<p>Let's take an element of Lojban's grammar, and see if it's semantically ambiguous.<br>
In lojban, <em>tanru</em> are basically two predicates in adposition. The first one semantically modifies the second one; and that's all.  </p>

<p>Example:</p>

<ul>
<li>{<code>lo zdani gerku cu barda</code>}: The house dog is big.</li>
<li>{<code>lo gerku zdani cu barda</code>}: The kennel is big.</li>
</ul>

<p>Where {<code>zdani</code>} (roughly) means "home", {<code>gerku</code>} means "dog", and {<code>barda</code>} means "big (the rest is grammatical witchcraft, don't bother).</p>

<p>In the first example, {<code>zdani gerku</code>} is syntactically a <em>tanru</em>, and {<code>zdani</code>} modifies {<code>gerku</code>}. However, the <em>tanru</em> is primarily about {<code>gerku</code>}.<br>
In the second one, it's the reverse. {<code>gerku zdani</code>} is also syntactically a <em>tanru</em>, but {<code>gerku</code>} modifies {<code>zdani</code>}; and the overall tanru is about {<code>zadni</code>}, not {<code>gerku</code>}.</p>

<p>However, it isn't possible to make assumptions about the overall meaning of a tanru. Though it's syntactically not ambiguous, it is semantically ambiguous.<br>
I've chosen the english “house dog” and “kennel”, but it was just my intent, and english translates this way. Officially, it's not possible to infer the meaning from a tanru.</p>

<p>You can even read yourself in the <a href="https://lojban.github.io/cll/5/2/" rel="noreferrer">last official reference grammar</a> that “All tanru are ambiguous semantically.”</p>

<p>For a surer version:</p>

<ul>
<li>{<code>lo gerku poi ta'e zvati lo zdani cu barda</code>}: The dog that uses to live at the house is big</li>
<li>{<code>lo zdani poi zukte ke'a lo nu stuzi lo gerku cu barda</code>}: The house that is aimed so that dogs could live in is big.</li>
</ul>

