"How does one say "and" in Lojban?"
"Well... it depends, you know. For sumti, it's {.e}. For tanru and sentences, it's {je}. For bridi tails it is {gi'e}. Forethought is {ge} or {gu'e}, and for relative clauses it's {zi'e}."
Yes, there are six words in total just for logical "and". And you have to learn which one to use when. Multiply this by four for all the four logical functions (AND, OR, IFF, WHETHER-OR-NOT) to get 24, but minus 3 because {zi'e} has no equivalent for the other functions (another exception!), and then plus 5 for the connective questions, yielding 26 or so.
But that's not all. If we look at non-logical connectives as well, then we'll find that we can't make bridi tail connectives or tanru forethoughts with them. Also, while we do have the option to use them in forethought like {ge}, we do that by saying {JOI gi}, so it's again a new rule to learn compared to the logical connectives.
So in short, there are two major shortcomings:
1. There are too many connectives.
2. The paradigm has actual holes. We can't make non-logical bridi tail connections, and we can't make non-logical tanru forethoughts.
Here I will present a way to reduce the number of afterthought connectives down to a single set of 4 basic ones + 1 question word, by removing both selma'o A and selma'o GIhA and letting JA do all the work, and then making logical and non-logical connectives work the same way by removing selma'o GA and GUhA.
After we're done, the only rule we will need to learn is the following:
"You can use any connective you want to connect anything you want, as long as both things match."
Here is a list of things you will be able to connect with any connective you want:
All of these connections are available both in forethought and in afterthought.
For afterthought, you simply use the connective as you would expect, e.g.
mi je lo pendo
"I and a friend".
To set forethought more clearly apart from afterthought, we will use a new forethought marker that goes in front of the connective. For anything other than tanru forethought, that marker will be {ga}, and for tanru it will be {gu}. That way, as soon as we see {ga} or {gu} we immediately know that we're dealing with a forethought connection, and when we see a bare {jV}, we know it's afterthought. This aids human parsing. For example:
gaje lo mlatu gi lo gerku
"both cats and dogs"
gaseju do tugni gi mi zukte .ai
"Whether or not you agree, I am going to do it."
We also need only a single question word now, which will be {ji}, while {je'i}, {gi'i}, {ge'i}, {gu'i} can all go out the window!
How GIhA can be eliminated
To make JA be able to join bridi-tails, all that is necessary is to reconceive {cu} as a bridi-tail starter (which some people would probably agree is already what it does), and once that idea is in place, the rest follows quite naturally. The general rule that we can connect any two matching units applies, and that includes bridi-tails: {<bridi-tail> JA <bridi-tail>}. Here's an exampe:
mi [(cu) prami do] je [cu djica lo nu mi'o ze'u kansi'u]
"I [love you] and [want us to be together for a long time]."
The first {cu} is always elidible. I included it just to show the parallel structure, and how {cu} functions as a bridi-tail starter. There are situations where even the second {cu} is elidible and this is actually one of them. We could have written:
mi prami do je djica lo nu mi'o ze'u kansi'u
"I love you and want us to be together for a long time."
This works because {je} knows that it's supposed to connect two matching units. To the left it sees a sumti, to the right it sees a selbri, and the only way that is possible is if the selbri belongs to a separate bridi-tail. This is very much like knowing when {be'o} or {ge'u} can or can't be elided. Other situations where {cu} is always elidible is when the second bridi tail begins with a tense, or BAI, or negation, e.g.:
lo tadni cu tatpi je na tinju'i lo ctuca
"The students were tired and didn't listen to the teacher."
mi pu citka je ba cliva
"I ate and will leave."
Just make sure to not elide {cu} when you shouldn't, like this:
mi citka je viska do
"I eat and see you." (meaning that I actually eat you)
You can always be on the safe side by never eliding {cu} after {je}, just like you can always be on the safe side by never eliding {ku} before {.e} (as in {lo broda (be ko'a) KU .e lo brode}, where the {ku} will be safe with and without the {be ko'a}). I'm only stressing this so much to show that there is nothing unusual going on with {je} + bridi-tail.
How this compares to the current system in terms of simplicity and regularity
I have shown that it's both possible and practical to eliminate both A and GIhA entirely and to fuse logical and non-logical connectives into one coherent paradigm. Here is a brief summary, using AND as the example connective.
Current system:
Afterthought for sumti: X .e Y
Afterthought for tanru or sentences: X je Y
Afterthought for bridi-tails with logical connectives: X gi'e Y
Afterthought for bridi-tails with non-logical conn.: NOT POSSIBLE
Forethought for logical connectives: ge X gi Y
Forethought for non-logical connectives: JOI gi X gi Y
Forethought for tanru with logical connectives: gu'e X gi Y
Forethought for tanru with non-logical conn.: NOT POSSIBLE
Afterthought for relative clauses X zi'e Y (but only exists with AND, not with the other ones)
Forethought for relative clauses NOT POSSIBLE
Simplified system:
Any afterthought: X je Y
Any non-tanru forethought: gaje X gi Y
Tanru forethought: guje X gi Y
That's it, for any matching X and Y!
'nuff said.
"Well... it depends, you know. For sumti, it's {.e}. For tanru and sentences, it's {je}. For bridi tails it is {gi'e}. Forethought is {ge} or {gu'e}, and for relative clauses it's {zi'e}."
