Lesson 5. Modal terms, «da», their relative position#

How do modal terms refer to the relation?#

Some modal terms, like those that describe time (tense), connect the current relation with the one in the argument after them:

mi cadzu ca le nu le cipni cu vofli I walk when the birds fly.

cadzu

… walks

le cipni

the bird/birds

vofli

… flies to …

mi pu cadzu fa'a le rirxe I walked towards the river.

mi pu cadzu se ka'a le rirxe I walked to the river.

se ka'a

coming to …

fa'a

directly towards …

Modal terms don't remove ordered places (fa, fe, fi, fo, fu) from the relation:

mi klama se ka'a le rirxe le dinju mi klama fe le rirxe .e le dinju I go to a river, to a house.

In the first example, se ka'a connects le rirxe and then the second place of klama follows, being filled with le dinju. It's the same as just filling the second place of klama two times, connecting them with .e — and.

However, se ka'a is useful when applied to other relations like cadzu in a previous example.

le prenu pu cadzu tai le nu ri bevri su'o da poi tilju The person walked as if he was carrying something heavy.

bevri

$x_1$ carries $x_2$

tai

modal term: like …, resembling …

Using «ne» + term. «se mau» — ‘more than …’#

mi ne se mau do cu melbi I am prettier than you.

se mau

term from se zmadu: more than; the relation itself describes the comparison

This example is similar to

mi zmadu do le ka melbi I exceed you in prettiness.

In other words, the main relation melbi is similar to the third place of zmadu, which specifies the comparison criteria. Two more examples:

mi prami do ne se mau la .doris. I love you more than Doris.

mi ne se mau la .doris. cu prami do I love you more than Doris does. I love you more than Doris loves you. I (more than Doris) love you.

More examples:

mi nelci le'e pesxu ne se mau le'e jisra I like jam more than juice.

pesxu

… is jam

le'e pesxu cu zmadu le'e jisra le ka mi nelci I like jam more than juice. Jam exceeds juice in how much I like it.

And now an interesting sentence:

Bob likes Betty more than Mary.

It can mean two different things in English!

1. Bob likes Betty and he likes Mary less.
2. Bob likes Betty but Mary likes Betty too, though not as much as Bob does!

Do we compare Betty with Mary in how Bob likes them?

Or instead we compare Bob with Mary in how they like Betty?

English is ambiguous in this regard.

In Lojban, we can differentiate the two meanings by attaching se mau to suitable arguments:

la .bob. ne se mau la .maris. cu nelci la .betis. Bob (compared to Mary) likes Betty more. Mary likes Betty less. Bob likes Betty more than Mary.

la .bob. cu nelci la .betis. ne se mau la .maris. Bob likes Betty, and he like Mary less. Bob likes Betty more than Mary.

Comparisons: ‘equal’, ‘the same’#

mi dunli le mensi be mi le ka mitre .i ku'i mi na ku du le mensi I am as big as my sister. But I'm not her. I equal the sister of me in meters. But I am not identical to the sister._

dunli

$x_1$ (any type) is equal to $x_2$ (any type) in $x_3$ (property of $x_1$ and $x_2$ with kau)

mitre

$x_1$ is $x_2$ meters long

du

$x_1$ (any type) is identical to $x_2$ (any type)

dunli compares two places for a single property, while du compares for identity. My sister and I are the same height, but we are not the same person. Clark Kent and Superman have different admirers, but they are the same person.

The same goes for these two verbs:

mi frica do le ka nelci ma kau We differ from each other in what we like. I differ from you in liking what.

le drata be mi cu kakne le ka sidju Someone other than me is able to help.

frica

$x_1$ (any type) differs from $x_2$ (any type) in $x_3$ (property of $x_1$ and $x_2$ with kau)

drata

$x_1$ (any type) is not the same as $x_2$ (any type)

The concept of ‘only’#

mi .e no le pendo be mi cu nelci le'e badna I and none of my friends like bananas. Among my friends I'm the only one who likes bananas.

The concept of not only is similarly expressed:

mi .e le su'o pendo be mi cu nelci le'e badna It's not just me who likes bananas among my friends. I and some of my friends like bananas.

‘Most’, ‘many’ and ‘too much’#

Words like most and many are also numbers in Lojban:

Some examples:

su'e re no le prenu ba klama No more than 20 of the people will come.

su'o pa le prenu cu prami do At least one person loves you.

