Lesson 2. More basic stuff#

Types of words#

Lojban words are divided into three groups:

• Relation words (called selbrivla in Lojban)
  • Examples: gleki, klama.
  • Such words contain at least a cluster of consonants (two or more consonants one after another) within the first 5 sounds + they end in a vowel.
• Particles (called cmavo in Lojban)
  • Examples: le, nu, mi, fa'a.
  • They start with a consonant (one of b d g v z j p t k f s c x l m n r i u), followed by a vowel (one of a e i o u y au ai ei oi). Optionally, after that, there can be one or more sequences of an apostrophe (') and a following vowel. For example, xa'a'a'a'a'a'a and ba'au'oi'a'e'o are possible particles (even if no meaning is assigned to them).
  • It is quite common to write several particles consecutively without spaces between them. This is allowed by Lojban grammar. So, don't be surprised to see lenu instead of le nu, naku instead of na ku, jonai instead of jo nai, and so on. This doesn't change the meaning. However, this rule does not apply to relation words; relation words should be separated by spaces.
• Name words (called cmevla in Lojban)
  • Examples: .alis., .doris, .lojban.
  • Usually used for personal names, names of places etc.
  • They can be easily distinguished from the other types of words since they end in a consonant. Additionally, they are wrapped with two dots at the beginning and at the end. Colloquially, dots can be omitted when writing, but when speaking, pauses that correspond to those dots are still a must.

Order of arguments#

Earlier we had definitions of relation words such as:

mlatu

… is a cat, to be a cat

citka

… eats …

prami

… loves …

klama

… come to …

Dictionaries can present definitions of relation words with symbols such as $x_1$, $x_2$ etc.:

prami

$x_1$ loves $x_2$

karce

$x_1$ is a car …

citka

$x_1$ eats $x_2$ …

klama

$x_1$ comes to $x_2$ …

These $x_1$, $x_2$, and so on is the explicit notation for the so called slots (other names are: places, roles of relation, terbricmi in Lojban). Slots are filled by argument terms (sumti) in the sentence.

Numbers represent the order in which those slots are to be filled by arguments.

For example:

mi prami do I love you.

This sentence also implies that

• $x_1$ denotes the one who loves, and
• $x_2$ denotes the one who is loved by.

In other words, each relation has one or more slots, and those slots are specified and labeled as $x_1$, $x_2$, and so on. We put arguments like mi, do, le tavla etc. in order, thus filling these slots and giving a concrete meaning to the relation, thus forming a sentence.

The advantage of such style of definitions is that it contains all possible participants of a relation immediately specified.

We can also omit arguments making the sentence more vague:

carvi It is raining. is rain, is raining

(although time here is determined by context, it can also mean It often rains, It was raining, etc.)

prami do Someone loves you. loves you

All omitted places in a relation just mean zo'e = something/someone so it means the same as

zo'e prami do Someone loves you.

And

prami

is the same as

zo'e prami zo'e Someone loves someone.

zo'e

pronoun: something or someone unspecified or assumed from context

Modal terms like ca, fa'a etc. add new places to relations, but they don't fill slots of relations. In

mi klama fa'a do I come towards you.

the second place of klama is still omitted. For example:

mi klama fa'a le cmana le zdani I come (in the direction of the mountain) to the home.

le cmana

the mountain

Here, the second place of klama is do. The sentence means that the mountain is just a direction, whereas the final point is you.

Here, the term fa'a la cmana (in the direction of the mountain) doesn't replace the second place of the relation klama. The second place of klama is le zdani here.

The sentence means that my home is simply located in the direction of the mountain, but it doesn't necessarily mean I want to reach that mountain. The final destination of me coming is not the mountain but the home.

Similarly, in

mi citka ba le nu mi cadzu I eat after I walk.

the second place of citka is still omitted. A new term ba with its argument le nu mi cadzu adds meaning to the sentence.

The order of arguments of compound relation is the same as the one of the last component in it:

tu sutra bajra pendo mi That is my quickly running friend. That is a quickly running friend of me.

tu pendo mi That is my riend. That is a friend of me.

pendo

… is a friend of … (someone)

So the order of arguments of sutra bajra pendo is the same as that of pendo alone.

More than two places#

Relation can have more than two places. For example:

mi pinxe le djacu le kabri I drink the water from the cup.

pinxe

$x_1$ drinks $x_2$ from $x_3$

le kabri the cup

In this case, there are three places, and if you want to exclude the second place in the middle, you have to use zo'e:

mi pinxe zo'e le kabri I drink [something] from the cup.

If we omit zo'e, we get something meaningless:

mi pinxe le kabri I drink the cup.

Another example:

mi plicru do le plise I give you the apples.

plicru

$x_1$ gives, donates to $x_2$ some object $x_3$; $x_1$ allows someone $x_2$ to use $x_3$

Relations inside relations#

In

le nicte cu nu mi viska le lunra The night is when I see the Moon.

we have

• le nicte as $x_1$ of the relation,
• nu mi viska le lunra as the main relation.

However, inside nu mi viska le lunra, we have another sentence with

• mi - $x_1$ of the inner relation,
• viska - the inner relation,
• le lunra - $x_2$ of the inner relation.

So, despite having an inner structure, nu mi viska le lunra is still a relation with its first term filled with le nicte in this case.

