From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search

A proposal by la Ctefá'o to re-define fi'o based on xoi:

This is all very much a work-in-progress. An implicit La Ctefà'o pe'isai/pe'icai selectively applies throughout.

Old Definition

broda fi'o brode ko'a broda .i joi ko'a brode

New Definition:

broda fi'o brode ko'a broda xoi ke'a zo'u ko'a brode

Desired Definition: None! No fi'o! No fe'u!

La Ctefà'o hopes that all sumtcita and their interactions will one day be well defined.

With the experimential new-zi'e in front of any sumtcita or of fi'o itself, {zi'e fi'o broda} the scope simply becomes that of (new-)soi instead.

La Ctefà'o does not consider any clause containing a ke'a to be fully expandable (in that the ke'a simply vanishes), and only asks for any users of the xoi-based-sumtcita that the "ke'a" inside the adverbial clause is considered to fully represent the outer bridi (including relevant NU), regardless of how you desire to expand it.

But in other words, fi'o in this idea is now a short-hand form of xoi ((new-)soi, with new-zi'e). If you need to be very specific with how the ke'a relates inside the xoi, then use xoi directly instead. Do not use fi'o if the intended relation is not easily grasped/glorked from ke'a zo'u! And if you really do need the .i joi semantics for something then simply use .i joi directly instead.

So now that we have the sumtcita based on xoi-based-fi'o, why not just define all of them using xoi directly instead of vague fi'o-definitions!

NA (ref


{na broda} -> {na zo'e broda} -> {broda xoi zo'e natfe ke'a}

{broda na ko'a} -> {broda xoi ko'a natfe ke'a}


{ja'a broda} -> {ja'a zo'e broda} -> {broda xoi zo'e tolna'e ke'a}

{broda ja'a ko'a} -> {broda xoi ko'a tolna'e ke'a}

natfe - x1 (du'u) contradicts/denies/refutes/negates x2 (du'u) under rules/logic x3.

tolna'e - x1 (du'u) confirms/corroborates/verifies(/affirms) x2 (du'u) under rules/logic x3

La Ctefà'o is of the opinion that any bridi always has a NA attached to it, explicit or implicit, defaulting to ja'a if implicit. La Ctefà'o does not consider it logical, sane or useful for a human language that any bridi should ever hang in a "truth-vacuum" between absolute truth or absolute untruth. Rather, Ctefà'o prefers pragmatic truth, which is the only kind of truth useful to a human language (expressing non-absolute human truths), to be the norm. The implementation above relies on this "pragmatic" truth by claiming that a bridi is either true or false, simply because something (unspecified by default) makes it so. This is nothing you need to accept to use this definition of the NA tags (and you can still always claim absolute truth/untruth whenever you want to with jetnu and appropriate x2/ma'i).

PU (As single tenses only. Not "hardcoded" to "nau" to allow greater expression)

pu: "Bridi was in the past of something"

{pu broda} -> {pu zo'e broda} -> {broda xoi ke'a purci zo'e}

{broda pu ko'a} -> {broda xoi ke'a purci ko'a}

ca: "Bridi was simultaneous with something"

{ca broda} -> {ca zo'e broda} -> {broda xoi ke'a cabna zo'e}

{broda ca ko'a} -> {broda xoi ke'a cabna ko'a}

ba: "Bridi is in the future of something"

{ba broda} -> {ba zo'e broda} -> {broda xoi ke'a balvi zo'e}

{broda ba ko'a} -> {broda xoi ke'a balvi ko'a}

FAhA (Spatial Locations of the Bridi)

{.i broda bu'u ko'a} -> {.i broda xoi ke'a zvati ko'a} --- At (Location)

{.i broda ca'u ko'a} -> (.i broda xoi ke'a crane ko'a} --- In Front Of

{.i broda ti'a ko'a} -> (.i broda xoi ke'a trixe ko'a} --- Behind

{.i broda zu'a ko'a} -> (.i broda xoi ke'a zunle ko'a} --- On The Left Of

{.i broda ri'u ko'a} -> (.i broda xoi ke'a pritu ko'a} --- On The Right Of

{.i broda ga'u ko'a} -> (.i broda xoi ke'a gapru ko'a} --- Above

{.i broda ni'a ko'a} -> (.i broda xoi ke'a cnita ko'a} --- Below

{.i broda ne'i ko'a} -> (.i broda xoi ke'a nenri ko'a} --- Within

{.i broda ru'u ko'a} -> (.i broda xoi ke'a sruri ko'a} --- Around

{.i broda pa'o ko'a} -> (.i broda xoi ke'a pagre ko'a} --- Through

{.i broda ne'a ko'a} -> (.i broda xoi ke'a zvajbi ko'a} --- Near

{.i broda te'e ko'a} -> (.i broda xoi ke'a koizva ko'a} --- Bordering

{.i broda re'o ko'a} -> (.i broda xoi ke'a lamji ko'a} --- Adjacent to

{.i broda fa'a ko'a} -> (.i broda xoi ke'a se farna ko'a} --- Direction or Orientation Towards (Does not imply movement)

{.i broda to'o ko'a} -> (.i broda xoi ke'a se to'e farna ko'a} --- Direction or Orientation From (Does not imply movement)

{.i broda zo'i ko'a} -> (.i broda xoi ke'a to'e ragve ko'a} --- This Side Of

{.i broda ze'o ko'a} -> (.i broda xoi ke'a ragve ko'a} --- Across

{.i broda zo'a ko'a} -> (.i broda xoi ke'a korzvajbi ko'a} --- Tangential To / Alongside of

{.i broda be'a ko'a} -> (.i broda xoi ke'a berti ko'a} --- North Of

{.i broda ne'u ko'a} -> (.i broda xoi ke'a snanu ko'a} --- South Of

{.i broda du'a ko'a} -> (.i broda xoi ke'a stuna ko'a} --- East Of

{.i broda vu'a ko'a} -> (.i broda xoi ke'a stici ko'a} --- West Of

Proposing "korzvajbi" (x1 is located alongside of / tangentially located to x2) to better reflect the semantics of "zo'a".

"zo'a" is officially defined with 2 different definitions ("lamgre" as well as "no'e ragve") but I believe "korzvajbi" to be more accurate.