# The Complete Lojban Language (1997)/Chapter 5
## Lojban content words: brivla

At the center, logically and often physically, of every Lojban bridi is one or more words which constitute the selbri. A bridi expresses a relationship between things: the selbri specifies which relationship is referred to. The difference between:
and
lies in the different selbri.
The simplest kind of selbri is a single Lojban content word: a brivla. There are three different varieties of brivla: those which are built into the language (the gismu), those which are derived from combinations of the gismu (the lujvo), and those which are taken (usually in a modified form) from other languages (the fu'ivla). In addition, there are a few cmavo that can act like brivla; these are mentioned in Section 9, and discussed in full in Chapter 7.
For the purposes of this chapter, however, all brivla are alike. For example,
illustrate the three types of brivla (gismu, lujvo, and fu'ivla respectively), but in each case the selbri is composed of a single word whose meaning can be learned independent of its origins.
The remainder of this chapter will mostly use gismu as example brivla, because they are short. However, it is important to keep in mind that wherever a gismu appears, it could be replaced by any other kind of brivla.

## Simple tanru

Beyond the single brivla, a selbri may consist of two brivla placed together. When a selbri is built in this way from more than one brivla, it is called a tanru, a word with no single English equivalent. The nearest analogue to tanru in English are combinations of two nouns such as “lemon tree”. There is no way to tell just by looking at the phrase “lemon tree” exactly what it refers to, even if you know the meanings of “lemon” and “tree” by themselves. As English-speakers, we must simply know that it refers to “a tree which bears lemons as fruits”. A person who didn’t know English very well might think of it as analogous to “brown tree” and wonder, “What kind of tree is lemon-colored?”
In Lojban, tanru are also used for the same purposes as English adjective-noun combinations like “big boy” and adverb-verb combinations like “quickly run”. This is a consequence of Lojban not having any such categories as “noun”, “verb”, “adjective”, or “adverb”. English words belonging to any of these categories are translated by simple brivla in Lojban. Here are some examples of tanru:
Note that “pelnimre” is a lujvo for “lemon”; it is derived from the gismu “pelxu”, yellow, and “nimre”, citrus. Note also that “sutra” can mean “fast/quick” or “quickly” depending on its use:
shows “sutra” used to translate an adjective, whereas in Example 2.3 it is translating an adverb. (Another correct translation of Example 2.3, however, would be “I am a quick runner”.)
There are special Lojban terms for the two components of a tanru, derived from the place structure of the word “tanru”. The first component is called the “seltau”, and the second component is called the “tertau”.
The most important rule for use in interpreting tanru is that the tertau carries the primary meaning. A “pelnimre tricu” is primarily a tree, and only secondarily is it connected with lemons in some way. For this reason, an alternative translation of Example 2.1 would be:
This “type of” relationship between the components of a tanru is fundamental to the tanru concept.
We may also say that the seltau modifies the meaning of the tertau:
would be another possible translation of Example 2.1. In the same way, a more explicit translation of Example 2.2 might be:
This “way that boys are big” would be quite different from the way in which elephants are big; big-for-a-boy is small-for-an-elephant.
All tanru are ambiguous semantically. Possible translations of:
include:
In each case the object referred to is a “goer type of table”, but the ambiguous “type of” relationship can mean one of many things. A speaker who uses tanru (and pragmatically all speakers must) takes the risk of being misunderstood. Using tanru is convenient because they are short and expressive; the circumlocution required to squeeze out all ambiguity can require too much effort.
No general theory covering the meaning of all possible tanru exists; probably no such theory can exist. However, some regularities obviously do exist:
are parallel tanru, in the sense that the relationship between “barda” and “prenu” is the same as that between “cmalu” and “prenu”. Section 14 and Section 15 contain a partial listing of some types of tanru, with examples.

