You are viewing cniglic

Cniglic (Emotional English), a Subset of Lojban's Journal
 
[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends]

Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in Cniglic (Emotional English), a Subset of Lojban's LiveJournal:

    [ << Previous 20 ]
    Friday, August 21st, 2009
    7:10 pm
    [krilltish]
    Arrogant Superiority
    [coi doi cniglipre .i pei?] Hey, guys! What's up/how've you been?

    If you were a malevolent [.a'onai] monarch [.a'osai to zo'o toi], how would you address your poor [.u'u] subjects? Well, you think that you are [fu'e .uinai .oiro'a] bigger than them [fu'o] (which is true, [zo'o] iff we are talking about your head), right? I mean, you have the authority of God behind you! You were selectly chosen to operate as their chief of rule! And here are these worthless peasants, [.uu .u'icu'i] splattered in mud, begging you to save their cows or some such.

    Some useful words might be:
    · [zo <<ga'i>>], a word suffixed to another cnivla in order to make it pretentious, arrogant, or big-headed.
    · [zo <<uunai>>], meaning "cruelty". Perhaps attach [lu <<to fu'e .ui zo'o gu'o ga'i to>> li'u] so that it has one of those ringing, superior laughs attached.
    · [zoi .jbocumki. <<mua'a'a'a'a> .jbocumki.]; although this is an experimental cmavo, and it may not even be a cnivla, it is the cruel laugh "mwahahahaha!" (feel free to insert an echo).



    **Notes in response to "useful words", the second entry: [zo <<zo'o>>] is more like " :P ". It is not actually a laughing sound (or a laugh, if there is a difference). Unless if it is a little hinting chuckle in your head, perhaps.  Also, please notice that I did not include the glottal stop / period / denpabu (" . ") before [zo <<uu>>].  I have taken to leaving it out whenever possible iff the initial vowel is a(n) .ibu or .ubu and iff they are operating in a diphthong.
    Wednesday, July 15th, 2009
    12:09 pm
    [mungojelly]
    .u'u ro'a .i'i bu'o .iu .ui .i'u .i'u nai
    [.ui ro'a] Hello!

    [.u'u] I haven't written here in a long time.

    [.ai] I'll write more.

    [.a'u] Who's still here?

    [.i'i .o'u] Let's chat.

    <3,
    la stela selckiku
    aka
    mungojelly
    aka
    brett
    Wednesday, December 24th, 2008
    11:29 am
    [krilltish]
    The Name is Up for Debate
    So, there recently was a post on www.jbotcan.org/en that brought up the debate on what the definition of [zo <>]. I generally only use it to mean attitudinals but some people use it to mean evidentials and discursives as well. If the latter is the case, then nothing here really has to change. However, if my (rather pedantic) view is deemed correct by consensus, then technically "Cniglic" only applies to how attitudinals are used in English while a different name would be used for Evidentialese and Discursivish. We won't be changing the name space, but how we use vocabulary in these posts might change. Some posters may use different vocabulary for different or similar or the same concepts. We might allow for this ambiguity- Lojban actually accepts vernacular ambiguity. Also, a name is a name and can mean whatever the user wants it to mean- so "Cniglic" may be used to apply to the entire list of concepts. It would be slightly misleading, but we have to live with it. Besides, we can always call "strictly attitudinal + English"-language by the word "Cinmyglic".

    Give me your thoughts here or at jbotcan.

    Current Mood: contemplative
    11:23 am
    [krilltish]
    True or False?:
    Cniglic is also supposed to encompass discursives and evidentials, so I will introduce in this lesson a very useful discursive. The words is [zo <>] which roughly translates as "true or false?" or some version of the word "does". If used at the beginning of a sentence it functions basically in the same manner as "does". However, it has an interesting feature that English words do not have- this, I suspect, will be the more prominent, and (hence) useful, manner in which it will be utilized; probably for English's lack of the ability. This function is that, like any discursive, evidential, or cnivla, [zo <>] can be appended to the end of a word to ask a specific question with a specific response expected. For example:

    [xu] You are Lucas' sister? = Are you Lucas' sister?
    You [xu] are Lucas' sister? = Are you (or is it somebody else, such as that person over there) the sister of Lucas?
    You are the sister [xu] of Lucas = {notice the inversion} Are you the Lucas' sister (or something else, such as his dog)?
    You are the sister of Lucas [xu] = Are you Lucas' (or somebody else, such as that lady's) sister?
    You are the sister [xu] of Lucas [xu] = Are you Lucas' (or that lady's) sister (or dog)?

