Lesson 10. Structuring text#

«ju'a» and assertions#

The main relation of a sentence asserts some information unless modified by some interjection:

mi viska do I see you. I assert that I see you

.au mi viska do I wish I saw you.

In the last example I only have a wish but I don't assert that I see you.

Another pair of examples:

le prenu cu cizra .i ji'a je la .alis. cu jinvi le du'u go'i The person is strange. And Alice thinks that too.

la .alis. cu jinvi le du'u le prenu cu cizra Alice has an opinion that the person is strange.

Relations that are inside places may not be asserted. In the last example, the man being strange (le prenu cu cizra) is not asserted by the speaker; it's only Alice's opinion.

The interjection ju'a makes the relation asserted by the speaker. The first sentence can be rephrased as:

la .alis. cu jinvi le du'u ju'a le prenu cu cizra Alice has an opinion that the person is strange, and it is so.

ju'a .au mi viska do I wish I saw you. But I do see you at the same time.

English often fails to translate this powerful ju'a concisely, so the English translation doesn't follow the word order of the Lojban original.

Here's another example:

mi nelci le nu do dansu I like when you dance.

mi nelci le nu ju'a do dansu I like that you dance.

In the second case, the speaker asserts You dance.

«pe'a» for metaphors, «za'e» for nonce words, «ba'e» for emphasis#

le ninmu cu tarci pe'a .i va'i ri misno The woman is a star, metaphorically speaking. In other words, she is famous.

pe'a

interjection: marks a construct as metaphorically used.

tarci

$x_1$ is a star

tarci denotes real stars, objects in the sky. The interjection pe'a transforms it into a metaphorical meaning.

.i ba ku mi pu viska le cizra stuzi poi le fagri cu nenri .i mi pu klama za'e le fagrystu Then, I saw a strange place with a fire inside. I approached the, let's say, "fire-place."

za'e

left interjection: marks the following construct as used not in its usual meaning

Left interjections, as their name suggests, are placed before a modified construct (whereas other interjections are placed after it).

The left interjection za'e shows that the following construct, le fagrystu in this case, is made up or used not in its standard meaning. Thus, there is no need to look it up in the dictionary or ask the speaker specifically about the meaning of this word since the word is used to further describe the story.

ba'e la .alis. e nai la .kevin. pu darxi mi Alice, not Kevin, hit me!

mi djuno le du'u ma kau pu darxi ba'e mi .i ku'i mi na ku djuno le du'u ma kau pu darxi do I know who hit me. However, I don't know who hit you.

ba'e

left interjection: puts an emphasis on the following construct

To emphasize a word, we would use stress in spoken English, and underlining, italics, or capital letters in written English. In Lojban, we use the left interjection ba'e.

Paragraphs and separating sentences#

ni'o works exactly like .i but starts a new paragraph. Paragraphs are usually associated with new topics.

It is normal to use .i in speech to separate sentences, but you might want to use ni'o especially in written text to structure it.

dirgo

$x_1$ is a drop of material $x_2$ …

«to» … «toi» for parenthetical remarks#

Comments placed inside parentheses in English text are formed using the word to instead of the left parenthesis and toi instead of the right parenthesis:

ti poi to vi'o nai do mi na ku djica tu'a su'o lo drata toi plise cu fusra This (no, I don't want another one!) apple is rotten.

djica

to desire

drata

… is different from …

plise

$x_1$ is an apple

fusra

$x_1$ rots or decays with agent $x_2$

Parenthetical remarks can go anywhere interjections can, meaning they can be placed pretty much anywhere in a Lojban sentence. With parentheses, just like with quotes, you need to know where the parenthesis starts and where it ends.

Fixing errors in speech#

When correcting yourself, it's important to know how to fix your mistakes. You can use two words to delete your previous words:

si

deletion: deletes the last word only

sa

deletion: deletes back until the next cmavo spoken

They delete words as if those words have never been spoken. However, they do not work inside certain quotes (all quotes except lu…li'u), as that would make it impossible to quote these words. Using multiple si in a row deletes multiple words.

In English, when you make a mistake while speaking (factual or grammatical), you usually don't bother to correct it, even if you realize you made a mistake. That's because English is fairly redundant (for this very reason!). If we catch ourselves making an error in English, we quickly provide a correction without going into details like how many words should be canceled: context usually helps us. For example:

I'm learning the English word, … er, Lojban word.

Context and common sense dictate that Lojban word is meant to replace English word. But what if it was meant to replace I'm learning the English word? We wouldn't normally care in natural languages.

However, Lojban allows you to be more precise about which words you are correcting.

si erases the immediately preceding word. If you want to erase two words in a row, you say si si after them. In Lojban, the correction above would be:

.i mi tadni le glico valsi si si lojbo valsi I'm learning the English word, … er, Lojban word.

valsi

$x_1$ is a word with the meaning $x_2$ in language $x_3$

The problem with si is that you have to count words. This can become tedious, and you shouldn't have to keep a transcript of your words when you want to correct yourself.

The other correction word sa is more helpful: sa takes as its argument the word following it. Then this sa deletes words back until it finds the same word or a word of the same class. For example:

.i mi tadni le sa .i mi tadni le lojbo valsi I'm learning the … er, I'm learning the Lojban word. .i mi tadni le lojbo valsi

The argument of sa is the word .i. So the sentence following sa replaces the current sentence up to and including sa. Or consider:

.i mi mrilu fi do de'i li jefydei bu pa sa de'i li jefydei bu re I mailed to you on Monday, … er, on Tuesday. On Monday I mailed it to you, … er, actually, it was Tuesday. .i mi mrilu fi do de'i li jefydei bu re

The correction is de'i li jefydei bu re — on Tuesday. So what it replaces is everything from the last relation beginning with de'i: de'i li jefydei bu pa — on Monday.

Dealing with misunderstanding#

— .i mi pu zi te vecnu le flokati — .i le flokati ki'a — I just bought a flokati. — Flokati, huh?

ki'a

interjection inquiry: confusion about something said. Huh? Whaat?? (confusion), pardon?

When you don't understand what someone has just said — whether because you don't get what they were referring to, you don't know the word, or the grammar confused you — you can repeat the word or relation you didn't get and add ki'a as a plaintive request for clarification. This is even better than Huh?, because you can point out exactly what made you say Huh?

Here is a dialogue:

— mi nelci le kalci — ki'a ? — I like shit. — Whaat???

Note: Since zo quotes any word following it — any word — it turns out that zo ki'a doesn't mean zo? Huh? at all, but The word ki'a. To ask zo? Huh?, you'll have to resort to zo zo ki'a.

Reverse «mi» and «do» using «ra'o»#

- mi prami do - go'i ra'o - I love you. - I love you too.

ra'o

interjection: updates meaning from the viewpoint of the current speaker

If someone says mi prami do and you reply go'i ra'o, that reverses the pronouns mi and do so that they apply from your point of view. Thus, every pronoun gets re-evaluated.

Compare:

- mi prami do - go'i - I love you. - You do.

A simple go'i still makes mi refer to the person who used it, and do refer to the listener of the person who said it.