## Three-part tanru grouping with “bo”

The following cmavo is discussed in this section:
Consider the English sentence:
What does it mean? Two possible readings are:
This ambiguity is quite different from the simple tanru ambiguity described in Section 2. We understand that “girls’ school” means “a school where girls are the students”, and not “a school where girls are the teachers” or “a school which is a girl” (!). Likewise, we understand that “little girl” means “girl who is small”. This is an ambiguity of grouping. Is “girls’ school” to be taken as a unit, with “little” specifying the type of girls’ school? Or is “little girl” to be taken as a unit, specifying the type of school? In English speech, different tones of voice, or exaggerated speech rhythm showing the grouping, are used to make the distinction; English writing usually leaves it unrepresented.
Lojban makes no use of tones of voice for any purpose; explicit words are used to do the work. The cmavo “bo” (which belongs to selma'o BO) may be placed between the two brivla which are most closely associated. Therefore, a Lojban translation of Example 3.2 would be:
Example 3.3 might be translated:
The “bo” is represented in the literal translation by a hyphen because in written English a hyphen is sometimes used for the same purpose: “a big dog-catcher” would be quite different from a “big-dog catcher” (presumably someone who catches only big dogs).
Analysis of Example 3.4 and Example 3.5 reveals a tanru nested within a tanru. In Example 3.4, the main tanru has a seltau of “cmalu” and a tertau of “nixli bo ckule”; the tertau is itself a tanru with “nixli” as the seltau and “ckule” as the tertau. In Example 3.5, on the other hand, the seltau is “cmalu bo nixli” (itself a tanru), whereas the tertau is “ckule”. This structure of tanru nested within tanru forms the basis for all the more complex types of selbri that will be explained below.
What about Example 3.6? What does it mean?
The rules of Lojban do not leave this sentence ambiguous, as the rules of English do with Example 3.1. The choice made by the language designers is to say that Example 3.6 means the same as Example 3.5. This is true no matter what three brivla are used: the leftmost two are always grouped together. This rule is called the “left-grouping rule”. Left-grouping in seemingly ambiguous structures is quite common — though not universal — in other contexts in Lojban.
Another way to express the English meaning of Example 3.4 and Example 3.5, using parentheses to mark grouping, is:
Because “type-of” is implicit in the Lojban tanru form, it has no Lojban equivalent.
Note: It is perfectly legal, though pointless, to insert “bo” into a simple tanru:
is a legal Lojban bridi that means exactly the same thing as Example 2.8, and is ambiguous in exactly the same ways. The cmavo “bo” serves only to resolve grouping ambiguity: it says nothing about the more basic ambiguity present in all tanru.

## Complex tanru grouping

If one element of a tanru can be another tanru, why not both elements?
In Example 4.1, the selbri is a tanru with seltau “mutce bo barda” and tertau “gerku bo kavbu”. It is worth emphasizing once again that this tanru has the same fundamental ambiguity as all other Lojban tanru: the sense in which the “dog type-of capturer” is said to be “very type-of large” is not precisely specified. Presumably it is his body which is large, but theoretically it could be one of his other properties.
We will now justify the title of this chapter by exploring the ramifications of the phrase “pretty little girls’ school”, an expansion of the tanru used in Section 3 to four brivla. (Although this example has been used in the Loglan Project almost since the beginning — it first appeared in Quine’s book (1960) — it is actually a mediocre example because of the ambiguity of English “pretty”; it can mean “beautiful”, the sense intended here, or it can mean “very”. Lojban “melbi” is not subject to this ambiguity: it means only “beautiful”.)
Here are four ways to group this phrase:
Example 4.5 uses a construction which has not been seen before: “cmalu bo nixli bo ckule”, with two consecutive uses of “bo” between brivla. The rule for multiple “bo” constructions is the opposite of the rule when no “bo” is present at all: the last two are grouped together. Not surprisingly, this is called the “right-grouping rule”, and it is associated with every use of “bo” in the language. Therefore,
means the same as Example 3.4, not Example 3.5. This rule may seem peculiar at first, but one of its consequences is that “bo” is never necessary between the first two elements of any of the complex tanru presented so far: all of Examples 4.2 through 4.5 could have “bo” inserted between “melbi” and “cmalu” with no change in meaning.

## Complex tanru with “ke” and “ke'e”

The following cmavo are discussed in this section:
There is, in fact, a fifth grouping of “pretty little girls’ school” that cannot be expressed with the resources explained so far. To handle it, we must introduce the grouping parentheses cmavo, “ke” and “ke'e” (belonging to selma'o KE and KEhE respectively). Any portion of a selbri sandwiched between these two cmavo is taken to be a single tanru component, independently of what is adjacent to it. Thus, Example 4.2 can be rewritten in any of the following ways:
Even more versions could be created simply by placing any number of “ke” cmavo at the beginning of the selbri, and a like number of “ke'e” cmavo at its end. Obviously, all of these are a waste of breath once the left-grouping rule has been grasped. However, the following is equivalent to Example 4.4 and may be easier to understand:
Likewise, a “ke” and “ke'e” version of Example 4.3 would be:
The final “ke'e” is given in square brackets here to indicate that it can be elided. It is always possible to elide “ke'e” at the end of the selbri, making Example 5.5 as terse as Example 4.3.
Now how about that fifth grouping? It is
Example 5.6 is distinctly different in meaning from any of Examples 4.2 through 4.5. Note that within the “ke ... ke'e” parentheses, the left-grouping rule is applied to “cmalu nixli ckule”.
It is perfectly all right to mix “bo” and “ke ... ke'e” in a single selbri. For instance, Example 4.5, which in pure “ke ... ke'e” form is
can equivalently be expressed as:
and in many other different forms as well.