    One can probably ask a question about the word "of" or "the" as well.

    Regardless of its position in the utterance, [zo <<xu] can only be answered (technically) in a handful of ways: Yes, [na], [na'e], [no'e], [to'e], I do not know, maybe, sometimes yes/no, or [na'i]. (I probably should have quoted those words, but I did not want to.) The difference, though, is that those responses can more precisely indicate what is wrong (or correct, I suppose) with the questions proposition. If you ask the last example, and I say "[na], yes", then you know that I am something to Lucas but not his sister. [xu] You opine that this was a good addition to Cniglic?

    Current Mood: geeky
    Thursday, December 11th, 2008
    4:57 pm
    [krilltish]
    ge'esai
    .uase'inai .e'icu'i .e'e.
    .i'o fu'e .iu cnivla .i'ucu'i fu'o
    .u'asai .uasai
    ge'esai
    Thursday, November 27th, 2008
    2:38 pm
    [krilltish]
    A Brief [zo'o] Description As to How Cnivla Work
    As mentioned before, cnivla affect only the immediately previous word. Here are some examples:

    [(.i) .ui] I am going to the park = I am going to the parl, and I am happy about it.
    :[zo <<.i] ends one sentence and begins another. So, if a cnivla follows it, the cnivla applies to the sentence that is begun by [zo <<.i]

    I [.ui] am going to the park = I am going to the park, and I am happy that it is me (perhaps I was in a park-lottery).

    I am going [.ui] to the park = I am going to the park and I am happy that I am going (perhaps I escaped from jail and so can actually go).
    :In Lojban (and hence, Cniglic- arguably (Cniglic is a hybrid)) "am going" is only one word/concept, and therefore a cnivla placed after either part of the verb applies to all of it. Speculation: Perhaps if it were placed after "am", it would imply that I am happy that the action is now happening (or is unspecified, as it is in this example). The ambiguity of English is evident here.

    I am going to the [.ui] green park = I am going to the green park, and am happy about it being both green and a park (perhaps I have only seen brown parks, or have only experienced my house)
    :Please note that after any article, a cnivla applies to its entire noun (and all of its adjectives (which include number words/quantities)).

    I am going to the green [.ui] park = I am going to the green park and I am happy that it is green (implies only the brown park interpretation stated before).

    I am going to the green park [.ui] = I am going to the green park and I am happy that it is a park (specifies the aforementioned only-house interpretation).

    [.ui] I am going to the green [zo'o] park = I am going to the green park, and I am happy about all of it and am joking/finding it humorous that it is green (could be a snide remark?)

    I am going to the [fu'e .ui] green park [(fu'o)] = I am going to the green park, and am happy about it being both green and a park.
    :Notice that this representation is the same as a prior statement

    I am going to the fun and [fu'e .ui] green park = I am going to a park that is both green and fun, and I am happy that it is green and a park.

    I am going to the fun [.ui] and green park = I am going to a park that is both fun and green and am happy that it is fun.

    I am going to the fun and [.ui] green park = I am going to the park that is fun and green, and am happy that it is both fun and green.

    I am going to the [.ui] fun and green park = I am going to the [fu'e .ui] fun and green park = I am going to the fun [.ui] and [.ui] green [.ui] park [.ui] = I am going to the fun and green park, and am happy that it is a park and that it is both green (which makes me happy) and fun (which also makes me happy).

    .ui I am going to the green and fun park = I [.ui] am ([.ui]?) going [.ui] the [.ui] green and fun park = I [.ui] am ([.ui]?) going [.ui] the green [.ui] and [.ui] fun [.ui] park [.ui] = I am going to the park that is both green and fun, and am happy that it is me and that I am going (with the unknownness of "am [.ui]" in the back of our minds) and that it is both green (which makes me happy) and fun(which also makes me happy).
    :Notice that this is essentially the same statement as the first one

    [zo <<na'i] is a "cnivla" (loosely speaking), although it is closer to a discursive or evidential. It actually is quite a complex word with many, many uses. I will (possibly) post about it later- if no-one minds that I have basically hi-jacked this community. I really am sorry about it. I am interested in exploring Cniban- I just want to post about Cniglic as well.

    I do not know what it means to have a cnivla after a preposition (they do not exist in Lojban).

    Current Mood: contemplative
    Saturday, November 15th, 2008
    5:40 pm
    [krilltish]
    Humor and Genuinity

    How does one express that their statement is to be taken as a joke or as serious?  One way to do it is by correctly attaching [zo <<zo'o] in the correct place.  This cnivla in its unaltered form expresses humor.  It can be taken as "lol", "do not take this seriously", or "this is a joke" (combined with [zo <<ga'i], this last one may be taken contemptfully).