Similarly, in

mi citka ba le nu mi dansu I eat after I dance.

we have

• mi as $x_1$, the first place of the relation,
• citka as the main relation construct,
• ba le nu mi dansu as a modal term of the main relation of the sentence.

Inside this term, we have:

• mi as $x_1$, the first place of the relation inside the term
• dansu as the main relation construct inside the term.

Such "recursive" mechanism of wrapping relations into relations allows expressing complex ideas precisely.

Why are relation words defined the way they are?#

English uses a limited set of prepositions that are reused across various verbs and, thus, have no fixed meaning. For example, consider the English preposition to:

I speak to you.

I come to you.

To me it looks pretty.

In each of those examples, to has a new role that is, at best, remotely similar to roles in other sentences.

It's important to note that other languages use different ways of marking roles of verbs that, in many cases, are very different from those used in English.

Lojban, for instance, marks core roles (slots) of relations by fully defining such relations with the roles placed in sequence (or marked with fa, fe, and so on):

klama

$x_1$ comes to $x_2$ …

tavla

$x_1$ talks to $x_2$ …

melbi

$x_1$ is beautiful, pretty to $x_2$ …

Such core roles are essential in defining relations.

However, there can be optional roles that make relations more precise:

I speak to you while I'm eating.

It's hard to me because this thing is heavy.

In Lojban, a similar notion of such optional roles is expressed via separate relations or, for most common cases, with modal terms:

mi tavla do ze'a le nu mi citka I speak to you while I'm eating.

nandu mi ri'a le nu ti tilju It's hard to me because this thing is heavy.

nandu

$x_1$ is hard to $x_2$

tilju

$x_1$ is heavy

Prepositions in English are similar to modal particles in Lojban, although a usual English preposition can have many meanings while in Lojban, every modal particle has only one (even if vague) meaning.

General rules in the order of arguments#

The order of places in relations might be sometimes hard to remember, but let's not worry — you don't need to remember all the places of all relation words. (Do you remember the meaning of hundreds of thousands of words in English?)

You may study places when you find them useful or when people use them in a dialogue with you.

Most relation words have two-three places.

Usually, you can guess the order using context and a few rules of thumb:

1. The first place is often the person or thing that does something or is something:

   klama = $x_1$ goes …

2. The object of some action is usually just after the first place:

   punji = $x_1$ puts $x_2$ on $x_3$,

3. And the next place will usually be filled with the recipient:

   punji = $x_1$ puts $x_2$ on $x_3$,

4. Destination (to) places nearly always come before origin (from) places:

   klama = $x_1$ goes to $x_2$ from $x_3$

5. Less-used places come towards the end. These tend to be things like by standard, by means or made of.

The general idea is that first come the places which are most likely to be used.

No need to fill all places all the time. Unfilled places just have values irrelevant or obvious to the speaker (they take the value of zo'e = something).

Infinitives#

Infinitives are verbs that are often prefixed with to in English. Examples include I like to run, with to run being the infinitive.

le verba cu troci le ka cadzu The child is trying to walk.

le verba

the child, the children

troci

$x_1$ tries to do or to be $x_2$ (ka)

cadzu

$x_1$ walks

The particle ka works much like nu. It wraps a sentence.

The main difference is that some slot in the wrapped sentence is to be linked by some argument outside this sentence.

In this case the first argument le verba of the relation troci makes a link to the first unfilled slot of the inner sentence cadzu (which is inside ka).

In other words, the child tries to achieve a state where le verba cu cadzu (the argument le verba would fill the first unfilled slot of the relation cadzu).

Some relations require only infinitives in some of their slots. Definitions of such words mark such slots as property or ka. For example:

cinmo

$x_1$ feels $x_2$ (ka)

This means that the infinitive in the second slot ($x_2$) is applied to some other slot (most likely, the first slot, $x_1$). Cases where the infinitive is applied to slots other than $x_2$ are rare and are explained in dictionaries for corresponding relations or in the case of relation words invented unofficially, can be deduced from common sense by analogy with other similar relation words.

Another example:

ra sidju le pendo le ka bevri le dakli He/she helps the friend to carry the bags.

sidju

$x_1$ helps $x_2$ do $x_3$ (ka)

The relation word sidju requires its third slot to be filled with an infinitive.

bevri

$x_1$ carries $x_2$

le dakli

the bag, the bags

Note that only the first unfilled place of the embedded relation takes the meaning of the outer place:

mi troci le ka do prami I try to be loved by you.

tcidu

$x_1$ reads $x_2$ from $x_3$

Here, the first unfilled place is the second place of prami, thus it takes the value mi (I).

It is also possible by using the pronoun ce'u to explicitly mark a place that has to be applied to some outer argument:

mi troci le ka do prami ce'u I try to be loved by you.

Another example:

mi cinmo le ka xebni ce'u mi cinmo le ka se xebni I feel like someone hates me. I feel being hated.

Types of places#

The dictionary often mentions other types of places, for example:

djica

$x_1$ wants $x_2$ (event)

This event means that you have to fill the place with an argument that represents an event. For instance:

le nicte

nighttime

le nu mi dansu

me dancing

So we get

mi djica le nicte I want the nighttime event.

do djica le nu mi dansu You want me to dance.

In Lojban, it is not allowed to say, for example:

mi djica le plise I want the apple.

because you want to do something with the apple or you want some event happening with the apple, such as:

mi djica le nu mi citka le plise I want to eat the apple. I want that I eat the apple.

Notice that wrapping a relation expecting an event into a nu changes the meaning:

le zekri cu cumki The crime is possible.

zekri

$x_1$ is a criminal event, $x_1$ (event) a crime

cumki

$x_1$ (event) is possible

Compare:

le nu zekri cu cumki That is criminal is possible. It is possible that something is a crime.

Raising#

mi stidi le ka klama le barja I suggest going to the pub.

stidi

$x_1$ suggest action $x_2$ (property) to $x_3$

mi stidi tu'a le barja I suggest the pub.

tu'a le barja

something about the pub

mi djica le nu mi citka le plise I want to eat an apple.

mi djica tu'a le titla I want the sweetie.

tu'a le titla

something about the sweetie

titla

… is sweet, … is a sweetie

Place structure may put too much burden on specifying actions or events. Sometimes we want to specify only some object in those events or places and skip describing the action or the event altogether.

In the examples above I suggest the pub. most likely implies going to the pub and I want the apple. implies eating it.

However, the Lojban relation word stidi requires a property in its $x_2$ slot. Similarly, djica requires an event in its $x_2$ slot.

The short so called qualifier word tu'a before a term implies an abstraction (property, event, or proposition) but selects only this term from this abstraction skipping the rest. It can be vaguely translated as something about:

mi stidi tu'a le barja I suggest something about the pub (maybe visiting it, meeting near it etc.).

mi djica tu'a le plise I desire something related to the apple (perhaps eating, chewing, licking, throwing it at a friend, etc.)

tu'a le cakla cu pluka mi The chocolate is pleasing to me (likely due to its taste). Something about the chocolate is pleasant to me

cakla

$x_1$ is some chocolate

When skipping abstractions, only context tells us what was omitted.

It is also possible to modify the main relational construct:

le cakla cu jai pluka mi tu'a le cakla cu pluka mi The chocolate is pleasing to me.

This allows for the creation of vague argument terms with jai:

le jai pluka cu zvati ti The pleasurable thing is here.

Since le pluka (the pleasant event) is abstract, it's impossible to specify its location. However, a participant in the abstraction can be physically placed somewhere.

Places inside arguments#

How do we say You are my friend ?

do pendo mi You are my friend. You are a friend of me.

And now, how do we say My friend is smart.?

le pendo be mi cu stati My friend is smart.

So when we convert a relation into an argument (pendo — to be a friend into le pendo — the friend), we can still retain other places of that relation by placing be after it.

By default, it attaches the second place ($x_2$). We can attach more places by separating them with bei:

mi plicru do le plise I give you the apple.

le plicru be mi bei le plise The grantor of the apple to me

le plicru be mi bei le plise cu pendo mi The giver of the apple to me is my friend. The one who gives me the apple is a friend of mine.

Another example:

mi klama le pendo be do I come to a friend of yours.

klama

$x_1$ comes to $x_2$ from $x_3$ …

We can't omit be because le pendo do are two independent places:

mi klama le pendo do I come to a friend from you.

Here, do took the third place of klama since it's not bound to pendo via be.

Neither could we use nu because le nu pendo do is the event of someone being a friend of yours.

So le pendo be do is the correct solution.

Another example:

la .lojban. cu bangu mi Lojban is my language. Lojban is a language of me.

However,

mi nelci le bangu be mi I like my language.

Using be for relations not converted to arguments has no effect:

mi nelci be do is the same as mi nelci do

Relative clauses#

le prenu poi pendo mi cu tavla mi The person that is friend of mine talks to me.

le prenu noi pendo mi cu tavla mi The person, who incidentally is a friend of mine, talks to me.

blabi

… is white

In the first sentence, the word that is essential to identifying the person in question. It clarifies whom among the people in the context we are talking about. We choose only those who are my friends out of probably many people around. Maybe there is only one person around that is my friend.

As for who is incidentally a friend of mine from the second sentence, it just provides additional information about the person. It doesn't help us identify the person. For example, this might happen when all the people around are my friends.

poi pendo mi is a relative clause, a relation attached to the right of the argument le prenu. It ends just before the next word cu:

le prenu (poi pendo mi) cu tavla mi The person that is friend of mine talks to me.

In Lojban, we use poi for relative clauses that identify entities (objects, people or events) and noi for incidental information.

la .bob. ba co'a speni le ninmu poi pu xabju le nurma Bob will marry a girl who lived in the country.

xabju

… lives in …, … inhabits … (place, object)

le nurma

the rural area

This sentence doesn't exclude Bob marrying someone else as well! Removing the relative clause with poi changes the meaning:

la .bob. ba co'a speni le ninmu Bob will marry a girl.

Another example:

le prenu poi gleki cu ze'u renvi People (which ones?) who are happy live long.

ze'u

modal term: for a long time

renvi

to survive

Removing the relative clause with poi changes the meaning:

le prenu ze'u renvi The people live long.

On the other hand, relative clauses with noi contain just additional information about the argument, to which they are attached. That argument is sufficiently defined by itself so that removing a relative clause with noi doesn't change its meaning:

mi nelci la .doris. noi mi ta'e zgana bu'u le panka I like Doris whom I habitually see in the park. I like Doris. What else can I say about her? I habitually see her in the park.

zgana

to observe (using any senses)

Removing the relative clause with noi retains the meaning: I like Doris.

In spoken English, the distinction is often achieved using intonation or by guessing. Also, relative clauses with noi are traditionally separated with commas in English. They use which or who, and the word that is not used in them.

Let's have another example.

mi klama le pa tricu I come to the tree.

le pa tricu cu barda The tree is big.

le pa tricu

the tree (one tree)

barda

$x_1$ is big/large

And now let's join those two sentences:

le tricu noi mi klama ke'a cu barda The tree, to which I come, is big.

Note the word ke'a. We move the second sentence about the same tree into a relative clause and replace the argument le tricu with ke'a in the relative clause. So the pronoun ke'a is like who and which in English. It points back to the argument to which the relative clause is attached.

So literally our Lojbanic sentence sounds like

The tree, such that I go to which, is big.

ke'a can be dropped if context is sufficient enough. The two following sentences mean the same:

le prenu poi pendo mi cu tavla mi le prenu poi ke'a pendo mi cu tavla mi The person that is friend of mine talks to me.

ke'a is often assumed to go to the first unfilled place:

mi nelci la .doris. noi mi ta'e zgana bu'u le panka mi nelci la .doris. noi mi ta'e zgana ke'a bu'u le panka I like Doris whom I habitually see in the park.

Here, mi fills the first slot of the relation ta'e zgana (… habitually sees …), thus, ke'a is assumed for the next, second place.

Relative clauses like usual relations can contain constructs with modal terms:

le tricu noi mi pu klama ke'a ca le cabdei cu barda The tree, to which I went today, is big.

le cabdei

the day of today

Note that ca le cabdei belongs to the relative clause. Compare:

le tricu noi mi pu klama ke'a cu barda ca le cabdei The tree, to which I went, is big today.

The meaning has changed a lot.

Finally, voi is used to form le-like arguments but with relative clauses:

ti voi le nu ke'a cisma cu pluka mi cu zutse tu These ones whose smile pleases me are sitting down.

ti

this one near me, these ones near me

cisma

$x_1$ smiles

pluka

$x_1$ is pleasant to $x_2$

zutse

$x_1$ sits, is sitting on $x_2$

Here, voi defines the object near me.

Compare it to:

ti poi le nu ke'a cisma cu pluka mi cu zutse Of these ones those whose smile pleases me are sitting down.

poi restricts the selection to those described in the relative clause. This example might imply that there are many objects (people etc.) around me but with poi I select only necessary ones.

Compare it to:

ti noi le nu ke'a cisma cu pluka mi cu zutse These ones (who are incidentally such that their smile pleases me) are sitting down.

noi simply adds incidental information that is not necessary to determine what ti (these ones) refers to. Perhaps, there is nobody else around to describe.

Finally, just like nu has the right border marker kei, we have

ku'o

right border marker for poi, noi and voi.

mi tavla la .doris. noi ca zutse tu ku'o .e la .alis. noi ca cisma I talk to Doris, who is now sitting over there, and Alice who now smiles.

Notice that without ku'o we would have tu (over there) joined together with la .alis. (Alice) leading to a weird meaning:

mi tavla la .doris. noi ca zutse tu .e la .alis. noi ca cisma I talk to Doris, who is now sitting over there and on top of Alice (who now smiles).

Notice the zutse tu .e la .alis. part.

For all of poi, noi and voi the right border marker is still the same: ku'o.

Short relative clauses. ‘About’#

Sometimes, you might need to attach an additional argument to another argument:

mi djuno le vajni pe do I know something important about you.

le vajni

something important

pe and ne are similar to poi and noi, but they attach arguments to arguments:

le pa penbi pe mi cu xunre The pen that is mine is red. (mine is essential to identifying the pen in question)

le pa penbi ne mi cu xunre The pen, which is mine, is red. (additional information)

ne

which is about, has relation to … (an argument follows)

pe

that is about, has relation to … (an argument follows)

le pa penbi ne mi ge'u .e le pa fonxa ne do cu xunre The pen, which is mine, and the phone, which is yours, are red.

ge'u

right border marker for pe, ne.

«be» and «pe»#

Note that relative clauses are attached to arguments, while be is a part of the relation.

Actually, le bangu pe mi is a better translation of my language, since, like in English, the two arguments are related to each other in a vague way.

However, you can say le birka be mi as my arm. Even if you saw off your arm, it will still be yours. That's why birka has a place of the owner:

birka

$x_1$ is an arm of $x_2$

Let's show once again that a construct with be is a part of the relation, whereas pe, ne, poi and noi attach to arguments:

le pa melbi be mi fonxa pe le pa pendo be mi cu barda The beautiful to me phone of the friend of mine is big.

Here, be mi is attached to the relation melbi = to be beautiful to … (someone) and thus creates a new relation melbi be mi = to be beautiful to me. But pe le pa pendo be mi (of my friend) is applied to the whole argument le pa melbi be mi fonxa (the beautiful to me phone).

It can also happen that we need to attach be to a relation, transform that relation into an argument and then attach pe to that argument:

le pa pendo be do be'o pe la .paris. cu stati The friend of yours who is related to Paris is smart. (pe la .paris. is attached to the whole argument le pa pendo be do be'o)

le pu plicru be do bei le pa plise be'o pe la .paris. cu stati Who gave you the apple (and who is related to Paris) is smart. (pe la .paris. is attached to the whole argument le pu plicru be do bei le pa plise be'o)

be'o

right border marker for the string of terms attached with be and bei

In these two examples, your friend has some relation to Paris (maybe, he/she is from Paris).

Compare it to:

le pa pendo be do pe la .paris. cu stati The friend of you (you who is related to Paris) is smart.

le pu plicru be do bei le pa plise pe la .paris. cu stati Who gave you the apple (the apple that is related to Paris) is smart.

In these last two examples, however, either you are related to Paris or the apple.

‘Alice is a teacher’ and ‘Alice is the teacher’#

In English, the verb is, are, to be makes a noun work like a verb. In Lojban, even such concepts as cat (mlatu), person (prenu), house (dinju), home (zdani) function like verbs (relations) by default. Only pronouns work as arguments.

However, here are three cases:

la .alis. cu ctuca Alice teaches.

la .alis. cu me le ctuca Alice is one of the teachers.

me

… is among …, … is one of …, … are members of … (argument follows)

la .alis. ta'e ctuca Alice habitually teaches.

ta'e

modal particle: the event happens habitually

la .alis. cu du le ctuca Alice is the teacher.

du

… is identical to …

The particle me takes an argument after it and indicates that there are likely other teachers, and Alice is one among them.

The particle du is used when Alice is, for example, the teacher that we have been searching for or talking about. It indicates identity.

Thus, me and du can sometimes correspond to what in English we express using the verb to be/is/was.

In Lojban, we prioritize the meaning of what we intend to say, rather than relying on how it is literally expressed in English or other languages.

Other examples:

mi me la .bond. I am Bond.

mi du la .kevin. I am Kevin (the one you needed).

ti du la .alis. noi mi ta'e zgana bu'u le panka This is Alice whom I habitually see in the park.

noi du and poi du are used to introduce alternate names for something. They correspond to English namely, i.e.:

la .alis. cu penmi le prenu noi du la .abdul. Alice met the person, namely Abdul.

When using me, you can connect several arguments with and:

tu me le pendo be mi be'o .e le tunba be mi Those are some (or all) of my friends and my siblings.

tunba

$x_1$ is a sibling of $x_2$

Relations with modal particles#

We can place a modal particle not only before the main relation construct of the sentence but also at the end of it, producing the same result:

mi ca tcidu mi tcidu ca I (now read).

tcidu

to read (some text)

When using nu, we create a relation describing some event. Notice the difference between these two examples:

le nu tcidu ca cu nandu The current reading is complicated, difficult.

le nu tcidu cu ca nandu The reading is now complicated.

Other examples:

mi klama le pa cmana pu I went to the mountain. I go to a mountain (in the past).

le nu mi klama le pa cmana pu cu pluka That I went to a mountain is pleasant.

We can also put one or more modal particles as the first element of a relation construct and e.g. use such enriched relation in an argument form:

le pu kunti tumla ca purdi What was a desert is now a garden.

pu belongs to le kunti tumla and ca belongs to purdi (as le pu kunti tumla can't add ca at the end).

Having several modal particles in order is not a problem:

le pu ze'u kunti tumla ca purdi What was a desert for a long time is now a garden.

ze'u

modal term: for a long time

Placing term particles after nouns binds them to outer relations:

le kunti tumla pu purdi (le kunti tumla) pu purdi The desert was a garden.

New arguments from slots of the same relation#

do plicru mi ti You grant me this.

mi se plicru ti do I'm granted this by you.

plicru

$x_1$ gives $x_2$ something $x_3$ for use

We can swap the first two places in the relation using se and thus change the place structure.

do plicru mi ti means exactly the same as mi se plicru do ti. The difference is solely in style.

You may want to change things around for different emphasis, for example, to mention the more important things in a sentence first. So the following pairs mean the same thing:

mi prami do I love you.

do se prami mi You are loved by me.

le nu mi tadni la .lojban. cu xamgu mi My study of Lojban is good for me.

xamgu

… is good for (someone)

mi se xamgu le nu mi tadni la .lojban. For me, it's good to study Lojban.

The same can be done when relation are used when creating arguments:

le plicru

those who give, the givers, the donors, the donators

le se plicru

those who are given to, recipients of gifts

le te plicru

those objects that are given for use, gifts

te swaps the first and third places of relations.

As we know, when we add le in front of a relation construct, it becomes an argument. So

• le plicru means those which could fit in the first place of plicru
• le se plicru means those which could fit in the second place of plicru
• le te plicru means those which could fit in the third place of plicru

Thus, in Lojban, we don't need separate words for donor, recipient, and gift. We reuse the same relation and save a lot of effort because of such clever design. Indeed, we can't imagine a gift without implying that someone gave it or will give it. When useful phenomena are interconnected, Lojban reflects this.

Changing other places in main relations#

The series se, te, ve, xe (in alphabetical order) consists of particles that change places in main relations:

• se swaps the first and second places
• te swaps the first and third places
• ve swaps the first and fourth places
• xe swaps the first and fifth places.

mi zbasu le pa stizu le mudri I made the chair out of the piece of wood.

zbasu

$x_1$ builds, makes $x_2$ out of $x_3$

le pa stizu

the chair

le mudri

the piece of wood

le mudri cu te zbasu le stizu mi The piece of wood is what the chair is made of by me.

The mi has now moved to the third place of the relation and can be dropped if we are too lazy to specify who made the chair or if we just don't know who made it:

le mudri cu te zbasu le stizu The piece of wood is the material of the chair.

Similarly to our example with le se plicru (the recipient) and le te plicru (the gift), we can use te, ve, xe to derive more words from other places of relation words:

klama

$x_1$ goes to $x_2$ from $x_3$ via $x_4$ by means $x_5$

Thus, we can derive that

le klama

the comer / the comers

le se klama

the destination place

le te klama

the place of origin of the movement

le ve klama

the route

le xe klama

the means of coming

le xe klama and the fifth place of klama can denote any means of movement, like driving a car or walking on foot.

se is used more frequently than the other particles for swapping places.

Free word order: tags for roles in relations#

Usually, we don't need all the slots, places of a relation, so we can omit the unnecessary ones by replacing them with zo'e. However, we can use place tags to explicitly refer to a needed slot. Place tags work like modal particles but deal with the place structure of relations:

mi prami do is the same as fa mi prami fe do I love you.

• fa marks the argument that fills the first slot of a relation ($x_1$)
• fe marks the argument that fills the second slot ($x_2$)
• fi marks the argument that fills the third slot ($x_3$)
• fo marks the argument that fills the fourth slot ($x_4$)
• fu marks the argument that fills the fifth slot ($x_5$)

More examples:

mi klama fi le tcadu I go from the city.

fi marks le tcadu as the third place of klama (the origin of movement). Without fi, the sentence would turn into mi klama le tcadu, meaning I go to the city.

mi pinxe fi le kabri is the same as mi pinxe zo'e le kabri I drink (something) from the cup.

pinxe

$x_1$ drinks $x_2$ from $x_3$

le kabri

the cup, the glass

mi tugni zo'e le nu vitke le rirni mi tugni fi le nu vitke le rirni I agree (with someone) about visiting parents.

tugni

$x_1$ agrees with someone $x_2$ about $x_3$ (proposition)

le rirni

the parent / the parents

With place tags, we can move places around:

fe mi fi le plise pu plicru Someone gave the apple to me.

Here,

• le plise = the apple, we put it into the third place of plicru, what is given
• mi = me, we put it into the second place of plicru, the recipient.

As we can see in the last example, we can't even reflect the order of words in its English translation.

Extensive use of place tags can make our speech harder to perceive, but they allow for more freedom.

Unlike se series, using place tags like fa doesn't change the place structure.

---

We can use place tags inside arguments by placing them after be:

le pa klama be fi le tcadu cu pendo mi The one who comes to the city is my friend.

---

We may also put all the arguments of one main relation in front of the sentence tail (preserving their relative order). Because of this freedom, we can say:

mi do prami which is the same as mi do cu prami which is the same as mi prami do I love you.

ko kurji ko is the same as ko ko kurji Take care of yourself.

The following sentences are also equal in meaning:

mi plicru do le pa plise I give you the apple.

mi do cu plicru le pa plise I you give the apple.

mi do le pa plise cu plicru I you the apple give.

Prenex#

Prenex is a "prefix" of relation, in which you can declare variables to be used later:

pa da poi pendo mi zo'u da tavla da There is someone who is a friend of me such that he/she talks to himself/herself

zo'u

prenex separator

da

pronoun: variable.

The pronoun da is translated as there is something/someone … If we use da the second time in the same relation, it always refers to the same thing as the first da:

mi djica le nu su'o da poi kukte zo'u mi citka da I wish there was at least something tasty so that I eat it.

su'o

number: at least 1

If the variable is used in the same relation and not in any embedded relations, then you can omit the prenex altogether:

mi djica le nu su'o da poi kukte zo'u mi citka da mi djica le nu mi citka su'o da poi kukte I wish there was at least something tasty so that I eat it. I wish for something to be so that I eat it.

Both examples mean the same, in both cases su'o da denotes there is (were/will be) something or somebody.

However, prenex is useful and necessary when you need to use da deep inside your relation, i.e. within embedded relations:

su'o da poi kukte zo'u mi djica le nu mi citka da There is at least something tasty: I wish I ate it, I want to eat it. There is something tasty I wish to eat.

Notice how the meaning changes. Here, we can't omit the prenex because it will change the meaning of the previous example.

More examples:

mi tavla I talk.

mi tavla su'o da mi tavla da There is someone I talk to.

By default, da as a pronoun alone means the same as su'o da (there is at least one …) unless an explicit number is used.

da tavla da Someone talks to themselves.

da tavla da da Someone talks to themselves about themselves.

tavla

$x_1$ talks to someone $x_2$ about topic $x_3$

pa da poi ckape zo'u mi djica le nu da na ku fasnu There is one dangerous thing: I wish it never happens.

da doesn't imply any particular objects or events, which is often useful:

xu do tavla su'o da poi na ku slabu do Do you talk to someone not familiar to you? (no particular person in mind is described).

.e'u mi joi do casnu bu'u su'o da poi drata Let's discuss in another place (no particular place in mind)

Arguments of existence#

pa da poi me le pendo be mi zo'u mi prami da There is someone who is a friend of mine, such that I love them.

Since da is used only once, we might be tempted to get rid of the prenex. But how should we handle the relative clause poi pendo mi (who is a friend of mine)?

Thankfully, in Lojban there is a shortcut:

pa da poi me le pendo be mi zo'u mi prami da mi prami pa le pendo be mi There is someone who is a friend of mine, such that I love them.

Both sentences mean the same.

Arguments starting with numbers like pa le pendo (there is someone who is a friend of mine), ci le prenu (there are three people) may refer to new entities every time they are used. That's why

pa le pendo be mi ca tavla pa le pendo be mi There is one friend of mine who talks to one friend of mine.

This sentence is not precise in telling whether it's your friend talking to himself/herself, or you are describing two friends of yours such that the first one is talking to your second one.

It's more reasonable to say:

le pa pendo be mi ca tavla ri The friend of mine is talking to himself/herself.

ri

pronoun: refers to the previous argument excluding mi, do.

Here, ri refers to the previous argument: le pa pendo altogether.

Note the difference:

• da means there is something/someone, da always refers to the same entity when used more than once in the same relation.
• argument like pa le mlatu (with a bare number) is similar to using pa da poi me le mlatu but it can refer to new entities every time it is used.

mi nitcu le nu pa da poi mikce zo'u da kurju mi I need a doctor to take care of me (implying "any doctor will do").

pa da poi mikce zo'u mi nitcu le nu da kurju mi There is a doctor whom I need to take care of me.

One more example:

le nu pilno pa le bangu kei na ku banzu Using just one of the languages is not enough.

pilno

… uses …

banzu

… is enough for purpose …

Compare it to:

le nu pilno le pa bangu kei na ku banzu Using the language (the one in question) is not enough.

Arguments of existence are naturally used inside inner relations and with tu'a:

mi djica le nu mi citka pa le plise I want to eat an apple, some apple.

mi djica tu'a pa le plise I want something about an apple, some apple (probably, eating it, maybe chewing it, licking it, throwing it at your friend etc.)

Notice the difference:

mi djica tu'a le pa plise I want something about the apple (the apple in question).

‘I have an arm.’ ‘I have a brother.’#

The English verb to have has several meanings. Let's list some of them.

pa da birka mi I have an arm. There is something that is an arm of me

birka

$x_1$ is an arm of $x_2$

We use the same strategy for expressing family relationships:

pa da bruna mi mi se bruna pa da Someone is my brother. I have one brother. There is someone who is a brother of me

re lo bruna be mi cu clani I have two brothers, and they are tall.

clani

$x_1$ is long, tall

So we don't need the verb to have to denote such relationships. The same applies to other family members:

da mamta mi mi se mamta da I have a mother.

da patfu mi mi se patfu da I have a father.

da mensi mi mi se mensi da I have a sister.

da panzi mi mi se panzi da I have a child (or children).

panzi

$x_1$ is a child, offspring of $x_2$

Note that using a number in front of da isn't necessary if the context is enough.

---

Another meaning of to have is to keep:

mi ralte le pa gerku I have the dog. I keep the dog

mi ralte le pa karce I have the car.

ralte

$x_1$ keeps $x_2$ in their possession

---

If you own, possess something according to some law or documents, you should use ponse:

mi ponse le karce I own the car. I have the car.

ponse

$x_1$ owns $x_2$

Scope#

The order of

• terms, starting with numbers,
• modal terms, and
• modal particles of relation constructs,

matters and should be read from left to right:

ci le pendo cu tavla re le verba There are three friends, each talking to two children.

The overall number of children here may be as high as six.

By using zo'u, we can make our sentence clearer:

ci da poi me le pendo ku'o re de poi me le verba zo'u da tavla de For three da which are among the friends, for two de which are among the children: da talks to de.

Here, we see that each of the friends is said to talk to two children, and it might be different children each time, with up to six children in total.

How then can we express the other interpretation, in which just two children are involved? We cannot merely reverse the order of variables in the prenex to:

re de poi me le verba ku'o ci da poi me le pendo zo'u da tavla de For two de which are among the children, for three da which are among the friends, da talks to de

Although we have now limited the number of children to exactly two, we end up with an indeterminate number of friends, ranging from three to six. This distinction is called a “scope distinction”: in the first example, ci da poi me le pendo is said to have a wider scope than re de poi me le verba, and therefore precedes it in the prenex. In the second example, the reverse is true.

To make the scope equal, we use a special conjunction ce'e connecting two terms:

ci da poi me le pendo ce'e re de poi me le verba cu tavla ci le pendo ce'e re le verba cu tavla Three friends [and] two children, talk.

This picks out two groups, one of three friends and the other of two children, and says that each of the friends talks to each of the children.

The order matters with modal particles modifying main relation constructs too:

mi speni I am married, I have a wife or a husband.

mi co'a speni I get married.

mi mo'u speni I am widowed.

mo'u

term: the event is completed

Now compare:

mi mo'u co'a speni I am newlywed. I finished becoming a married person.

mi co'a mo'u speni I get widowed. I become finishing being married.

If there are several modal particles in one sentence, the rule is that we read them from left to right together, thinking of it as a so-called imaginary journey. We begin at an implied point in time and space (the speaker's "now and here" if no argument is attached to the right), and then follow the modals one after another from left to right.