## Logical connection within tanru

The following cmavo are discussed in this section:
Consider the English phrase “big red dog”. How shall this be rendered as a Lojban tanru? The naive attempt:
will not do, as it means a dog whose redness is big, in whatever way redness might be described as “big”. Nor is
much better. After all, the straightforward understanding of the English phrase is that the dog is big as compared with other dogs, not merely as compared with other red dogs. In fact, the bigness and redness are independent properties of the dog, and only obscure rules of English adjective ordering prevent us from saying “red big dog”.
The Lojban approach to this problem is to introduce the cmavo “je”, which is one of the many equivalents of English “and”. A big red dog is one that is both big and red, and we can say:
Of course,
is equally satisfactory and means the same thing. As these examples indicate, joining two brivla with “je” makes them a unit for tanru purposes. However, explicit grouping with “bo” or “ke ... ke'e” associates brivla more closely than “je” does:
With no grouping indicators, we get:
which again raises the question of Example 6.1: what does “biggish-red” mean?
Unlike “bo” and “ke ... ke'e”, “je” is useful as well as merely legal within simple tanru. It may be used to partly resolve the ambiguity of simple tanru:
definitely refers to something which is both blue and is a house, and not to any of the other possible interpretations of simple “blanu zdani”. Furthermore, “blanu zdani” refers to something which is blue in the way that houses are blue; “blanu je zdani” has no such implication — the blueness of a “blanu je zdani” is independent of its houseness.
With the addition of “je”, many more versions of “pretty little girls’ school” are made possible: see Section 16 for a complete list.
A subtle point in the semantics of tanru like Example 6.3 needs special elucidation. There are at least two possible interpretations of:
It can be understood as:
or as:
The interpretation specified by Example 6.9 treats the tanru as a sort of abbreviation for:
whereas the interpretation specified by Example 6.10 does not. This is a kind of semantic ambiguity for which Lojban does not compel a firm resolution. The way in which the school is said to be of type “beautiful and girl” may entail that it is separately a beautiful school and a girls’ school; but the alternative interpretation, that the members of the school are beautiful and girls, is also possible. Still another interpretation is:
so while the logical connectives help to resolve the meaning of tanru, they by no means compel a single meaning in and of themselves.
In general, logical connectives within tanru cannot undergo the formal manipulations that are possible with the related logical connectives that exist outside tanru; see Chapter 14 for further details.
The logical connective “je” is only one of the fourteen logical connectives that Lojban provides. Here are a few examples of some of the others:
In Example 6.13, “ja” is grammatically equivalent to “je” but means “or” (more precisely, “and/or”). Likewise, “naja” means “only if” in Example 6.14, “jo” means “if and only if” in Example 6.15, and “ju” means “whether or not” in Example 6.16.
Now consider the following example:
which illustrates a new grammatical feature: the use of both “ja” and “bo” between tanru components. The two cmavo combine to form a compound whose meaning is that of “ja” but which groups more closely; “jabo” is to “ja” as plain “bo” is to no cmavo at all. However, both “ja” and “jabo” group less closely than “bo” does:
An alternative form of Example 6.17 is:
In addition to the logical connectives, there are also a variety of non-logical connectives, grammatically equivalent to the logical ones. The only one with a well-understood meaning in tanru contexts is “joi”, which is the kind of “and” that denotes a mixture:
The ball described is neither solely red nor solely blue, but probably striped or in some other way exhibiting a combination of the two colors. Example 6.20 is distinct from:
which would be a ball whose color is some sort of purple tending toward red, since “xunre” is the more important of the two components. On the other hand,
is probably self-contradictory, seeming to claim that the ball is independently both blue and red at the same time, although some sensible interpretation may exist.
Finally, just as English “and” has the variant form “both ... and”, so “je” between tanru components has the variant form “gu'e ... gi”, where “gu'e” is placed before the components and “gi” between them:
is equivalent in meaning to Example 6.3. For each logical connective related to “je”, there is a corresponding connective related to “gu'e ... gi” in a systematic way.
The portion of a “gu'e ... gi” construction before the “gi” is a full selbri, and may use any of the selbri resources including “je” logical connections. After the “gi”, logical connections are taken to be wider in scope than the “gu'e ... gi”, which has in effect the same scope as “bo”:
leaves “mlatu” outside the “gu'e ... gi” construction. The scope of the “gi” arm extends only to a single brivla or to two or more brivla connected with “bo” or “ke ... ke'e”.