Yes, there are six words in total just for logical "and". And you have to learn which one to use when. Multiply this by four for all the four logical functions (AND, OR, IFF, WHETHER-OR-NOT) to get 24, but minus 3 because {zi'e} has no equivalent for the other functions (another exception!), and then plus 5 for the connective questions, yielding 26 or so.
But that's not all. If we look at non-logical connectives as well, then we'll find that we can't make bridi tail connectives or tanru forethoughts with them. Also, while we do have the option to use them in forethought like {ge}, we do that by saying {JOI gi}, so it's again a new rule to learn compared to the logical connectives.
So in short, there are two major shortcomings:
1. There are too many connectives.
2. The paradigm has actual holes. We can't make non-logical bridi tail connections, and we can't make non-logical tanru forethoughts.
Here I will present a way to reduce the number of afterthought connectives down to a single set of 4 basic ones + 1 question word, by removing both selma'o A and selma'o GIhA and letting JA do all the work, and then making logical and non-logical connectives work the same way by removing selma'o GA and GUhA.
After we're done, the only rule we will need to learn is the following:
"You can use any connective you want to connect anything you want, as long as both things match."
Here is a list of things you will be able to connect with any connective you want:
- sumti + sumti
- tanru-unit + tanru-unit
- sentence + sentence
- bridi-tail + bridi-tail
- number string + number string
- connective + connective (this is mostly useful for our beloved mekso)
- abstractor + abstractor
- sumtcita + sumtcita
- non-sumti term + non-sumti term
- termset + termset
- relative clause + relative clause
- ...
All of these connections are available both in forethought and in afterthought.
For afterthought, you simply use the connective as you would expect, e.g.
mi je lo pendo
"I and a friend".
To set forethought more clearly apart from afterthought, we will use a new forethought marker that goes in front of the connective. For anything other than tanru forethought, that marker will be {ga}, and for tanru it will be {gu}. That way, as soon as we see {ga} or {gu} we immediately know that we're dealing with a forethought connection, and when we see a bare {jV}, we know it's afterthought. This aids human parsing. For example:
gaje lo mlatu gi lo gerku
"both cats and dogs"
gaseju do tugni gi mi zukte .ai
"Whether or not you agree, I am going to do it."
We also need only a single question word now, which will be {ji}, while {je'i}, {gi'i}, {ge'i}, {gu'i} can all go out the window!
How GIhA can be eliminated
To make JA be able to join bridi-tails, all that is necessary is to reconceive {cu} as a bridi-tail starter (which some people would probably agree is already what it does), and once that idea is in place, the rest follows quite naturally. The general rule that we can connect any two matching units applies, and that includes bridi-tails: {<bridi-tail> JA <bridi-tail>}. Here's an exampe:
mi [(cu) prami do] je [cu djica lo nu mi'o ze'u kansi'u]
"I [love you] and [want us to be together for a long time]."
The first {cu} is always elidible. I included it just to show the parallel structure, and how {cu} functions as a bridi-tail starter. There are situations where even the second {cu} is elidible and this is actually one of them. We could have written:
mi prami do je djica lo nu mi'o ze'u kansi'u
"I love you and want us to be together for a long time."
This works because {je} knows that it's supposed to connect two matching units. To the left it sees a sumti, to the right it sees a selbri, and the only way that is possible is if the selbri belongs to a separate bridi-tail. This is very much like knowing when {be'o} or {ge'u} can or can't be elided. Other situations where {cu} is always elidible is when the second bridi tail begins with a tense, or BAI, or negation, e.g.:
lo tadni cu tatpi je na tinju'i lo ctuca
"The students were tired and didn't listen to the teacher."
mi pu citka je ba cliva
"I ate and will leave."
Just make sure to not elide {cu} when you shouldn't, like this:
mi citka je viska do
"I eat and see you." (meaning that I actually eat you)
You can always be on the safe side by never eliding {cu} after {je}, just like you can always be on the safe side by never eliding {ku} before {.e} (as in {lo broda (be ko'a) KU .e lo brode}, where the {ku} will be safe with and without the {be ko'a}). I'm only stressing this so much to show that there is nothing unusual going on with {je} + bridi-tail.
How this compares to the current system in terms of simplicity and regularity
I have shown that it's both possible and practical to eliminate both A and GIhA entirely and to fuse logical and non-logical connectives into one coherent paradigm. Here is a brief summary, using AND as the example connective.
Current system:
Afterthought for sumti: X .e Y
Afterthought for tanru or sentences: X je Y
Afterthought for bridi-tails with logical connectives: X gi'e Y
Afterthought for bridi-tails with non-logical conn.: NOT POSSIBLE
Forethought for logical connectives: ge X gi Y
Forethought for non-logical connectives: JOI gi X gi Y
Forethought for tanru with logical connectives: gu'e X gi Y
Forethought for tanru with non-logical conn.: NOT POSSIBLE
Afterthought for relative clauses X zi'e Y (but only exists with AND, not with the other ones)
Forethought for relative clauses NOT POSSIBLE
Simplified system:
Any afterthought: X je Y
Any non-tanru forethought: gaje X gi Y
Tanru forethought: guje X gi Y
That's it, for any matching X and Y!
'nuff said.
RSS Feed
