I think {vricyjuncku} is more descriptive than {facycku}. There are tonnes of types of fact-books. Not necessarily about miscellaneous knowledge. It's kind of an obvious description to call it a fact-book. You could also call it a word-book because it uses words.

To quote Denis Diderot:

> Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; ...

Miscellaneous-knowledge-book seems most descriptive.

I think that both "facycku" and "vricyjuncku" are perfectly good words, that should be easy enough to define. A book with facts, and a book with miscellaneous knowledge. Neither one exactly matches the word "encyclopedia"-- if you want to carry across all the connotations and such from a natlang word, the only way is a fu'ivla, like "cuktrxensaiklopidia" or something.

I don't think it's obvious at all that we shouldn't use metaphor in lujvo. You can of course make an explicitly metaphorical lujvo with the rafsi "pev"-- that's the only point of that rafsi-- but I often make lujvo that elide the "pev" (just as we often elide "sel", like in (sel)brivla or (sel)plixau). One such lujvo I've made is a self-referential lujvo for such lujvo: "cimjvo", moist lujvo, lujvo saturated with meaning.

So I think that cukla zei cukta, what would that be, "cukcku"?, I think that would be fine. But "mulctucku" is a good word too. A lot of lujvo to choose from, here! We'll just have to see what gets remembered. :)

The first time I saw vricyjuncku, I thought "Miscellaneous-knower book? What?". Strictly speaking, a "micellaneous-know*ledge* book" should be vricyseljuncku. Also, the fact that someone knows the things in an encyclopedia, isn't particularly relevant, but the fact that things in encyclopedias are supposed to be factual is, which is another reason to use fatci instead of djuno.

Also, vrici, miscellaneous, although it implies variety, doesn't imply completeness or generality. vricyfacycku might be translated "trivia book".

> I don't think it's obvious at all that we shouldn't use metaphor in lujvo.

One of the basic principles of Lojban is that Lojban words have one unambiguous meaning, so that misunderstanding is less likely. Metaphor goes completely against that principle, not least because most metaphors are culturally dependent, meaning that many people will NOT understand your metaphors, and may not even realize you're using a metaphor unless you mark it with pe'a.

For example, a "cukcku" is a book which is literally round or circular.

> (just as we often elide "sel", like in (sel)brivla or (sel)plixau)

We can only elide sel in selbrivla because there's no use for brivla as "sentence word". Even then, it's not a style of lujvo that's encouraged. plixau and selplixau could both be useful words, the first for talking about things which are good and tool users, and the second for things which are good and tools. In short, plixau is an example of how things shouldn't be done. It's an exception that has to be memorized, not an example that should be imitated.

The vast majority of lujvo aren't in the dictionary, and the CLL lays out some rules which allow people to figure out what they mean. Therefore, whenever possible, you should construct lujvo in such a way that people will come up with the correct interpretation when they follow those rules.

>>1062
>>1062

> One of the basic principles of Lojban is that Lojban words have one unambiguous meaning, so that misunderstanding is less likely. Metaphor goes completely against that principle, not least because most metaphors are culturally dependent, meaning that many people will NOT understand your metaphors, and may not even realize you're using a metaphor unless you mark it with pe'a.

Aren't lujvo supposed to have strictly defined meanings? What does culture have to do with the ability to understand a word if there is a clear definition of it?

> We can only elide sel in selbrivla because there's no use for brivla as "sentence word". Even then, it's not a style of lujvo that's encouraged. plixau and selplixau could both be useful words, the first for talking about things which are good and tool users, and the second for things which are good and tools. In short, plixau is an example of how things shouldn't be done. It's an exception that has to be memorized, not an example that should be imitated.

Rather than debating existing words and coming up with our own with vague definitions. Why not start with a Lojban definition, and then think of a word for it? Do we all have the same definition in mind? It doesn't seem so.

> The vast majority of lujvo aren't in the dictionary, and the CLL lays out some rules which allow people to figure out what they mean. Therefore, whenever possible, you should construct lujvo in such a way that people will come up with the correct interpretation when they follow those rules.

Of course, it must be acknowledged that some lujvo can't be unambiguous. So really we ought to aim for most obvious definitions, granted, but our definitions of the lujvo we use should be readily accessible, and I think that is most important. Context helps us put the definition pieces together, but I think it would be in the spirit of Lojban to be in the habit of defining Lujvo automatically in surrounding discourse. I think some compromise is used for shortness, because we like shorter words more than longer words.

> plixau and selplixau could both be useful words, the first for talking about things which are good and tool users, and the second for things which are good and tools. In short, plixau is an example of how things shouldn't be done.

I am not sure that your interpretation of {plixau} is thorough. Let us reduce it to the tanru.

What does {pilno xamgu} mean?

Please take all my uses of good hereon to mean "beneficial" or the like, and not "skillfull". I interpret all tanru {broda brode} as "brode in which being broda is related", so I interpret {pilno xamgu} as "being good in which being a tool user is related". I think {pilno xamgu} is a pretty accurate way to express "useful"/"good for tool users".

I would make the following interpretations:

• {pilno xamgu} as "good for tool users" or "tool-user-ish good-thing", depending on context.
• {selpli xamgu} as "good for tools" or "tool-ish good-thing", depending on context.
• {xamgu pilno} as "good tool-user"
• {xamgu selpli} as "good tool".

Swapping the selbri changes the focus. So reducing them to lujvo,

• {xaupli} - tool user.
• {xauselpli} - good tool.
• {plixau} - tool-user good/good for tool users e.g. gloves for operating a drill, or the drill itself.
• {selplixau} - tool good/good for tools. e.g. some oil or proper usage.

It seems we get what you wanted using the different order:

• "the first for talking about things which are good and tool users" -- {xaupli}
• "the second for things which are good and tools" -- {xauselpli}

Do you agree with my interpretations?

>>1074

> Aren't lujvo supposed to have strictly defined meanings? What does culture have to do with the ability to understand a word if there is a clear definition of it?

Yes, lujvo have strictly defined meanings. However, we're also supposed to be able to construct new lujvo as needed, and it's unreasonable to expect everyone to know the definitions of every possible lujvo. Culture makes a difference in two ways: if you construct a lujvo with a culturally dependent meaning, people who don't share your culture will have to memorize that lujvo's definition, and the component gismu won't just fail to help those people remember what the lujvo means, they'll suggest the wrong meaning. For these reasons, culturally dependent metaphors are to be avoided in the official definitions of lujvo.

> What does {pilno xamgu} mean?
> [possible definitions]
> Do you agree with my interpretations?

pilno: p1 is using tool, p2 is tool being used, p3 is the purpose of the tool use
xamgu: g1 is beneficial, g2 is beneficiary, g3 is the standard by which g1 is judged beneficial to g2

plixau could have been:
x1=g1,p1 x2=g2,p2 x3=g3,p3 (x1 is good to his/her tools x2 while using them)
x1=g1,p1 x2=g2,p3 x3=g3 x4=p2 (x1 is good and/because using tools for x2)
x1=g1 x2=g2,p1 x3=p2 x4=g3,p3 (x1 is good for tool-user x2)

selplixau could be:
x1=g1,p2 x2=g2,p1 x3=g3,p3 (x1 is a good tool for tool-user x2)
x1=g1,p2 x2=g2,p3 x3=g3 (x1 is a good tool for purpose x2)
x1=g1 x2=g2,p2 x3=g3,p3 (x1 is good for tool x2)