## Linked sumti: “be–bei–be'o”

The following cmavo are discussed in this section:
The question of the place structures of selbri has been glossed over so far. This chapter does not attempt to treat place structure issues in detail; they are discussed in Chapter 9. One grammatical structure related to places belongs here, however. In simple sentences such as Example 1.1, the place structure of the selbri is simply the defined place structure of the gismu “mamta”. What about more complex selbri?
For tanru, the place structure rule is simple: the place structure of a tanru is always the place structure of its tertau. Thus, the place structure of “blanu zdani” is that of “zdani”: the x1 place is a house or nest, and the x2 place is its occupants.
What about the places of “blanu”? Is there any way to get them into the act? In fact, “blanu” has only one place, and this is merged, as it were, with the x1 place of “zdani”. It is whatever is in the x1 place that is being characterized as blue-for-a-house. But if we replace “blanu” with “xamgu”, we get:
Since “xamgu” has three places (x1, the good thing; x2, the person for whom it is good; and x3, the standard of goodness), Example 7.1necessarily omits information about the last two: there is no room for them. Room can be made, however!
Here, the gismu “xamgu” has been followed by the cmavo “be” (of selma'o BE), which signals that one or more sumti follows. These sumti are not part of the overall bridi place structure, but fill the places of the brivla they are attached to, starting with x2. If there is more than one sumti, they are separated by the cmavo “bei” (of selma'o BEI), and the list of sumti is terminated by the elidable terminator “be'o” (of selma'o BEhO).
Grammatically, a brivla with sumti linked to it in this fashion plays the same role in tanru as a simple brivla. To illustrate, here is a fully fleshed-out version of Example 3.4, with all places filled in:
Here the three places of “cmalu”, the three of “nixli”, and the four of “ckule” are fully specified. Since the places of “ckule” are the places of the bridi as a whole, it was not necessary to link the sumti which follow “ckule”. It would have been legal to do so, however:
means the same as
No matter how complex a tanru gets, the last brivla always dictates the place structure: the place structure of
is simply that of “ckule”. (The sole exception to this rule is discussed in Section 8.)
It is possible to precede linked sumti by the place structure ordering tags “fe”, “fi”, “fo”, and “fu” (of selma'o FA, discussed further in Chapter 9), which serve to explicitly specify the x2, x3, x4, and x5 places respectively. Normally, the place following the “be” is the x2 place and the other places follow in order. If it seems convenient to change the order, however, it can be accomplished as follows:
which is equivalent in meaning to Example 7.2. Note that the order of “be”, “bei”, and “be'o” does not change; only the inserted “fi” tells us that “mi” is the x3 place (and correspondingly, the inserted “fe” tells us that “do” is the x2 place). Changing the order of sumti is often done to match the order of another language, or for emphasis or rhythm.
Of course, using FA cmavo makes it easy to specify one place while omitting a previous place:
Similarly, sumti labeled by modal or tense tags can be inserted into strings of linked sumti just as they can into bridi:
The meaning of Example 7.9 is slightly different from:
See discussions in Chapter 9 of modals and in Chapter 10 of tenses for more explanations.
The terminator “be'o” is almost always elidable: however, if the selbri belongs to a description, then a relative clause following it will attach to the last linked sumti unless “be'o” is used, in which case it will attach to the outer description:
(Relative clauses are explained in Chapter 8.)
In other cases, however, “be'o” cannot be elided if “ku” has also been elided:
requires either “ku” or “be'o”, and since there is only one occurrence of “be”, the “be'o” must match it, whereas it may be confusing which occurrence of “le” the “ku” terminates (in fact the second one is correct).

