

lai djonz. klama le vanci sanmi
"The Joneses are coming to the dinner."

is true even if the parents leave the children with a baby-sitter and
come without them.  In this case, using "la" could serve as well and
be equally true - the ones the speaker has in mind to call 'Jones'
include only the parents.  The massified description is more clear,
however, if both speaker and listener know that there are children in
the Jones family, especially if the discussion has previously included
the children in the referent of the name.  Using "lai" instead of "la"
in this case then implies less than complete participation among the
Joneses.  Unlike the English equivalent, there is no plural implied;
the above sentence could be true even if only one member of the Jones
family comes to the dinner.

"lai" and "lei" are useful in making a distinctions with quantified
sets that cannot be made in English.  For example, take the English
sentence "The three people carried the bottles."  The English is
highly ambiguous - did they carry the bottles together, or separately
(possibly at three different times), or did they do it as a mass
individual (which might mean that only two of them actually did the
carrying while the other supervised).  The latter might seems unlikely
in this instance, but a parallel sentence "The baseball team hit a
home run." uses exactly this interpretation.

One possible translation:

lei ci prenu cu bevri le botpi

First, we are assuming that there are three particular people that the
speaker has in mind.  (If we were to use "loi ci prenu", we would be
making a false statement, since there are more than three in the set
of all people - remember that the quantifier after the descriptor
enumerates the set being described.)  We have particular bottles in
mind, but we want it to be clear that all of the bottles were carried.
Using "lei" as a descriptor for the bottles:

lei ci prenu cu bevri lei botpi

would make the sentence true if the people managed to carry only part
of the bottles, so it is too weak a claim to express the most likely
meaning of the English.

If the speaker wishes to clearly claim that the three individuals
jointly participated in carrying the bottles, the quantified mass
description would be accurate:

 piro lei ci prenu cu bevri le botpi

We use a fraction "piro" as the selecting quantifier, since a mass is
always treated as a single unit.  "ro", or any quantifier larger than
one would be incorrect in that position:

 *re lei ci prenu cu bevri le botpi

is grammatical, but nonsense.

If we do not use piro, the Lojban implicitly is interpreted as:

 pisu'o lei ci prenu cu bevri le botpi

which would allow one of the three to perform the act on behalf of
both of them.  The default quantifiers for all three mass descriptors
are "pisu'o loi/lei/lai ro [description]".

Using "le ci prenu" rules out the concept of one or two performing the
act carrying the bottles for all three of them, because the implicit
quantifier is "ro le ci prenu" (each of them did it).  Note that:

 ro le ci prenu cu bevri le botpi

requires that each of the people separately carries all of the bottles
being referred to.  The statement does not allow for teamwork.

On the other hand:

 ro le ci prenu cu bevri lei botpi

allows each of the people to carry some of the bottles without
necessarily implying that all of the bottles were carried by any one
of the three.

Note that we can more explicitly clarify how many acts of carrying
occurred by specifically saying so (using the abstraction operator
NU).

piro lei ci prenu cu zukte le pa nu bevri le mu botpi

is completely explicit that "All of the three specific people
participated in the single act of carrying five particular bottles,
with none of them necessarily bearing all of the burden."

If the sentence had been the even more ambiguous "Three people carried
the bottles.", we would have had to consider lo as a descriptor for
"prenu":

ci lo prenu cu bevri lei botpi

It is not clear in the English whether there are three particular
referents being described as people (could they really be aliens?) or
whether the claim describes just any three people.

Clearly, in Lojban, the choice of descriptors takes some care, but the
result is considerable power and flexibility of expression.

19.8
Specified Descriptions
*** selgadri

When you use the x1 place of a bridi to form a description, what
happens to all of the other places?  They still are semantically part
of the description; after all, "le klama" must be a "go-er to some
destination from some origin via some route using some mode of
transportation".  If it were not so, then the whole underpinnings of
Lojban - the semantic interpretation of a bridi, would fail.  What do
you do when you want to express these sumti?

Abstraction is not the answer; we don't want "the x1 going to x2 from
x3 ..." - in a non-abstract description, we are still talking
specifically about the x1 sumti, and not about the whole bridi.  We
merely want to specify the "go-er" in terms of the other sumti that
the bridi uses to make the relationship "klama" true.

We obviously cannot just stick the sumti on the end.  In:

"le klama [ku] cu sumne lei srasu [ku]"

"le klama cu sumne lei srasu"
"The go-er smells the grass."

if we were to specify the other places of "klama" simply by attaching
them, we get nonsense:

"*le klama [ku] le zdani [ku] le zarci [ku] cu sumne lei srasu [ku]"
"*le klama le zdani le zarci cu sumne lei srasu"

which is grammatical, but causes the added sumti to be treated as
places of "sumne", thus translating as:

"The go-er, the nest/house, of? (some undefined smelling relationship)
the market, smells of? (some undefined smelling relationship) the
grass." or:

"(The go-er smells the nest/house) of the market, of the grass."

As we said, nonsense.

We need a way to attach the sumti which are the x2-and-beyond places
of "klama" in such a way that they can be kept clearly distinguished
from the sumti of the main selbri.

There are two parts to achieving this.  The separation can be achieved
unambiguously by surrounding the specifying sumti with a unique set of
brackets - this is the way Lojban expresses all such modifications to
the basic bridi structure.  In the case of specification of
description sumti, the left bracket is the cmavo "be", and the right
bracket is the corresponding cmavo "be'o".  The "be" is always placed
immediately after the selbri for which it is specifying sumti.
Simplifying the above example gives:

"{le klama <be (le zdani [ku]) [be'o]> [ku]} cu sumne lei srasu [ku]"

"le klama be le zdani cu sumne lei srasu"
"The (go-er to the house) smells the grass."

"be" and "be'o" bracketing are not sufficient when more than one sumti
is to be specified.  If any additional sumti are to be added to the
specification, we separate each sumti with the cmavo "bei".  For
example:

"{le klama <be (le zdani [ku]) (bei {le zarci [ku]}) [be'o]> [ku]} cu
sumne lei srasu [ku]"

"le klama be le zdani bei le zarci cu sumne lei srasu"
"The (go-er to the house from the market) smells the grass."

Because there is never more than one sumti in a specification without
either a "bei" or a "be'o" following, every "ku" turns out to be
elidable without ambiguity.

A common occasion for explicitly using "be'o" is a specification
within a specification.  We need a "be'o" in the following sentence to
unambiguously close off the second degree specification so that "le
zarci" is not taken to be a place of "le zdani":

"{le klama <be (le zdani {be <le nanmu [ku]> be'o} [ku]) (bei {le
zarci [ku]}) [be'o]> [ku]} cu sumne lei srasu [ku]"

"le klama be le zdani be le nanmu be'o bei le zarci cu sumne lei
srasu" "The (go-er to <the house for the man> from the market) smells
the grass."

Another example:

"{le klama <be (le zdani {be <mi> be'o} [ku]) (bei {le zarci [ku]})
[be'o]> [ku]} cu sumne lei srasu [ku]"

"le klama be le zdani be mi be'o bei le zarci cu sumne lei srasu"
"The (go-er to <the house for me> from the market) smells the grass."

The following examples explore some of the variations in specified
sumti.  We have elided as many "ku"s as possible in the shortened
form.

"<le jvinu {be (le rirxe [ku]) bei (le cmana [ku]) [be'o]} [ku]> cu melbi mi"
"(le jvinu be le rirxe bei le cmana) cu melbi mi"
"le jvinu be le rirxe bei le cmana cu melbi mi"
"The view of the river from the mountain is beautiful to me."

"<le zmadu {be (le snuji danlu [ku]) bei (loi<ka {sutra (loi<nu {bajra
[vau]} [kei]> [ku]) [vau]} [kei]> [ku]) [be'o]} [ku]> cu sipna"

"(le zmadu be <le snuji danlu bei {loika sutra loinu bajra}>) cu sipna"
"le zmadu be le snuji danlu bei loika sutra loinu bajra cu sipna"

The more-than-the-sandwich-animal-in-property-fastness-at-running-events
sleeps" "The faster-at-running-than-the-turtle (i.e. the rabbit)
sleeps."

"<le zgana {be (le jimca <be {le tricu [ku]} [be'o]> [ku]) [be'o]}
[ku]> cu viska <lo cipni [ku]>

.i <le zgana {be (le jimca <be {le tricu [ku]} be'o> [ku]) bei (le
blaci [ku]) [be'o]} [ku]> cu viska <lo cipni [ku]>"

"(le zgana be <le jimca be le tricu>) cu viska lo cipni
.i (le zgana be <le jimca be le tricu be'o> bei le blaci) cu viska lo cipni"

"le zgana be le jimca be le tricu cu viska lo cipni
.i le zgana be le jimca be le tricu be'o bei le blaci cu viska lo cipni"
"The observer of the limb of the tree sees some birds.
The observer of the limb of the tree, using the glass-thing, sees some birds."




19.9
Specified selbri Within tanru
*** tanru

It turns out that specified selbri can be used in one other place in a
Lojban sentence, although it doesn't necessarily have anything to do
with descriptions.  If you have a brivla within a tanru, you again
have a situation where the x1 sumti is defining the relationship
between that brivla and the rest of the tanru.  You can use "be" and
"bei" to specify non-x1 places on any of these brivla:

"zmadu <be {loi lindi [ku]} bei {loi(ka <sutra [vau]> [kei]) [ku]}
be'o> nanmu"

"zmadu <be loi lindi bei loika sutra be'o> nanmu"

"zmadu be loi lindi bei loika sutra be'o nanmu"
"More-than-lightning-in-property-fastness man!"
"Faster-than-lightning man!"