    However, with the addition of [zo <<nai], it means that what you are saying, incredible and increduolous as it may be, that you are telling the truth.  Although most things that one says usually are interpreted to be true, this adds more effect to it.  It is kind of like attaching "I'm not lying" at the end of it.

    [zo'onai] Last night I spent six hours cutting paper into strips and then gluing there (individually) ends together.  (I was messing around with Moebius strips and their like.)

    Use [zo <<zo'o] for anything related to humor.  Laughing, telling a joke, etc.



    Current Mood: complacent
    Sunday, November 2nd, 2008
    11:00 am
    [krilltish]
    [zo na'i], one more negative.
    "Do you still beat your wife?"

    If someone asks you this, you do not answer "no". [a'ocai] You say "NO! I never did!".

    You are saying that not only is the sentence untrue, but also that it presupposes something untrue. How do you say that the presupposition is false?

    [zo <<na'i]. It negates both the sentence and its intuitive guess.
    Saturday, November 1st, 2008
    9:16 pm
    [krilltish]
    [zo a'o]
    Recently, as I was driving in a parking lot ([zo'o] searching for a spot, not just for fun), I suddenly swerved. After swearing once or twice, my friend asked why I did it. I responded saying that I wanted to avoid some broken glass that I had seen. I, in a flash of thought, analyzed three possible follow-up sentences:

    1) "I tried to put it between the tires."

    2) "I put it between the tires. I hope."

    3) "I tried to put it between [a'o] my tires."

    I chose to go with the lattermost.

    Why? The first sentence was too certain- it was a statement of fact. Although it says "tried", it implies that I did. The second and penultimate sentence is too uncertain, although more orrect. When someone says "I hope", too me at least, it means that they are fairly sure that the probabilit of it happening is near to none.

    The last one was precisely what I wanted. It was a statement of fact. It said that I wanted the statement to be true, but also implied a level of confidence that I was looking for.


    Just thought that I should include the thought. That is how I differentiate between [zo a'o], "I hope", and just a statement.

    mi'e .kriltic. mu'o (by the way, [zo mu'o] implies that I want you to respond [.ui])
    Friday, October 10th, 2008
    10:47 pm
    [mungojelly]
    cniban
    ge'e ge'e
    ge'e ru'e
    .ui ru'e .ui nai ru'e
    ge'e ge'e
    ge'e sai
    .o'u sai .o'u nai sai
    ge'e
    ge'e ru'e
    .ui nai .au cu'i .i'u nai ru'e

    .o'o cai
    .o'o nai sai

    .o'u .o'u nai ru'e .o'u
    .ua .ua ru'e .ua nai .i'u nai
    .ua nai .ua nai .ua nai ro'i .ua nai re'e

    .ui ru'e .ui nai ru'e .ui re'e .ui ro'o
    .ui ro'u .ui ri'e .ui nai ru'e .ui nai ri'e nai

    .i'i nai ru'e
    .uo ru'e
    .uo sai
    10:46 pm
    [mungojelly]
    my vision [.ai] of a cniglic community [.i'i]
    I'd like to thank Krilltish for contributing to this group! [.i'o sai]. I hope that we can work together to dovetail our visions & make Cniglic into the friendliest and easiest introduction to Lojban on the net.

    My goal with Cniglic is not just to create learning materials, but to create a self-aware Cniglic community [.i'i]. I imagine discussions of a wide variety of topics in Cniglic. People who are new to Lojban (or even eventually who are just interested in speaking Cniglic itself) could easily join the Cniglic speaking community, and begin marking their text with the first attitudinals they learned. It wouldn't be as much of a cognitive overload to immerse yourself in Cniglic text as in Lojban text. The same 39 scales repeating in every thread would quickly become familiar. So even newcomers to Cniglic could focus more on communicating & exploring than on trying to wrap their brain around the language.

    Here are some values I think are important for the Cniglic community:

    ".o'a", pride. People who speak Cniglic can quickly master the language and communicate with confidence and fluency. Regardless of their level of knowledge (or even interest) in Lojban, they can be proud of knowing Cniglic well.

    ".i'i", togetherness. I would like for Cniglic to become a welcoming and friendly community. I believe that the qualities of the language itself-- displaying our emotions [.ua ro'i] and attitudes and evidence-- can help us to establish a space where emotions are accepted [.o'u], and where we are aware of speaking to each other from our own perspectives.