## Inversion of tanru: “co”

The following cmavo is discussed in this section:
The standard order of Lojban tanru, whereby the modifier precedes what it modifies, is very natural to English-speakers: we talk of “blue houses”, not of “houses blue”. In other languages, however, such matters are differently arranged, and Lojban supports this reverse order (tertau before seltau) by inserting the particle “co”. Example 8.1 and Example 8.2 mean exactly the same thing:
This change is called “tanru inversion”. In tanru inversion, the element before “co” (“zdani” in Example 8.2) is the tertau, and the element following “co” (“blanu”) in Example 8.2) is the seltau.
The meaning, and more specifically, the place structure, of a tanru is not affected by inversion: the place structure of “zdani co blanu” is still that of “zdani”. However, the existence of inversion in a selbri has a very special effect on any sumti which follow that selbri. Instead of being interpreted as filling places of the selbri, they actually fill the places (starting with x2) of the seltau. In Section 7, we saw how to fill interior places with “be ... bei ... be'o”, and in fact Example 8.3 and Example 8.4 have the same meaning:
Example 8.4 is a less deeply nested construction, requiring fewer cmavo. As a result it is probably easier to understand.
Note that in Lojban “trying to go” is expressed using “troci” as the tertau. The reason is that “trying to go” is a “going type of trying”, not a “trying type of going”. The trying is more fundamental than the going — if the trying fails, we may not have a going at all.
Any sumti which precede a selbri with an inverted tanru fill the places of the selbri (i.e., the places of the tertau) in the ordinary way. In Example 8.4, “mi” fills the x1 place of “troci co klama”, which is the x1 place of “troci”. The other places of the selbri remain unfilled. The trailing sumti “le zarci” and “le zdani” do not occupy selbri places, despite appearances.
As a result, the regular mechanisms (involving selma'o VOhA and GOhI, explained in Chapter 7) for referring to individual sumti of a bridi cannot refer to any of the trailing places of Example 8.4, because they are not really “sumti of the bridi” at all.
When inverting a more complex tanru, it is possible to invert it only at the most general modifier-modified pair. The only possible inversion of Example 3.4, for instance, is:
Note that the “bo” of Example 3.4 is optional in Example 8.5, because “co” groups more loosely than any other cmavo used in tanru, including none at all. Not even “ke ... ke'e” parentheses can encompass a “co”:
In Example 8.6, the “ke'e” is automatically inserted before the “co” rather than at its usual place at the end of the selbri. As a result, there is a simple and mechanical rule for removing “co” from any selbri: change “A co B” to “ke B ke'e A”. (At the same time, any sumti following the selbri must be transformed into “be ... bei ... be'o” form and attached following B.) Therefore,
means the same as:
Multiple “co” cmavo can appear within a selbri, indicating multiple inversions: a right-grouping rule is employed, as for “bo”. The above rule can be applied to interpret such selbri, but all “co” cmavo must be removed simultaneously:
becomes formally
which by the left-grouping rule is simply
As stated above, the selbri places, other than the first, of
cannot be filled by placing sumti after the selbri, because any sumti in that position fill the places of “sutra”, the seltau. However, the tertau places (which means in effect the selbri places) can be filled with “be”:

## Other kinds of simple selbr

The following cmavo are discussed in this section:
So far we have only discussed brivla and tanru built up from brivla as possible selbri. In fact, there are a few other constructions in Lojban which are grammatically equivalent to brivla: they can be used either directly as selbri, or as components in tanru. Some of these types of simple selbri are discussed at length in Chapter 7, Chapter 11, and Chapter 18; but for completeness these types are mentioned here with a brief explanation and an example of their use in selbri.
The cmavo of selma'o GOhA (with one exception) serve as pro-bridi, providing a reference to the content of other bridi; none of them has a fixed meaning. The most commonly used member of GOhA is probably “go'i”, which amounts to a repetition of the previous bridi, or part of it. If I say:
you may retort:
Example 9.2 is short for:
because the whole bridi of Example 9.1 has been packaged up into the single word “go'i” and inserted into Example 9.2.
The exceptional member of GOhA is “du”, which represents the relation of identity. Its place structure is:
for as many places as are given. More information on selma'o GOhA is available in Chapter 7.
Lojban mathematical expressions (mekso) can be incorporated into selbri in two different ways. Mathematical operators such as “su'i”, meaning “plus”, can be transformed into selbri by prefixing them with “nu'a” (of selma'o NUhA). The resulting place structure is:
for as many arguments as are required. (The result goes in the x1 place because the number of following places may be indefinite.) For example:
A possible tanru example might be:
More usefully, it is possible to combine a mathematical expression with a cmavo of selma'o MOI to create one of various numerical selbri. Details are available in Chapter 18. Here are a few tanru:
Finally, an important type of simple selbri which is not a brivla is the abstraction. Grammatically, abstractions are simple: a cmavo of selma'o NU, followed by a bridi, followed by the elidable terminator “kei” of selma'o KEI. Semantically, abstractions are an extremely subtle and powerful feature of Lojban whose full ramifications are documented in Chapter 11. A few examples:
Example 9.8 is quite distinct in meaning from:
which suggests the meaning “a room that amuses someone”.