Let's take mi mo'u co'a speni.

mo'u means that an event is complete. Which event? The event co'a speni — to become married. Hence, mi mo'u co'a speni means I finish the process of becoming married, i.e., I am newlywed.

In such cases, we say that co'a speni is within the "scope" of mo'u.

In mi co'a mo'u speni, the order of events is different.

First, it is said that an event started (co'a), then it is stated that it is an event of finishing being married. Hence, mi co'a mo'u speni means I get widowed.

We can say that here mo'u speni is within the "scope" of co'a.

Another example:

mi co'a ta'e citka I start to habitually eat.

mi ta'e co'a citka I habitually start to eat.

Examples with simple tenses:

mi pu ba klama le cmana It happened before I went to the mountain. I in past: in future: go to the mountain.

mi ba pu klama le cmana It will happen after I went to the mountain. I in future: in past: go to the mountain.

The rule of reading terms from left to right can be overridden by connecting modal particles with the conjunction ce'e:

mi ba ce'e pu klama le cmana I went and will go to the mountain. I in future and in past: go to the mountain.

mi cadzu ba le nu mi citka ce'e pu le nu mi sipna I walk after I eat and before I sleep.

Modal particles + «da» + arguments that start with numbers#

Like with modal terms, the position of da matters:

mi ponse da There is something I own.

mi co'u ponse da I lost all my property.

ponse

$x_1$ owns $x_2$

co'u

modal term: the event stops

This might look like a mind-breaking example. Here, a person was able to say I own something. But then for everything the person owned, this situation ended.

Another example:

ro da vi cu cizra Everything is strange here. Every thing here strange

vi

here, at a short distance

cizra

$x_1$ is strange

vi ku ro da cizra Here, everything is strange. Here: every thing strange

Did you catch the difference?

1. Everything is strange here means that if something is not strange somewhere, it becomes strange at this place.
2. Here, everything is strange simply describes those objects or events that are here (and they are strange). We don't know anything about others in other places.

Another example with an argument term starting with a number:

pa le prenu ta'e jundi There is one person who is habitually attentive.

— it is the same person who is attentive.

ta'e ku pa le prenu cu jundi It habitually happens that there is one person who is attentive.

— it is always that one person is attentive. People may change, but there is always one attentive person.

Generic arguments. ‘I like cats (in general)’. Sets#

mi nelci le'e mlatu I like cats.

We've seen le being mostly translated as the English the. However, in some cases, we might want to describe a typical object or event that best exemplifies a type of object or event in our context. In this case, we replace le with le'e:

mi nelci le'e badna .i mi na ku nelci le'e plise I like bananas. I don't like apples.

I might not have any bananas or apples at hand. I'm simply talking about bananas and apples as I understand, remember, or define them.

To make an argument term describing the set of objects or events (from which we derive such a typical element), we use the word le'i:

le danlu pendo pe mi cu mupli le ka ca da co'a morsi kei le'i mabru My pet is an example that at one point mammals die.

danlu

$x_1$ is a mammal

morsi

$x_1$ is dead

co'a morsi

$x_1$ dies

ca da

at some point in time

mupli

$x_1$ is an example of $x_2$ (property) among $x_3$ (set)

Dictionaries specify slots of relations that have to be filled with sets.

Masses#

lei prenu pu sruri le jubme The people surrounded the table. The mass of people did surround the table.

We use lei instead of le to show that the mass of objects is relevant to the action, but not necessarily each of those objects individually. Compare:

le prenu pu smaji The people were silent.

lei prenu pu smaji The crowd was silent.

le prenu

the person, the people

lei prenu

the crowd, the mass of people

smaji

$x_1$ is silent

le since cu sruri le garna The snakes surrounded the rod. Each of the snakes surrounded the rod.

— here, each snake surrounded the rod probably by curling around it.

lei since cu sruri le garna The snakes surrounded the rod. The snakes together as a mass surrounded the rod.

— here, we don't care about individual snakes, but we state that the snakes as a mass collectively surrounded the rod.

lei re djine cu sinxa la .lojban. The two rings are a symbol of Lojban.

na ku re le djine cu sinxa la lojban It's not true that each of the two rings is a symbol of Lojban.

djine

$x_1$ is a ring

Indeed, only the two rings together form a symbol.

Consider a sentence:

Apples are heavy.

Does it mean that each apple is heavy, or does it mean that they are heavy if taken together?

In Lojban, we can easily distinguish between these two cases:

le ci plise cu tilju Each of the three apples is heavy.

le plise cu tilju Each of the apples is heavy.

lei ci plise cu tilju The three apples are heavy in total. (so that every apple might be light, but together they are heavy)

tilju

$x_1$ is heavy

As you can see, there is an important difference between describing an object within a mass and describing the mass itself.

Numbers in places#

le ci plise cu grake li pa no no Each of the three apples weigh 100 grams.

lei ci plise cu grake li pa no no The three apples weigh 100 grams in total. (so that every apple weighs ≈ 33 grams on average)

grake

$x_1$ weighs $x_2$ (number) grams

When a place of a relation requires a number as mentioned by the dictionary, then to use that number, we prefix it with the word li.

li is a prefix signaling that a number, a timestamp, or some math expression is coming.

li mu no Number 50.

A simple mu no not being prefixed by li would be used to denote 50 objects or events.