    "ri'e", release of emotion. Confident in their technical ability to use the language, and comfortable with each other as an accepting community, I imagine the Cniglic community encouraging deep emotional expression and inventing new kinds of emotional communication. For instance I find it interesting to speak using only attitudinals (which I've started calling Cniban), speaking directly from a vague emotive place, connecting what I feel directly with the words: .ua ro'i .ua ro'e .ii .io .uu se'i .uo .o'u nai ru'e .ii ru'e .i'i nai ru'e .ui nai ru'e .o'o .o'o ge'e .i'i .o'u .ua ru'e ro'i .ua ru'e ge'e ri'e ge'e ri'e .i'i ri'e .ua

    So if you don't mind, [.e'a pei], I'm going to use this forum from now on [fu'e .ai] more to speak in Cniglic than about it [fu'o]. I'm going to especially post in Cniban [.ai] since I'm interested in exploring [.a'u] that. It's my belief that Cniglic will become more useful [.ia] and a [fu'e .au] better entranceway to Lojban [fu'o] the more we explore [.ui] & apply it.

    <3,
    selkik
    4:38 pm
    [krilltish]
    This sentence is lie.

    [oiro'epei]?  In English, one would fall into all kinds of fun paradoxes.  But, as one might have expected of a logical language, Lojban does not!

    "How does it avoid this problem?" you might be wondering.

    Well, I will tell you- without going into all of those really annoying and hard to understand logical constructions.  The word for it is [zo <<sei].  It basically starts a commentary on a higher level from the rest of the sentence. It also only provides commentary, it does not influence the meaning of the sentence (although it may influence its acceptance), and the sentence can get along perfectly fine without it.

    For example: "This sentence is a true statement [sei] false." (I had to change the wording slightly. For a more colloqial and paradoxical version: "This sentence is true: this sentence is false." or "The following sentence is true. The immediately preceding sentence is false.")

    When finding whether a linear system is parallel, lacking a solution, or not a special case (meaining that the lines intersect): one may be able to reduce it to: 0 = 6.

    This is not a solution, so one may write: 0 = 6 FALSE.

    Now, you can use: 0 = 6 [sei] false.

    In conclusion, [zo <<sei] is a word that talks about a sentence but operates on a higher level. Therefore neither of the two statements is affected/effected(?) by the other. No paradoxes arise, just a lack of trust. This paper is all true and has been written by Krilltish ([sei]?) FALSE.
    Thursday, October 2nd, 2008
    8:39 pm
    [krilltish]
    [fu'e] & [fu'o]

    As some of you may have discovered, attitudinals, attaching to the previous word (including [zo <<.i] which makes it the entire sentence), can have certain annoying/hard to deal with effects. For example, if I was trying to say "George gave me the book about Lojban" and I was happy about and interested in everything after George (George may be neutral on my scale of happiness and interest), I could try to say "George gave [.ui .au] the book about Lojban" or "George gave me the book [.ui .au] about Lojban" or "George gave me the book about Lojban [.ui .au]". But those only mean "George gave me the book about Lojban" and I am both happy and interested in (respectively) the giving, the book, or Lojban. How do I say all of the above? If I was to write in the English, I would say "George gave me the book about Lojban; and the giving, the book, and Lojban all make me happy" or "George gave me the book about Lojban; and I am happy about the following: the giving, the book, and Lojban". I guess that I could also use "George gave [.ui .au] me the book [.ui .au] about Lojban [.ui .au]", but that is too complicated, not to mention tedious. In specific translations into English, from Lojban, one would use parenthesis or curly braces to group the words like so: "George {gave me the book about Lojban} and that (everything in curly braces) makes me happy"*. This last example is the answer for which we are looking. So how do you say these attitudinal-parenthesis in Lojban/Cniglic? For your convenience/enjoyment, and mine, I introduce [zo <<fu'e] and [zo <<fu'o]!