## selbri based on sumti: “me”

The following cmavo are discussed in this section:
A sumti can be made into a simple selbri by preceding it with “me” (of selma'o ME) and following it with the elidable terminator “me'u” (of selma'o MEhU). This makes a selbri with the place structure
which is true of the thing, or things, that are the referents of the sumti, and not of anything else. For example, consider the sumti
If these are understood to be the Three Kings of Christian tradition, who arrive every year on January 6, then we may say:
and likewise
and
If the sumti refers to a single object, then the effect of “me” is much like that of “du”:
means the same as
It is common to use “me” selbri, especially those based on name sumti using “la”, as seltau. For example:
The elidable terminator “me'u” can usually be omitted. It is absolutely required only if the “me” selbri is being used in an indefinite description (a type of sumti explained in Chapter 6), and if the indefinite description is followed by a relative clause (explained in Chapter 8) or a sumti logical connective (explained in Chapter 14). Without a “me'u”, the relative clause or logical connective would appear to belong to the sumti embedded in the “me” expression. Here is a contrasting pair of sentences:
In Example 10.8 the “me” selbri covers the three kings plus John, and the indefinite description picks out two of them that are said to be white: we cannot say which two. In Example 10.9, though, the “me” selbri covers only the three kings: two of them are said to be white, and so is John.
Finally, here is another example requiring “me'u”:
There are other sentences where either “me'u” or some other elidable terminator must be expressed:
requires either “ku” or “me'u” to be explicit, and (as with “be'o” in Section 7) the “me'u” leaves no doubt which cmavo it is paired with.

## Conversion of simple selbri

Conversion is the process of changing a selbri so that its places appear in a different order. This is not the same as labeling the sumti with the cmavo of FA, as mentioned in Section 7, and then rearranging the order in which the sumti are spoken or written. Conversion transforms the selbri into a distinct, though closely related, selbri with renumbered places.
In Lojban, conversion is accomplished by placing a cmavo of selma'o SE before the selbri:
is equivalent in meaning to:
Conversion is fully explained in Chapter 9. For the purposes of this chapter, the important point about conversion is that it applies only to the following simple selbri. When trying to convert a tanru, therefore, it is necessary to be careful! Consider Example 11.3:
To convert this sentence so that “le zarci” is in the x1 place, one correct way is:
The “ke ... ke'e” brackets cause the entire tanru to be converted by the “se”, which would otherwise convert only “cadzu”, leading to:
whatever that might mean. An alternative approach, since the place structure of “cadzu klama” is that of “klama” alone, is to convert only the latter:
But the tanru in Example 11.6 may or may not have the same meaning as that in Example 11.3; in particular, because “cadzu” is not converted, there is a suggestion that although Alice is the goer, the market is the walker. With a different sumti as x1, this seemingly odd interpretation might make considerable sense:
suggests that Alice is going to John, who is a moving target.
There is an alternative type of conversion, using the cmavo “jai” of selma'o JAI optionally followed by a modal or tense construction. Grammatically, such a combination behaves exactly like conversion using SE. More details can be found in Chapter 9.

## Scalar negation of selbri

Negation is too large and complex a topic to explain fully in this chapter; see Chapter 15. In brief, there are two main types of negation in Lojban. This section is concerned with so-called “scalar negation”, which is used to state that a true relation between the sumti is something other than what the selbri specifies. Scalar negation is expressed by cmavo of selma'o NAhE:
meaning that Alice’s relationship to the market is something other than that of walking there. But if the “ke” were omitted, the result would be:
meaning that Alice does go there in some way (“klama” is not negated), but by a means other than that of walking. Example 12.1 negates both “cadzu” and “klama”, suggesting that Alice’s relation to the market is something different from walkingly-going; it might be walking without going, or going without walking, or neither.
Of course, any of the simple selbri types explained in Section 9 may be used in place of brivla in any of these examples:
Since only “pamoi” is negated, an appropriate inference is that he is some other kind of speaker.
Here is an assortment of more complex examples showing the interaction of scalar negation with “bo” grouping, “ke” and “ke'e” grouping, logical connection, and sumti linked with “be” and “bei”:
In Example 12.4, “na'e” negates only “sutra”. Contrast Example 12.5:
Now consider Example 12.6 and Example 12.7, which are equivalent in meaning, but use “ke” grouping and “bo” grouping respectively:
However, if we place a “na'e” at the beginning of the selbri in both Example 12.6 and Example 12.7, we get different results:
The difference arises because the “na'e” in Example 12.9 negates the whole construction from “ke” to “ke'e”, whereas in Example 12.8 it negates “sutra” alone.
Beware of omitting terminators in these complex examples! If the explicit “ke'e” is left out in Example 12.9, it is transformed into:
And if both “ke'e” and “be'o” are omitted, the results are even sillier:
In Example 12.11, everything after “be” is a linked sumti, so the place structure is that of “cadzu”, whose x2 place is the surface walked upon. It is less than clear what an “arm-type goer” might be. Furthermore, since the x3 place has been occupied by the linked sumti, the “le zarci” following the selbri falls into the nonexistent x4 place of “cadzu”. As a result, the whole example, though grammatical, is complete nonsense. (The bracketed Lojban words appear where a fluent Lojbanist would understand them to be implied.)
Finally, it is also possible to place “na'e” before a “gu'e ... gi” logically connected tanru construction. The meaning of this usage has not yet been firmly established.