"be" and "bei" can even be used with the final brivla that dictates
the place structure of the entire sentence bridi, or in a solitary
brivla serving as the main selbri.  Using "be" and "bei" to attach
sumti after the main selbri is grammatical but superfluous:

"mi sutra klama be le zdani bei le zarci"
"I quickly go to the house from the store."

Superfluous cmavo will generally be considered 'bad usage', which is
not necessarily wrong.  There are times when clarity, poetry, or
simply style, indirect-functioncate that something considered 'bad
usage' is actually a good idea.  In this case, for example, if you
want to express an extremely complex x2 sumti after the selbri, using
"be" and "bei" might save you from having to figure out how many "ku"s
are needed to close off the higher degree complexities so that the x3
truly is interpreted as relating to the main selbri.  We have seen
places where relative clauses and abstract clauses could easily make
this condition occur, making an otherwise superfluous structure
useful:

"mi viska be le rarna rokci bitmu poi gapru le lalxu poi do limna ke'a
bei la xadjed."

"mi viska le rarna rokci bitmu poi gapru le lalxu poi do limna ke'a
vau [ku'o] vau [ku'o] [ku] la xadjed."

"mi viska le rarna rokci bitmu poi gapru le lalxu poi do limna ke'a
[vau] ku'o [vau] ku'o [ku] la xadjed."

"I see the cliff which is above the lake that you swim in on the
Saturday (that I have in mind)."

Note that without using the 'bad usage' sumti specification cmavo on
"viska", we need two "vau"s or two "ku'o"s to properly end its x2
sumti and make it clear that "la xadjed." is the x3 sumti of "viska".
This would be a strain for both the speaker and the listener.  The
normally unacceptable usage is here much easier to say and understand
correctly.


19.10
Examples
mupli

Here is another dialog that demonstrates the grammatical points
covered in this lesson.  As usual, try to understand the text yourself
before using the translations provided.  The instructor may again wish
to have selected students act out the dialog.

barb.:	coi  .i mi du la barb  .i mi ve zarci zo'e zo'e ti  .i do djica ma

.alis.: coi doi barb.  .i mi djica ko'a poi lo skaci pastu .i xu do
ponse ko'a

barb.: .ia mi ponse ko'a .i ko zgana ta .i .i'a le pastu po le crino
dasri cu xamgu do

.alis.:	mi na nelci loi dasri  .i xu do ponse ko'a poi claxu loi dasri

barb.:	ko troci le blabi pastu

.alis.:	le blabi cu rupnu li xo

barb.:	li renono pi'eze

.alis.: .ue le se rupnu cu dukse kargu mi .i xu da pe vi cu rupnu li
su'e cino

barb.:	no da pe vi le zarci po mi cu rupnu li su'e sono

.alis.: do srera .i le pastu poi se dasni mi cu pu rupnu li remu .i
lemi pastu cu ca zvati ledo zarci .i la'edi'u ba na mentu li so'i .i
co'o

19.11
Translation Of Examples
mupli xe fanva

barb.:	coi  .i mi du la barb  .i mi ve zarci zo'e zo'e ti  .i do djica ma
	Hello.  I am Barb.  I am-the-market-proprietor (at-location
unspecified) (selling unspecified) of this.  You want what?

.alis.:	coi doi barb. .i mi djica ko'a poi lo skaci pastu  .i xu do ponse ko'a

	Hello, O Barb.  I want it which is a skirt robe.
        Is-it-true-that you have it?

barb.: .ia mi ponse ko'a .i ko zgana ta .i .i'a le pastu po le crino
dasri cu xamgu do
	
(Certainly) I have it.  Observe that.  (Belief) The robe of the green
ribbon is good for you.

.alis.: mi na nelci loi dasri .i xu do ponse ko'a poi claxu loi dasri
I am not fond of ribbons.  Is-it-that you have it which is without
ribbons?

barb.:	ko troci le blabi pastu
	Try the white robe.

.alis.:	le blabi cu rupnu li xo
	The white-thing is-in-dollars how-much?

barb.:	li renono pi'eze
	200:7

.alis.: .ue le se rupnu cu dukse kargu mi .i xu da pe vi cu rupnu li
su'e cino 
(Surprise) The amount-in-dollars is excessively costly to
me.  Is-it-that something that is here is-in-dollars at-most 30?

barb.:	no da pe vi le zarci po mi cu rupnu li su'e sono
	No something which is at the market of me is-in-dollars at-most 90.