    How they work is as follows: Say anything that you do not want the cnivla to apply to, the normal rules apply. Then, immediately before the things about which you feel the [cinmo] (emotion(s)), insert [zo <<fu'e]. This starts the attitude-parenthesis. It operates kind of like [zo <<.i], anything after it (but before the end of the attitudinal-parenthesis, which operates as another [zo <<.i]) has the emotion felt about them- treat it like a sentence break, kind of. Then, like [zo <<.i], insert the cnivla that you feel, everything in this "sentence" has that emotion(s) attached to it. Say anything that you want (as long as it has <i>all</i> of the emotions that were expressed by the cnivla after [zo <<fu'e] able to apply to it truthfully when about you at that time). Other cnivla may be inserted after any words inside the attitudinal-parenthesis; they only apply to the immediately-preceding word, however (just as if it were a normal sentence). When you are done feeling these emotions about the stuff (even if there is a slight break- even a single word that you do not feel that way about) use [zo <<fu'o]. This closes the parenthesis. Say anything else as if it were its own sentence. I do not know what it means to say an attitude immediately following [zo <<fu'o], perhaps that specifies how you feel about the emotion being over./? I do not know; but I will be sure to look it up/ask the Lojbanic community ([la .jbopregirz.]). The attitudinal-parenthesis automatically terminate at the end of an entire statement (if you are not going to talk anymore, or it is the end of the text/book).

    For example: George [fu'e .ui .au] gave me the books about Lojban ##([fu'o], although it is not necessary- the statement is considere to be over)##.
    :This means that I feel happy and interested in anything after [zo <<fu'e].

    Another example: George [.iu fu'e .ui .au] gave the book about Lojban [.oinai fu'o] to me.
    :George, whom I love, {gave the book about Lojban, no complaints there} to me, where everything in curly braces I feel happy and interested about.
    ::I do not feel happy nor interested nor love nor complaintful/-empty** about myself, according to this sentence. Or, rather, my feeling toward myself is not expressed/specified here.

    By the way, the [zo <<.ui] and [zo <<.au] apply to everything inside the attitude-parenthesis. This includes "gave", "me", "the", "book", "about", and "Lojban". However, feeling happy and interested in "the" and "about" does not mean much and, fortunately, everything else is probably too (namely "me"). They also work with evidentials and discursives. I do not know about vocatives (Coi).

    *I would typically use parenthesis to group, but I knew that I would use them later in the sentence as well so it would be ambiguous (in which set of parenthesis do you group? Both?). Of course, from now on we will be haunted with this question (am I grouping write now or giving extra material inside these parenthesis?). I could just go with curly braces, but you never know. Incidentally, this is precisely why Lojban has some may different types of parenthesis compare to English.

    **Semi-joke. [zo'o]

    " ## " represents metalinguistic commentary about the statement.

    Please note: These groupers do not act as mathematical parenthesis: 2(x 3) = 2x 6.  But "[.ui fu'e] gave the books [fu'o]" does not mean "gave [.ui] the [.ui] books [.ui]".

    Also note that these groupers may be nested: "George [fu'e .ui] gave the [fu'e .au] books about Lojban [fu'o] before lunch [fu'o] to me" means that George {1 gave the {2 books about Lojban} before lunch} to me, in which anything in the first curly braces (including everything in the second pair as well) makes me happy and everything in the second pair of curly braces is interesting to me (but it does not specify that I am interested in anything else).

    They also may transcend quotes by the same person stated at around the same time (although if they are in them, they do not operate outside of them): "George [fu'e .ui .au] gave me" said Alice, "the book about Lojban [fu'o]."
    :She still feels happy about and interested in the book and Lojban
    :People typically do not know that they are being quoted.  If they do know that they are being quoted, they still might not know what is inbetween the quotes or where the quotes break and resume.
    :General:  Other people may not feel one's own feelings, so these attitudinal-parenthesis will not apply to them or their quotes.
    :General:  Words that operate within quotations only apply if used near in time with/to eachother and if used by the same person.

    "Attitudinal-parenthesis" may also be called "indicator-brackets" (a more general term).  I will attempt to use the term for the rest of this course.



    Current Mood: cheerful
    Friday, September 12th, 2008
    9:31 am
    [krilltish]
    Good-Byes/God Be wi'ye's

    Rereading the introduction to the vocatives for parting, I have found that they may or may not have been terribly clear.  I will here attempt to alleviate the problem.

    [zo <<co'o>>] - Use this for any personal events- if you are there in real life and in a friendly setting, use it.  It means something like "see you later"; although interaction is over now, maybe you will see the other person again tomorrow.  This is the generic good-bye.

    [zo <<fe'o] - This is like "over and out", "the end", "I am done".  It implies no more communication until a designated time or unless if something in the situation changes.  Use it at the end of a book (series).

    [zo <<mu'o] - "Over".  It basically means that it the other person's turn to start speaking.  You will probably respond.