## Tenses and bridi negation

bridi can have cmavo associated with it which specify the time, place, or mode of action. For example, in
the cmavo “pu” specifies that the action of the speaker going to the market takes place in the past. Tenses are explained in full detail in Chapter 10. Tense is semantically a property of the entire bridi; however, the usual syntax for tenses attaches them at the front of the selbri, as in Example 13.1. There are alternative ways of expressing tense information as well. Modals, which are explained in Chapter 9, behave in the same way as tenses.
Similarly, a bridi may have the particle “na” (of selma'o NA) attached to the beginning of the selbri to negate the bridi. A negated bridi expresses what is false without saying anything about what is true. Do not confuse this usage with the scalar negation of Section 12. For example:
Jones may be the second speaker, or not a speaker at all; Example 13.2 doesn’t say. There are other ways of expressing bridi negation as well; the topic is explained fully in Chapter 15.
Various combinations of tense and bridi negation cmavo are permitted. If both are expressed, either order is permissible with no change in meaning:
It is also possible to have more than one “na”, in which case pairs of “na” cmavo cancel out:
It is even possible, though somewhat pointless, to have multiple “na” cmavo and tense cmavo mixed together, subject to the limitation that two adjacent tense cmavo will be understood as a compound tense, and must fit the grammar of tenses as explained in Chapter 10.
Tense, modal, and negation cmavo can appear only at the beginning of the selbri. They cannot be embedded within it.

## Some types of asymmetrical tanru

This section and Section 15 contain some example tanru classified into groups based on the type of relationship between the modifying seltau and the modified tertau. All the examples are paralleled by compounds actually observed in various natural languages. In the tables which follow, each group is preceded by a brief explanation of the relationship. The tables themselves contain a tanru, a literal gloss, an indication of the languages which exhibit a compound analogous to this tanru, and (for those tanru with no English parallel) a translation.
Here are the 3-letter abbreviations used for the various languages (it is presumed to be obvious whether a compound is found in English or not, so English is not explicitly noted):
Any lujvo or fu'ivla used in a group are glossed at the end of that group.
The tanru discussed in this section are asymmetrical tanru; that is, ones in which the order of the terms is fundamental to the meaning of the tanru. For example, “junla dadysli”, or “clock pendulum”, is the kind of pendulum used in a clock, whereas “dadysli junla”, or “pendulum clock”, is the kind of clock that employs a pendulum. Most tanru are asymmetrical in this sense. Symmetrical tanru are discussed in Section 15.
The tertau represents an action, and the seltau then represents the object of that action:
The tertau represents a set, and the seltau the type of the elements contained in that set:
Conversely: the tertau is an element, and the seltau represents a set in which that element is contained. Implicitly, the meaning of the tertau is restricted from its usual general meaning to the specific meaning appropriate for elements in the given set. Note the opposition between “zdani linji” in the previous group, and “linji zdani” in this one, which shows why this kind of tanru is called “asymmetrical”.
The seltau specifies an object and the tertau a component or detail of that object; the tanru as a whole refers to the detail, specifying that it is a detail of that whole and not some other.
Conversely: the seltau specifies a characteristic or important detail of the object described by the tertau; objects described by the tanru as a whole are differentiated from other similar objects by this detail.
The tertau specifies a general class of object (a genus), and the seltau specifies a sub-class of that class (a species):
The tertau specifies an object of possession, and the seltau may specify the possessor (the possession may be intrinsic or otherwise). In English, these compounds have an explicit possessive element in them: “lion’s mane”, “child’s foot”, “noble’s cow”.
The tertau specifies a habitat, and the seltau specifies the inhabitant:
The tertau specifies a causative agent, and the seltau specifies the effect of that cause:
Conversely: the tertau specifies an effect, and the seltau specifies its cause.
The tertau specifies an instrument, and the seltau specifies the purpose of that instrument:
More vaguely: the tertau specifies an instrument, and the seltau specifies the object of the purpose for which that instrument is used:
The tertau specifies a product from some source, and the seltau specifies the source of the product:
Conversely: the tertau specifies the source of a product, and the seltau specifies the product:
The tertau specifies an object, and the seltau specifies the material from which the object is made. This case is especially interesting, because the referent of the tertau may normally be made from just one kind of material, which is then overridden in the tanru.
Note: the two senses of “blaci kanla” can be discriminated as:
The tertau specifies a typical object used to measure a quantity and the seltau specifies something measured. The tanru as a whole refers to a given quantity of the thing being measured. English does not have compounds of this form, as a rule.
The tertau specifies an object with certain implicit properties, and the seltau overrides one of those implicit properties:
The seltau specifies a whole, and the tertau specifies a part which normally is associated with a different whole. The tanru then refers to a part of the seltau which stands in the same relationship to the whole seltau as the tertau stands to its typical whole.
The tertau specifies the producer of a certain product, and the seltau specifies the product. In this way, the tanru as a whole distinguishes its referents from other referents of the tertau which do not produce the product.
The tertau specifies an object, and the seltau specifies another object which has a characteristic property. The tanru as a whole refers to those referents of the tertau which possess the property.
As a particular case (when the property is that of resemblance): the seltau specifies an object which the referent of the tanru resembles.
The seltau specifies a place, and the tertau an object characteristically located in or at that place.
Specifically: the tertau is a place where the seltau is sold or made available to the public.
The seltau specifies the locus of application of the tertau.
The tertau specifies an implement used in the activity denoted by the seltau.
The tertau specifies a protective device against the undesirable features of the referent of the seltau.
The tertau specifies a container characteristically used to hold the referent of the seltau.
The seltau specifies the characteristic time of the event specified by the tertau.
The seltau specifies a source of energy for the referent of the tertau.
Finally, some tanru which don’t fall into any of the above categories.
It is clear that “tooth” is being specified, and that “milk” and “eye” act as modifiers. However, the relationship between “ladru” and “denci” is something like “tooth which one has when one is drinking milk from one’s mother”, a relationship certainly present nowhere except in this particular concept. As for “kanla denci”, the relationship is not only not present on the surface, it is hardly possible to formulate it at all.