.alis.: do srera .i le pastu poi se dasni mi cu pu rupnu li remu .i
lemi pastu cu ca zvati ledo zarci .i la'edi'u ba na mentu li so'i .i
co'o

You err.  The robe which is-worn by me was-in-dollars 25.  My robe is
now at your market.  The-referent-of-the-last-sentence
will-not-be-in-minutes many.  Good-bye.

We cheated a little in this dialog by measuring the garments in
"rupnu" rather than measuring their prices in "rupnu".  Sometimes,
however, it seems that the way we've expressed it is accurate.



19.12
lei lojbo - A Lojban Comic Strip Illustrating Relative bridi

A translation and commentary will be found following the strip.

lei lojbo

B:	doi noras. [le skami] cu [mutce djuno]
O Nora! [The computer (for...)] is [extreme- (in direction...in
quality)-ly knowing/knower (of...about...)]
	.i ko zgana
	(Imperative you) Observe (...using...under conditions...)

   Nora! See how much the computer knows!

B:	[doi skami] [le barda zdani] [vi zvati] ma

	[O Computer (for...)!] [The large- (in property/dimension...)
-nest (for...)] is [here (time unspecified) being present at] what
sumti x2

	Hey, computer!  Where is the big house?

C:	MI PENSI
	I think (about...)

	([va'i] [le zdani {poi barda}]1 [va zvati] ma)

	(Thinking) [In other words,] [the nest (for...) {which is
large (in property/dimension...) is [there-in-space (time unspecified)
being present at] what sumti x2

	THINKING...  (In other words, the house that is big is where?)

C:	.I [LE ZDANI POI BARDA] CU2 ZVATI [DA {POI <PRITU [LE {VA TRICU}]>}]

	The nest (for...) {which is large (in property/dimension...)
is present at [somethingx {which is to the right of [the
{there-in-space (time unspecified) (tree of species...)}]>}]

 	THE HOUSE THAT IS BIG IS TO THE RIGHT OF THE TREE.

B:	.ui  .i [{ko troci} doi noras.]
	Great! (Happy) [{(Imperative) You try,} O Nora.]

	Wow! You try, Nora.

N:	.ai .i'e
	Aye, Aye! (Willingness) I guess! (Reluctant Acceptance)

	I guess so, if you insist.

N:	doi skami le gerku zdani vi zvati ma
	[O Computer (for...)!] [The dog- (of species...from...) -nest
(for...)] is [here (time unspecified) being present at] what sumti x2

	Hey, computer!  Where is the doghouse?

C:	MI PENSI
	I think (about...)
	(va'i le zdani poi gerku va zvati ma)

	(Thinking) [In other words,] [the nest (for...) {which is a
dog (of species...from...) is [there-in-space (time unspecified) being
present at] what sumti x2

	THINKING...  (In other words, the house that is a dog is where?)

C:	.I MI [NAKE {VISKA <LE ZDANI [POI GERKU]>}]

	I [not- {see <the nest (for...) [which is a dog (of
species...from...)]> under conditions}]
	.ue
	(Thinking) Oh! (Surprise!)

	(Oh, what a surprising concept!) I DON'T SEE ANY HOUSE THAT IS A DOG.

N:	.i'u [le malskami]3 cu [{mutce bebna} djuno]

	Yecch! (Disgust) [The derogative-computer] is an [{extreme-
(in direction...in quality)-ly foolish (in...)}  knowing/knower
(of...about...)]

	Blecch! This $%!@# computer is extremely foolish.4


1. The computer has apparently been programmed to disambiguate
and interpret tanru by expanding them using "poi".  This is a
legitimate way to avoid tanru and be unambiguous, since "poi" relative
clauses define a specific (identifying) relationship between the two
components of the tanru.  Unfortunately for the computer, it isn't the
only way to disambiguate a tanru, causing the humor of the comic.

2. Nora has used cu here, instead of "va".  Bob and Nora have used "vi"
in their questions, and the computer has used "va" in thinking about
them, but it inexplicably doesn't retain the "va" in the answer to
either.  Obviously another programming bug by Bob, though not the
point of the comic.

3. An obviously impromptu lujvo made by Nora to express her insult.
There are no clues as to its intended place structure in the context;
but it doesn't really matter.

4. Nora's complaint (She might have used ".oi" to express 'complaint'
instead of ".i'u", or in addition to it.) does not translate well into
idiomatic English.  She is answering and commenting on Bob's (Lojban)
statement in the first frame, which is closer in Lojban to idiomatic
English.  The idiomatic translations of the two utterances don't
match, although the Lojban versions of the two are very close, with
only the word "bebna" inserted.  A case where an English speaker will
not understand a Lojban joke/pun.  (On the other hand, bad tanru are
easy to make in Lojban - easier than the corresponding malapropisms in
English.  Thus, the misinterpretations of these tanru, whether
intentional or unintentional, are already very common jokes.)

5-1

5-3