    New notation in Cniglic!  If you do use the guillemets as I do when "quoting" a word with [zo <<zo>>], it probably is not necessary to use the last punctuation (if the quoted word is the last word in the brackets), because the brackets terminate the quote.   So in the last occurrence, I could have just said " [zo <<zo] ".  Or you could keep in both guillemets.  Of course, you do not have to use them at all, it just is easier to interpret.  It is all up to you.

    Please forgive me for the (mis)spelling, my keyboard here does not work amazingly well, and I might have missed something in spell check.
    Thursday, September 11th, 2008
    9:04 pm
    [krilltish]
    This Entry is Seriously Negative! [.uinaisairu'e to zo'o]


    I thought that it would be helpful to introduce the Lojbani negation/negative system.  These words may be used anywhere in a sentence, although the easiest places are immediately before the verb, (possibly immediately after the verb and immediately before the next noun), and at the end of the sentence.  If they are used at the beginning of a sentence (unless iff the beginning is the verb) or inbetween two or more nouns, the must be followed by [zo <<ku>>].

    [na] - the most basic and imprecise negative.  Use it especially if you have no relationship to the object through the verb.  For example, my mother does not know anything about Star Wars [.uinaisai .oi].  So, when I ask if she actually liked the Ewoks in the sixth movie (no offense to Ewok-lovers), she can correctly respond as "I do no/[na] like the Ewoks".  Not becuase she has anything against them, but because she does not know about them.

    [na'e] - usually translated as "other-than".  It implies a relationship, just not the one stated.  I [na'e] like the Ewoks.  I know about Ewoks and have a relationship to them, but it is not liking them.

    [to'e] - the scalar opposite.  Use it when you feel/do/are the opposite of the verb.  I [to'e] like murderers, and [.a'o] you do too.

    *As per below ([nai]), it could be quite possible to put [zo <<sai>>] or other attitudinal modifiers after a negator such as [to'e].  This would more accurately show my sentiment: I [to'ecai] like murderers. 
    **Of course, one may just use an attitudinal (Murderers! [.a'unai .iunaisai .ii])...

    [no'e] - midpoint scalar negator.  Used when the verb's scale has a point exactly neutral on it when applied to the subject.  I [no'e] like the Ewoks.  I do not like them, but do not dislike them.

    [nai] - as far as I know, this can only follow another [cmavo], or syntax word (not nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs), such as "and", [zo <<.ui>>], and *possibly* other negators.  Do not put before a verb.


    [na'e] strictly Cniglic territory, but they are [na'e] that hard and are very helpful.

    -- Krilltish
    8:54 pm
    [krilltish]
    Pronounciation and more Lojban

    I think that, by now, you should be introduced to the "correct" manner in which to pronounce [jbovla].  I do not want to go into detail here, unless if someone asks me to do so, but I will provide a link to the Lojban for Beginner's lessons.  Read the first lesson for a *fairly* detailed (though not completely) description on pronounciation.  It should not take that long, is not that difficult to understand, may introduce you to he rest of Lojban (in all of its floral vibrancy), and will help you to correctly pronounce the words.  For more help and/or details, do a Google search and/or go to www.jbotcan.org/en .

    http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/lojbanbrochure/lessons/less1.html
    Wednesday, September 10th, 2008
    9:38 am
    [krilltish]
    Elliptical Modifiers
    [.a'o .au] Do not let the word "elliptical" scare you off.  It just means that it is a blank space in some category.  Lojban has a lot of such categories, but I am only going to go over two, which you should have seen before.

    The first is [ge'e].  It means "I feel (something)" and is the blank spot for emotions.  You can easily replace it by saying anyother [cnivla] (emotional-word), such as [.ui].  Once you replace [ge'e] with a [cnivla] the meaning of the statement changes (here it changes to happiness about whatever).  Theoretically, one can combine it with [pei] (to get [ge'epei] or [peige'e]), but that just basically means the same thing as [pei] itself ("how do you feel about that").

    The next is [ju'a].  It can only be used as an evidential.  It basically means "I state (with unspecified evidence)".  If you combine it with [pei] (resulting in [ju'apei] or [peiju'a]), it asks for evidence.  You can replace it with any evidence that you so desire, and thereby, change the meaning of the statement (how much so is determined by the word used to replace it).

    Neither of these words must be used in a statement (although [ju'apei]  could be useful), so I doubt that they will be used much.

    Neither of these word means that you lack emotion/evidence (though they can), they just say that you do not want to go into detail about it.

    [co'o mi'e .kryltyc.]
    Wednesday, June 25th, 2008
    7:31 pm
    [krilltish]
    Another thing not related to emotion but could be useful
     Possessives are useful tools.  Though more complicated in Lojban, they should not be so bad in English.

