Page:CLL v1.1.pdf/81

5.2 Simple tanru ; Example 5.9
 * {| class="wikitable"

|- style="font-style: italic;" | mi || sutra |- style="font-weight: bold;" | I || am-fast/quick |}

shows sutra used to translate an adjective, whereas in Example 5.8 (p. 80) it is translating an adverb. (Another correct translation of Example 5.8 (p. 80), 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 5.6 (p. 80) would be:


 * Example 5.10
 * That is a lemon type of tree.

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:


 * Example 5.11
 * That is a tree which is lemon-ish (in the way appropriate to trees)

would be another possible translation of Example 5.6 (p. 80). In the same way, a more explicit translation of Example 5.7 (p. 80) might be:


 * Example 5.12
 * John is a boy who is big in the way that boys are big.

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:


 * Example 5.13
 * {| class="wikitable"

|- style="font-style: italic;" | ta || klama || jubme |- style="font-weight: bold;" | That || is-a-goer || type-of-table. |}

include:


 * That is a table which goes (a wheeled table, perhaps).
 * That is a table owned by one who goes.
 * That is a table used by those who go (a sports doctor's table?).
 * That is a table when it goes (otherwise it is a chair?).

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:


 * Example 5.14
 * {| class="wikitable"

|- style="font-style: italic;" | do || barda || prenu |- style="font-weight: bold;" | You || are-a-large || person. |}


 * Example 5.15
 * {| class="wikitable"

|- style="font-style: italic;" | do || cmalu || prenu |- style="font-weight: bold;" | You || are-a-small || person. |}