Imagine not knowing the definition of {banzu}, and being told that there is a gismu that means "enough/sufficient", what place structure would you intuitively expect it to have? Turns out not everyone has the same intuition here!
Personally I always thought {banzu} was a wee bit clumsy. The x1 can be anything, but it feels like sumti-raising most of the time. I tend to use a {ni} in banzu1:
(1) lo ni mi certu cu banzu lo nu mi snada
"The amount of [I am skilled] is enough for [I succeed] to happen"
"I am skilled enough to succeed."
But there is also usage like:
(2) lo xance cu banzu lo nu bevri
"A hand is enough to carry it."
It's basically sumti-raising, since "having a hand" or "using a hand" is what is actually meant.
For a long time now, I have felt that {banzu} should parallel {sarcu}. {sarcu} is the "necessary condition", and with {banzu} there could be the "sufficient condition", which is a useful and necessary (no pun intended) word to have. The place structure would simply be:
(a) x1 (nu) is a sufficient condition/is enough for x2 (nu) to happen under conditions x3
Everybody knows I like parallelism in Lojban, so such a definition would sit well with me. It's a pretty counterpart to {sarcu}.
(3) lo nu mi sanga cu banzu lo nu mi gleki
"Me singing is enough for me to be happy." (also yet another case where nu/ka polymorphism would be useful)
This also adds an additional nuance to the Lojban conditionals:
(4) banzu lo nu mi do fraxu kei fa lo nu do nupre lo ka na za'u re'u tai tarti
"I will forgive you if only you promise me not to behave like that again."
On the other hand, latro'a, another Lojbanist, happened to not pay very close attention to the actual definition of {banzu}, and intuitively kept using a definition that they felt was appropriate. That definition was along the lines of:
(b) x1 (object) is sufficiently/enough of x2 (ka/ni) for x3 to happen
In my opinion, this is also a useful definition! This definition is especially useful for lujvo, something which the actual {banzu} is terrible at, which I had to realize time and again upon trying to use it in lujvo. The natural tendency for me was to place {banzu} as the veljvo tertau, but then, where does the seltau go? The x1 is where it should go, but that isn't how lujvo tend to be formed. "Good enough" could be anything of {xagbanzu}, {bazyxau} or {selbazyxau}. In any case, it feels clumsy. This last definition makes making lujvo very easy, "good enough" is simply {banzu lo ka xamgu} -> {xagybanzu} (meanwhile I shed a tear over the fact that {banzu} has no short terminal rafsi).
The big point here is that I believe that both definitions, definition (a) and (b), are useful and should have a brivla. They can't both be {banzu}, however. Either we give one of them {banzu} and make a lujvo for the other, or we create a new gismu for one of them. I don't really have a preference for one option over the other, I just hope that both meanings end up with a nice brivla. Or rather: both definitions getting a brivla is a sufficient condition for my happiness! ;)
Personally I always thought {banzu} was a wee bit clumsy. The x1 can be anything, but it feels like sumti-raising most of the time. I tend to use a {ni} in banzu1:
(1) lo ni mi certu cu banzu lo nu mi snada
"The amount of [I am skilled] is enough for [I succeed] to happen"
"I am skilled enough to succeed."
But there is also usage like:
(2) lo xance cu banzu lo nu bevri
"A hand is enough to carry it."
It's basically sumti-raising, since "having a hand" or "using a hand" is what is actually meant.
For a long time now, I have felt that {banzu} should parallel {sarcu}. {sarcu} is the "necessary condition", and with {banzu} there could be the "sufficient condition", which is a useful and necessary (no pun intended) word to have. The place structure would simply be:
(a) x1 (nu) is a sufficient condition/is enough for x2 (nu) to happen under conditions x3
Everybody knows I like parallelism in Lojban, so such a definition would sit well with me. It's a pretty counterpart to {sarcu}.
(3) lo nu mi sanga cu banzu lo nu mi gleki
"Me singing is enough for me to be happy." (also yet another case where nu/ka polymorphism would be useful)
This also adds an additional nuance to the Lojban conditionals:
(4) banzu lo nu mi do fraxu kei fa lo nu do nupre lo ka na za'u re'u tai tarti
"I will forgive you if only you promise me not to behave like that again."
On the other hand, latro'a, another Lojbanist, happened to not pay very close attention to the actual definition of {banzu}, and intuitively kept using a definition that they felt was appropriate. That definition was along the lines of:
(b) x1 (object) is sufficiently/enough of x2 (ka/ni) for x3 to happen
In my opinion, this is also a useful definition! This definition is especially useful for lujvo, something which the actual {banzu} is terrible at, which I had to realize time and again upon trying to use it in lujvo. The natural tendency for me was to place {banzu} as the veljvo tertau, but then, where does the seltau go? The x1 is where it should go, but that isn't how lujvo tend to be formed. "Good enough" could be anything of {xagbanzu}, {bazyxau} or {selbazyxau}. In any case, it feels clumsy. This last definition makes making lujvo very easy, "good enough" is simply {banzu lo ka xamgu} -> {xagybanzu} (meanwhile I shed a tear over the fact that {banzu} has no short terminal rafsi).
The big point here is that I believe that both definitions, definition (a) and (b), are useful and should have a brivla. They can't both be {banzu}, however. Either we give one of them {banzu} and make a lujvo for the other, or we create a new gismu for one of them. I don't really have a preference for one option over the other, I just hope that both meanings end up with a nice brivla. Or rather: both definitions getting a brivla is a sufficient condition for my happiness! ;)