## Some types of symmetrical tanru

This section deals with symmetrical tanru, where order is not important. Many of these tanru can be expressed with a logical or non-logical connective between the components.
The tanru may refer to things which are correctly specified by both tanru components. Some of these instances may also be seen as asymmetrical tanru where the seltau specifies a material. The connective “je” is appropriate:
The tanru may refer to all things which are specified by either of the tanru components. The connective “ja” is appropriate:
Alternatively, the tanru may refer to things which are specified by either of the tanru components or by some more inclusive class of things which the components typify:
The tanru components specify crucial or typical parts of the referent of the tanru as a whole:

## “Pretty little girls’ school”: forty ways to say it

The following examples show every possible grouping arrangement of “melbi cmalu nixli ckule” using “bo” or “ke ... ke'e” for grouping and “je” or “jebo” for logical connection. Most of these are definitely not plausible interpretations of the English phrase “pretty little girls’ school”, especially those which describe something which is both a girl and a school.
Examples 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 5.6 are repeated here as Examples 16.1, 16.9, 16.17, 16.25, and 16.33 respectively. The seven examples following each of these share the same grouping pattern, but differ in the presence or absence of “je” at each possible site. Some of the examples have more than one Lojban version. In that case, they differ only in grouping mechanism, and are always equivalent in meaning.
The logical connective “je” is associative: that is, “A and (B and C)” is the same as “(A and B) and C”. Therefore, some of the examples have the same meaning as others. In particular, 16.8, 16.16, 16.24, 16.32, and 16.40 all have the same meaning because all four brivla are logically connected and the grouping is simply irrelevant. Other equivalent forms are noted in the examples themselves. However, if “je” were replaced by “naja” or “jo” or most of the other logical connectives, the meanings would become distinct.
It must be emphasized that, because of the ambiguity of all tanru, the English translations are by no means definitive — they represent only one possible interpretation of the corresponding Lojban sentence.
This work is free because according to the The Complete Lojban Language, Chapter 1, Section 8:
    Copyright © 1997 by The Logical Language Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this book, either in electronic or in printed form, provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all copies.
    Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this book, provided that the modifications are clearly marked as such, and provided that the entire resulting derived work is distributed under the terms of a permission notice identical to this one.
    Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations of this book into another language, under the above conditions for modified versions, except that this permission notice may be stated in a translation that has been approved by the Logical Language Group, rather than in English.
    The contents of Chapter 21 are in the public domain.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse