Грамматика ложбана/4.13

13. Примеры создания lujvo

Этот раздел содержит примеры создания и оценки lujvo. Начнём с tanru “gerku zdani” (“собака дом”), и создадим lujvo со значением “собачья будка”, т.е. дом, в котором живёт собака. Для всех возможных rafsi будем применять алгоритм, описанный в Разделе 12.

Для “gerku” существуют rafsi:

         -ger-, -ge'u-, -gerk-, -gerku

Для “zdani” существуют rafsi:

         -zda-, -zdan-, -zdani.

Шаг 1 алгоритма требует выбрать “-ger-”, “-ge'u-” and “-gerk-” в качестве допустимых rafsi для “gerku”. Шаг 2 требует выбрать “-zda-” and “-zdani” в качестве допустимых rafsi для “zdani”. Вот все шесть возможных lujvo:

         ger-zda
         ger-zdani
         ge'u-zda
         ge'u-zdani
         gerk-zda
         gerk-zdani

Теперь нужно вставить соединители туда, где они нужны. The first two forms need no hyphenation: “ge” cannot fall off the front, because the following word would begin with “rz”, which is not a permissible initial consonant pair. So the lujvo forms are “gerzda” and “gerzdani”.

The third form, “ge'u-zda”, needs no hyphen, because even though the first rafsi is CVV, the second one is CCV, so there is a consonant cluster in the first five letters. So “ge'uzda” is this form of the lujvo.

The fourth form, “ge'u-zdani”, however, requires an “r”-hyphen; otherwise, the “ge'u-” part would fall off as a cmavo. So this form of the lujvo is “ge'urzdani”.

The last two forms require “y”-hyphens, as all 4-letter rafsi do, and so are “gerkyzda” and “gerkyzdani” respectively.

The scoring algorithm is heavily weighted in favor of short lujvo, so we might expect that “gerzda” would win. Its L score is 6, its A score is 0, its H score is 0, its R score is 12, and its V score is 3, for a final score of 5878. The other forms have scores of 7917, 6367, 9506, 8008, and 10047 respectively. Consequently, this lujvo would probably appear in the dictionary in the form “gerzda”.

For the next example, we will use the tanru “bloti klesi” (“boat class”) presumably referring to the category (rowboat, motorboat, cruise liner) into which a boat falls. We will omit the long rafsi from the process, since lujvo containing long rafsi are almost never preferred by the scoring algorithm when there are short rafsi available.

The rafsi for “bloti” are “-lot-”, “-blo-”, and “-lo'i-”; for “klesi” they are “-kle-” and “-lei-”. Both these gismu are among the handful which have both CVV-form and CCV-form rafsi, so there is an unusual number of possibilities available for a two-part tanru:

         lotkle      blokle      lo'ikle
         lotlei      blolei      lo'irlei

Only “lo'irlei” requires hyphenation (to avoid confusion with the cmavo sequence “lo'i lei”). All six forms are valid versions of the lujvo, as are the six further forms using long rafsi; however, the scoring algorithm produces the following results:

         lotkle  5878      blokle  5858      lo'ikle  6367
         lotlei  5867      blolei  5847      lo'irlei 7456

So the form “blolei” is preferred, but only by a tiny margin over “blokle”; "lotlei" and "lotkle" are only slightly worse; “lo'ikle” suffers because of its apostrophe, and “lo'irlei” because of having both apostrophe and hyphen.

Our third example will result in forming both a lujvo and a name from the tanru “logji bangu girzu”, or “logical-language group” in English. (“The Logical Language Group” is the name of the publisher of this book and the organization for the promotion of Lojban.)

The available rafsi are “-loj-” and “-logj-”; “-ban-”, “-bau-”, and “-bang-”; and “-gri-” and “-girzu”, and (for name purposes only) “-gir-” and “-girz-”. The resulting 12 lujvo possibilities are:

         loj-ban-gri      loj-bau-gri      loj-bang-gri
         logj-ban-gri     logj-bau-gri     logj-bang-gri
         loj-ban-girzu    loj-bau-girzu    loj-bang-girzu
         logj-ban-girzu   logj-bau-girzu   logj-bang-girzu

and the 12 name possibilities are:

         loj-ban-gir.     loj-bau-gir.     loj-bang-gir.
         logj-ban-gir.    logj-bau-gir.    logj-bang-gir.
         loj-ban-girz.    loj-bau-girz.    loj-bang-girz.
         logj-ban-girz.   logj-bau-girz.   logj-bang-girz.

After hyphenation, we have:

         lojbangri        lojbaugri        lojbangygri
         logjybangri      logjybaugri      logjybangygri
         lojbangirzu      lojbaugirzu      lojbangygirzu
         logjybangirzu    logjybaugirzu    logjybangygirzu

         lojbangir.       lojbaugir.       lojbangygir.
         logjybangir.     logjybaugir.     logjybangygir.
         lojbangirz.      lojbaugirz.      lojbangygirz.
         logjybangirz.    logjybaugirz.    logjybangygirz.

The only fully reduced lujvo forms are “lojbangri” and “lojbaugri”, of which the latter has a slightly lower score: 8827 versus 8796, respectively. However, for the name of the organization, we chose to make sure the name of the language was embedded in it, and to use the clearer long-form rafsi for “girzu”, producing “lojbangirz.”

Finally, here is a four-part lujvo with a cmavo in it, based on the tanru “nakni ke cinse ctuca” or “male (sexual teacher)”. The “ke” cmavo ensures the interpretation “teacher of sexuality who is male”, rather than “teacher of male sexuality”. Here are the possible forms of the lujvo, both before and after hyphenation:

         nak-kem-cin-ctu          nakykemcinctu
         nak-kem-cin-ctuca        nakykemcinctuca
         nak-kem-cins-ctu         nakykemcinsyctu
         nak-kem-cins-ctuca       nakykemcinsyctuca
         nakn-kem-cin-ctu         naknykemcinctu
         nakn-kem-cin-ctuca       naknykemcinctuca
         nakn-kem-cins-ctu        naknykemcinsyctu
         nakn-kem-cins-ctuca      naknykemcinsyctuca

Of these forms, “nakykemcinctu” is the shortest and is preferred by the scoring algorithm. On the whole, however, it might be better to just make a lujvo for “cinse ctuca” (which would be “cinctu”) since the sex of the teacher is rarely important. If there was a reason to specify “male”, then the simpler tanru “nakni cinctu” (“male sexual-teacher”) would be appropriate. This tanru is actually shorter than the four-part lujvo, since the “ke” required for grouping need not be expressed.