    The most basic is [pe].  It says that the, in English, noun (and all of it's adjectives) that it is immediately preceding it is in some way related to the noun (and adjectives) immediately following it.  If I say "the house [pe]  (of) the dog", it probably means "Bingo's doghouse".  But it could mean "The dog lifted its leg up to a tree which was a descendant to another tree that lent its wood to the neighbor's door; and this neighbor owns a house, to which the aforementioned door is attached, which is next to the house that used to belong to my cousin.  My cousin's old house is the one which I specifically meant to be in relation with the dog by expressing [zo <<pe>>]".

    I could also say "the [pe] (of) the dog, house", which is synonymous to "the house [pe] the dog".  I like this one because it seems really unEnglish to me.  In Lojban I could also just delete out the [pe] in "the [pe] (of) the dog, house", because in tanru (compound sumti/ ~adjectival nouns) the words on the left somehow modify the word on the right (exactly as [pe] does, actually).  It may be helpful to think of [pe] as "...related, somehow/loosely, to..."

    *The desk [pe] William = the William [pe] desk = the William desk = William's desk
    **It probably does not mean that William owns it (more likely the business William works for does), but means that William sits there and does something to/on it.
    *Generally, "of" or "-'s" will work just as well.  I would use [pe] in texts similar to the examples about the dog(s) previously stated.

    [po] is a more strongly linking possessive.  It means that one object is uniquely possessed by another something (usually).  If you bought it, now own it, and can sell it- use this.  Once you do sell it, [po] may become [pe], but no matter what [po] can no longer be used (when in relation to you; it can however be used for the person to whom you sold it).  I could say "the desk [po] William" (he owns the desk, maybe it is at his home), but cannot say (usually) "the desk [po] William and JoAnne" ([pe] could be used, however). 

    *[joi] (a connective, which are much to complex to get into here and/or now) may be used instead of the "and" in the immediately previous example.  [joi] means "and, in a grouping way; with; en masse"- so I could say "the desk [po] (uniquely possessed by) William joi (in a group with) JoAnne, when considered together" but then "the desk [po] William" would no longer apply.

    The last possessive is [po'e].  This means "inalienably possessed by".  It means that no matter what you do, you cannot get rid of it- no matter how much you may want to do so.  You cannot sell it, you cannot throw it away.  It is yours, now and forever.  Use it when saying "the parents [po'e] (inalienable-of) me" (they will be my parents (especially if used in the biological sense) no matter what) or "the foot [po'e] my brother" (unless iff he is an organ donor, it is his foot.  If he is, then it is a debatable issue...).

    Thought they could be useful

    -- ~~~~
    Krilltish
    Tuesday, June 17th, 2008
    7:13 am
    [krilltish]
    Erasure ([si], [sa], [su]). And [zo]
     

    I do not want to take over the idea of this language being centred around attitudinals, evidentials, and discursives.  Actually, scanning http://www.jbotcan.org, I saw that learning to use attitudinals correctly is absolutely essential.  However, this language is intended, I believe, to introduce people to basic and universal Lojbanic ideas (and in the process, words).

    I think that a really original and cool/neat/sweet/awesome/wicked (whatever the terrm is now) class of words found in Lojban are [si], [sa], and [su].  These words do something which is called "erasure".  As you might expect, they correct (erase and "write over") past words.  They work really well in Lojban, but (because English has a different system) I am not sure how well they will merge with English.  This might turn out to be a disaster, but I thought that we should give it a shot.  I am especially worried about [sa], for reasons that should become obvious to you later.

    si = erases one word back.  String multiple [si]s together to get further and further back (I put each [si] apart from the others ([si si si]), unless if the list of them is extremely long ([si si si si si si si si si si]).  Then I could si [zo'o] grouping them together in groups of two or three ([sisi sisi sisi sisi sisi] or [sisisi sisisi sisisi si]). 
    It is kind of like "wait..I meant...", "..or..", "errr...that was", "that is to say", etc.  The (non-erasure) word that follows it replaces both the word immediately previous to [si] and the word "[si]" itself.
    *There is a usage (most prominently on the IRC) to, if you mess up spelling something, put the misspelled word as the next entry followed by [si] and the correct spelling:

    I went over to my frend's house.
    frend's si friend's.
    *This is not the grammatically most correct usage, but there you have it.

    sa = erases back to the most recent occurance of text of the same word type as the following word(s).  If I say "He sees me sa gives me the camera", it erases back to the last verb (because "gives" is a verb).  You have to then replace the text following the verb as well, because everything up to and including the verb is erased as well.  It is like "He sees me... no, no he doesn't, sorry... He gives me the camera".

    As stated previously, I am most worried about this one.  In Lojban, there is only one possible identification of what the "verb" is in the sentence, for example.  Therefore, [sa] cannot be misinterpreted for erasing the latest "verb".  However, in English this is not the case.  I am worried that there is some ambiguity in what word is erased in an English sentence such as "I look at the spider sa picture..."  Is the result "I picture (something)" or "I look at the picture".  Okay, so that was not the best example, but I hope you get the idea.  Maybe if we follow the first word by { <word type> } if there is some ambiguity then it would make it clearer.
    *Lojban, by the way, technically does not have "verbs", but we need not go into detail here.

    There is no set system for how much [sa sa] erases, but I would imagine that if I said "I saw the spider sa sa Ron..." then it would erase up to "I" (not "I saw Ron").

    Possibly, if one says "... sa .i si sa .i ..." it would erase up to two sentences ago.  ("... sa .i si sa .i si sa .i ..." is three sentences ago)  This is not guaranteed to be correct, but I think that it makes sense.
    *[.i] is the Lojban punctuation mark, and I think that we should use it with erasure just so we do not have to say "STOP" or "PERIOD" or "END" or some such (especially because it cannot be misinterpreted).

    Articles (the, a, an) following [sa] erase up to the last occurance of an article.  I am not sure how it would work for adjectives and adverbs.  In French I could see adjectives erasing up to the last adjective, but in English I think that one would have to follow it with the wanted noun anyway.

    Once again, I would group [sa]s in twos or threes iff in large quantity.

    su = erases entire the discourse (probably just your own).  It is similar to "you know what, never mind...".


    If you use any of these in quotes, it erases only other material in that level of quotation-embeddedness.  If you think about it, this makes sense.  Presumably, the person being quoted does not know that they are being quoted (or does not know the text inbetween the quotes, at least).  So, in:
       "I went to the park" said George, "si si an office building.  Sorry about that."
      It is not "said George" that is erased.  It is "the park".  It works this way if there were further levels of quotation in a quoted text as well.

    One last thing.  As you may have noticed, it can be extremely difficult to understand the meaning of a statement (especially if verbal) when it includes Lojbanic words (a.k.a. [jbovla]).  For example, I above wrote "The (non-erasure) word that follows it replaces both the word immediately previous to [si] and the word "[si]" itself."  Did that first occurance of the single-word erasure-word actually delete my text (or at least was it intended to), or was it just a reference to the word of it?  In order to alleviate any of such problems, I introduce the word: [zo].  This word quotes one word, and one word only, and this word is the one that immediately follows the word of [zo].  It is kind of like saying "the word...".  It should only be used before [jbovla].  I hope that this makes sense...

    *By the way, "I introduce the word: [zo]." can now be expressed as "I introduce the word [zo zo]".  Feel free to put the word following [zo <<zo>>] in quotation marks, or sme other punctuation, because they are not pronounced in Lojban and they may be helpful when being read.  I will use makeshft guillemets (I think that is the correct term).


    So, there you have it.  Tell me what you think.

    mu'o mi'e .krytic.



    Current Mood: chipper
    Friday, April 25th, 2008
    1:30 pm
    [krilltish]
    The last few, basic vocatives are:

    nu'e - introduces a promise.
                                     I promise, Mei Li. = [nu'e] Mei Li
    pe'u - introduces a request (yeah, I know I that I put this one in the just previous lesson)
                                     Please, Chester. = [pe'u] Chester
    be'e - reuest to send/"Hello, are you there?"
                                     May I speak, Jason? = [be'e] Jason?


    Some more complicated words  will follow, but they are not too hard to understand:

    nu'ecu'i - releases a promise
    nu'enai - non-promise
    ki'enai - disappreciation/ingratitude
    fi'inai - unwelcome/inhospitality
    fi'icu'i - does not care whether your presence is there or not, uncaring (on the scale of welcome)
    re'inai -not ready yet
                                     Use it when someone is about to give you there telephone number but you do not have your pencil and/or paper yet
    vi'onai - will not comply
    ke'onai - no need to repeat
    fe'onai - not done
    mi'enai - non-identification
    je'e - you are welcome/no problem/it was nothing (after someone thanks you)

    Current Mood: geeky
[ << Previous 20 ]
About LiveJournal.com