xaupli could be:
x1=p1,g1 x2=p2,g2 x3=p3,g3 (x1 is good to his/her tools x2)
x1=p1,g1 x2=p2 x3=p3,g2 x4=g3 (x1 is good, and using tools x2, for x3)
x1=p1 x2=p2,g1 x3=p3,g2 x4=g3 (x1 is using good tools x2)
x1=p1 x2=p2 x3=p3,g1 x4=g2 x5=g3 (x1 is using tools x2 for a good purpose x3)

xauselpli could be:
x1=p2,g1 x2=p1,g2 x3=p3,g3 (x1 is a good tool for user x2)
x1=p2,g1 x2=p3,g2 x3=g3 (x1 is a good tool for purpose x2)
x1=p2 x2=p1,g1 x3=p3,g2 x4=g3 (x1 is a tool for user x2 to be good to x3)
x1=p2 x2=p1 x3=p3,g1 x4=g2 x5=g3 (x1 is a tool used by x2 for good purpose x3)

There are other possible meanings for all four lujvo, but I think those are the most likely. The basic rule is to keep the arguments in the same order they appeared in the gismu, if possible, which is why the jvoste definition of plixau (x1 is a good tool for tool-user x2) is irregular, and why vricyjuncku would probably mean "miscellaneous-knower book".

In theory there's a fixed definition for each lujvo, in practice the definition might not have been chosen yet, or might not be known to either the speaker or the listener. You can often figure out which one the speaker intends from context (e.g., by knowing which sumti could be a tool and which could be a user). Most people do this automatically without having to think about it too much.

but a collection of descriptions of many things. I'd say "vreji zo'e ro da poi li'o". So, it should be "rolvei" with a place for type of described objects, and 4th place of "vreji" to put "lo'i cukta" for a dead tree versions.

>>1098

The gi'uste appends zo cukte with "manifestation/container [a physical object or its analogue] of a work/content, not necessarily using paper". So it can be a CD-ROM or whatever as well, I would suppose. It might even be a matter of vernacular ambiguity.

>>1092
I'm not sure you really read what I said. Nevermind.

>>1101

I did read what you said. I'm just saying I think of several possible definitions when I read a lujvo, and decide which one is intended by the writer depending on context, because, practically speaking, nobody uses exactly the same definition for every lujvo. So I provided some examples of the definitions I would consider likely for plixau, which included the definitions you thought were primary, but also included the definitions I originally mentioned, that you questioned. Generally, the first definition of a lujvo I consider has x1=x1.

> I'm not sure you really read what I said. Nevermind.

I'm doing my best to understand. If you fail to get your message across, giving up doesn't help.

>>1108
I think everyone should use the exact same definition for lujvo, or state the definition before hand in discourse, and I thought that was the case. If that's not the case then I don't support any of what I said above. I agree with the assumed xn-xn link to aid interpreting undefined lujvo.

>>1115

Yeah, in theory, every lujvo has exactly one definition. In theory, theory and practice are identical, but in practice, they're not. Have you memorized the jvoste? Have you ever seen a lujvo used without being defined first? Have you ever seen a lujvo's full place structure defined before being used, in Lojban?

skesucta fa le si'o le skesucta cu du lo zatfau iku'i zatfau fa lo nu ri na du ra

>>1120
Honestly I don't use undefined lujvo that much. It's usually tanru. The undefined lujvo I use are usually ones in which the places don't matter because I'm just using the x1 place for a sumti. Another is in which the places are unambiguous, like sticking {tol} on the front of things or {sel} as in {selsku}. Looking at my IRC logs, I said {lo cmaskami} before as in "small computer". But if I'm going use the places of an undefined lujvo, I do define it before-hand. Wouldn't want to leave it to interpretation.

>>1131

The place structure of an undefined lujvo does matter when you're using the x1 to construct a sumti. Even a simple example like "lo cmaskami" could be "a computer that is small" or "a computer for a purpose that is small". So you can't get away with saying "I only use undefined lujvo when the place structure doesn't matter." if you use undefined lujvo to create sumti.

>>1134
Context would tell you that it means a small computer.