‘never’ — «no roi», ‘always’ — «ro roi»#

Terms specifying the number of times:

• no roi = never
• pa roi = once
• re roi = twice
• ci roi = thrice

…

• so'i roi = many times
• so'u roi = a few times
• du'e roi = too many times
• ro roi = always

mi du'e roi klama le zarci I go to the market too often.

zarci

$x_1$ is a market

mi pu re roi klama le zarci I went to the market twice.

Without pu, the construct re roi may mean that I went to the market once but the second time I will be there will only happen in the future. These time-related particles can be used with an argument after them:

mi klama ti pa roi le jeftu I come here once a week.

‘for the first time’ — «pa re'u», ‘for the last time’ — «ro re'u»#

• pa re'u = for the first time
• re re'u = for the second time

…

• za'u re'u = again
• ro re'u = for the last time

The time-related particle re'u works like roi, but tells the number of iterations for which the event occurs.

Compare:

mi pa roi klama le muzga I visited the museum once.

mi pa re'u klama le muzga I visited the museum for the first time.

mi za'u roi klama le muzga I visited the museum more times.

mi za'u re'u klama le muzga I visited the museum again.

mi za'u pa roi klama le muzga I visited the museum more than once.

mi za'u pa re'u klama le muzga I visited the museum not for the first time (maybe for the second/third etc.))

vitke

to visit (somebody or something)

Note the difference between:

za'u re'u

again, not for the first time

re re'u

for the second time (same here, no context is needed, and even the exact number of times is given)

Modal particles: their location within a relation#

le nu tcidu kei ca cu nandu Reading is now difficult.

ca ku le nu tcidu cu nandu Now reading is difficult.

Bare terms without arguments after them can be moved around the sentence by adding ku after them.

ku prevents the following argument terms from attaching to such terms. Compare:

ca le nu tcidu cu nandu When reading, it's difficult.

Here are several places where modal particles can go.

• Modal term modifies the relation to the right of it:

ca ku mi citka Now I eat.

— here the term is labeled with a word ku as being completed.

ca le cabdei mi citka Today I eat.

— here the term has an argument after it.

mi ca citka I now eat.

— here the modal particle is a part of the main relation construct and without an argument.

• Modal term is applied to the whole relation:

mi citka ca I eat now.

— here the modal term at the end of the relation.

Joining statements with modals#

mi pinxe le jisra ca le nu do co'i klama le zdani I am drinking the juice when you come home.

mi pinxe le jisra .i ca bo do co'i klama le zdani I am drinking the juice, and at the same time you come home.

The two examples convey the same meaning. The second option is mostly used when any of the original relations sound bulky.

Another use is to move modal terms out of scope of other modal terms:

mi na ku te vecnu ki'u le nu kargu It's not true that I buy because it's expensive.

In this example, one might suppose that I only buy things if they are expensive. However, that's not the case.

Here, na ku negates that I buy things because they are expensive. na ku is applied to the whole relation, thus it "covers" ki'u.

mi na ku te vecnu .i ki'u bo kargu I don't buy. It's because it's expensive.

In this case, I don't buy things. Why? Because they are expensive. Maybe I prefer only cheap things.

Here, ki'u is placed in another sentence. Thus, na ku doesn't scope over it.

Both examples could be translated as I don't buy because it's expensive. However, they mean different things.

A special rule is for using .i ba bo and .i pu bo. Compare:

mi cadzu pu le nu mi citka I walk before I eat.

mi cadzu .i ba bo mi citka I walk, and then I eat.

.i ba bo means afterwards, then. The sentence after .i ba bo refers to something that took place later than what took place in the relation before.

pu is changed into ba, and vice versa. This special rule for Lojban was made by analogy of natural languages. So you just have to remember this special behavior of these two words.

Existing things, ‘there are …’#

There are actually three words in the da series: da, de, and di. We use them when referring to different objects in one discourse:

ci le mlatu cu citka re le finpe There are three cats, there are two fishes for each cat, and each cat eats two fishes.

If you need more such words in one discourse add a suffix xi to them and then any number (which we can call an index). Thus,

• da xi pa is the same as simple da,
• da xi re is the same as de,
• da xi ci is the same as di
• da xi vo is the fourth "something" and so on …

Topic and comment. «zo'u»#

Sometimes it is useful to show the topic of a relation and then say a comment about it:

le'e finpe zo'u mi nelci le'e salmone As for fish I like salmon.

salmone

… is a salmon

zo'u

ends the topic and starts the comment of the relation

zo'u is more useful when a pronoun like da is defined in the topic and then used in the comment:

su'o da zo'u mi viska da There is a thing such that I see it.

ro da poi gerku zo'u mi nelci da For each thing that is a dog: I like it. I like all dogs.

da de zo'u da viska de There is da and de such that da sees de.

The two pronouns da and de indicate that there are two things which stand in the relationship that one sees the other. It might be the case that the supposed two things are really just a single thing that loves itself: nothing in the sentence rules out that interpretation, which is why the colloquial translation does not say Somebody sees somebody else. The things referred to by different pronouns of da series may be different or the same.

It is perfectly okay for these pronouns to appear more than once in the same sentence:

da zo'u da prami da There is da such that da loves da. There is someone who loves himself/herself.

It is not necessary for a pronoun to be the direct argument of the relation:

da zo'u le gerku pe da cu viska mi There is da such that the dog of them sees me. Somebody's dog sees me.

‘any’ and ‘some’ in examples#

The words any and some, along with their derivatives, have many meanings in English. We should be careful when translating the intended meaning:

Translating as da:

• some: something unspecified:

da pu klama .i je ko smadi le du'u da me ma kau Somebody came. Guess who it was.

mi pu tirna da .i je mi fliba le ka jimpe le du'u da mo kau I heard something, but I fail to understand what it was.

• some in questions turns into anything, anybody; in Lojban, it's still da:

xu su'o da pu klama Did anybody come?

• some when using commands, requests, or suggestions:

.e'u mi'o pilno su'o da poi drata Let's try something else. Let's try other things.

.e'u mi'o troci bu'u su'o da poi drata Let's try somewhere else.

• any can be used in inner relations:

mi rivbi le ka jdice da I avoided taking any decision.

Like in relations inside modal terms:

ba le nu do zgana da kei ko klama After you notice anything, come!

• Scope: any is used in English when negating, while Lojban uses na ku but then still da:

mi na ku viska su'o da poi prenu I don't see anybody.

• any is used when making no distinction among members we talk about:

.au nai mi tavla su'o da poi na ku slabu mi I don't want to talk to just anybody.

• Scope: Negation should be used in an appropriate relation, as shown below:

mi jinvi le du'u na ku da jimpe I don't think that anybody understands.

This can be rephrased as:

mi jinvi le du'u no da jimpe I think that nobody understands.

• In comparisons, every is turned into any and translated as ro da:

do zmadu ro da le ka se canlu You are taller than anybody. You exceed everybody in size.

• When providing choice, any is used and translated as ro da:

ro da poi do nelci zo'u .e'a do citka da You may eat anything you like. For everything that you like, I allow you to eat it.

• For terms like anyone and somewhere:

.e'u mi'o troci bu'u su'o da poi drata Let's try somewhere else.

Here, su'o da poi drata means any other thing or things, place or places. The number of such places is not specified, although any such place might fit.

To say any place but only one place, use:

.e'u mi'o troci bu'u pa da poi drata Let's try at another place.

• Translating any as le'e in generic statements:

le'e gerku cu se tuple le vo da Any dog has four legs. Dogs are expected to have four legs.

• Using le when describing specific objects, places, or events:

le drata zo'u .e'u mi'o pilno ri The other thing, let's use it.

le drata stuzi zo'u .e'u mi'o troci bu'u ri The other place, let's try there.

Resume: which constructs does scope affect?#

Scope is created only by:

• borders of relations,
• modal terms and modal particles of the main relation construct,
• argument terms starting with numbers (like pa le prenu — one of the persons).

da, de, di if used without a prenex and without an explicit number in front are meant to mean su'o da, su'o de, su'o di and thus also create scope.

Thus, the relative order of such constructs changes the meaning:

pa le prenu ca ku zvati There is one person who is now present.

ca ku pa le prenu ca zvati Now there is one person.

Scope isn't relevant for relation constructs and for arguments starting with le (like le prenu or le re prenu). Both these sentences mean the same:

le prenu ca ku zvati le zdani ca ku le prenu cu zvati le zdani ca ku fe le zdani fa le prenu cu zvati People are now present.

Modal term scopes from where it's used to the right of the relation until the relation and all its inner relations (if present) end.

Here, ki'u le nu kargu is under the scope of na ku:

na ku mi te vecnu ki'u le nu kargu It's not true that: I buy because it's expensive.

But here, ki'u le ne kargu is not under the scope of na ku. ki'u is applied to the whole previous sentence, including na ku:

mi na ku te vecnu .i ki'u bo kargu I don't buy. It's because it's expensive.