<p>EDIT: added an explanation on how it's ambiguous, and the surer examples.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-07-10T15:55:12.983Z
Despite the coldly logical, hyper-artificial appearance of the language, Lojban is actually designed to allow for evolution over time by human (biological?) speakers (just, in a way that can be parsed by machines without needing to rely on heuristics or special cases). Lujvo largely exist in order to capture the most common understandings of tanru that are in common use, and lexicalize them. `gerku zdani` could be a kennel, a pound, or even someone's house that was architected to look like a dog; but `gerzda` [is specifically a doghouse](https://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/gerzda).
Karl Knechtel
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-07-10T16:03:08.440Z
@curiousdannii polysemy even in natural languages is a pretty subjective judgment anyway. For an extreme example, Japanese uses the same kanji in words for "minute" (duration of time), "understand", "1/10" (as well as measures that are 1/10 of various implied units), "percentage", "allocation" and "enough". A dictionary might give over a dozen glosses for the kanji itself. And yet it is really all the same *core* meaning: splitting into parts.
Karl Knechtel
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-09T13:21:49.690Z
The example you've given here seems quite clear in terms of scoping and what modifies what, so why do you/the official reference grammar say that tanru are ambiguous?
curiousdannii
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-09T13:40:20.043Z
It's not because it's the scoping the modifications are not ambiguous that the overall meaning is not ambiguous. Retaking {`gerku zdani`}, one can _only_ be sure that 1) it's some kind of house (zdani) and 2) it's related to dogs (gerku) in some way; not that it's a _specifically_ a kennel (it could be a pound or whatever in fact).
Good remark still, I've added an additional explanation.
mklcp
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-09T13:43:15.547Z
Ah, gotcha. Well that ambiguity would exist outside of tanru wouldn't it? Or does each root only have a singular meaning (no polysemy at all), and you must compound roots to get further meanings?
curiousdannii
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-09T14:55:37.613Z
As for the roots (i.e. the gismu), I don't remember any of them to have multiple meanings; but it doesn't mean some of them aren't vague, e.g. {remna} which means "human", while "ninmu", means "woman" and "nanmu" means "[male] man". I don't really see what do you mean by "further meanings": more precise or more vaguer (since the topic is tanru as a mean to vagueness)? In fact, though tanru are ambiguous, they are used and I would even say designed to still precise the meaning; a "quick 'n dirty" way to precise it, as i've shown, more precision require more verbosity.
mklcp
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-09T14:59:50.587Z
But tanru can also be used to increase imprecision, e.g. by taking the word {co'e} (though not a gismu, morphologically speaking), which is just a generic predicate. By generic, it's totally generic, you can say {na co'e} or {co'e} (where {na} is a negative particle), it wouldn't matter since it's so generic and vague. The tanru {gerku co'e} is so even vaguer than {gerku} alone (a dog), since it means "a/any/all/some kinds of thingamajig related to dog [in some unprecised way]"
mklcp
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-09T13:09:03.923Z
2018-02-09T13:36:16.100Z
2018-02-09T13:36:16.100Z
mklcp
<p>As a constructed, syntactically unambiguous language <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban" rel="noreferrer">(Wikipedia</a>), does Lojban also completely eliminate <em>semantic</em> ambiguity? If not, what are some examples?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-08T14:09:55.497Z
Maybe edit to say colloquial, idiomatic Lojban, and not just the formal/official version? Oh wait, you're asking about semantic rather than syntactic. I doubt that colloquial Lojban is completely syntactically unambiguous, but they may not even be claiming semantic unambiguity. Good question still.
curiousdannii
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-08T14:39:39.387Z
This quote from John Cowan on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban#Lojban_as_a_means_of_creativity) seems to indicate that Lojban does have semantic ambiguity: "Thus "heart pain" would refer to the literal heart and literal pain; what would be ambiguous would be the exact connection between these two. Is the pain in the heart, because of the heart, or what?"
curiousdannii
<lojban><ambiguity>
Does Lojban completely remove semantic ambiguity?
# Does Lojban completely remove semantic ambiguity?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-02-08)

As a constructed, syntactically unambiguous language [(Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban)), does Lojban also completely eliminate *semantic* ambiguity? If not, what are some examples?

**Tags:** lojban, ambiguity
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Maybe edit to say colloquial, idiomatic Lojban, and not just the formal/official version? Oh wait, you're asking about semantic rather than syntactic. I doubt that colloquial Lojban is completely syntactically unambiguous, but they may not even be claiming semantic unambiguity. Good question still.  
> **username_1**: This quote from John Cowan on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban#Lojban_as_a_means_of_creativity) seems to indicate that Lojban does have semantic ambiguity: "Thus "heart pain" would refer to the literal heart and literal pain; what would be ambiguous would be the exact connection between these two. Is the pain in the heart, because of the heart, or what?"  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2018-02-09. Score: 8

Let's take an element of Lojban's grammar, and see if it's semantically ambiguous.  
In lojban, *tanru* are basically two predicates in adposition. The first one semantically modifies the second one; and that's all.

Example:

* {`lo zdani gerku cu barda`}: The house dog is big.
* {`lo gerku zdani cu barda`}: The kennel is big.

Where {`zdani`} (roughly) means "home", {`gerku`} means "dog", and {`barda`} means "big (the rest is grammatical witchcraft, don't bother).

In the first example, {`zdani gerku`} is syntactically a *tanru*, and {`zdani`} modifies {`gerku`}. However, the *tanru* is primarily about {`gerku`}.  
In the second one, it's the reverse. {`gerku zdani`} is also syntactically a *tanru*, but {`gerku`} modifies {`zdani`}; and the overall tanru is about {`zadni`}, not {`gerku`}.

However, it isn't possible to make assumptions about the overall meaning of a tanru. Though it's syntactically not ambiguous, it is semantically ambiguous.  
I've chosen the english “house dog” and “kennel”, but it was just my intent, and english translates this way. Officially, it's not possible to infer the meaning from a tanru.

You can even read yourself in the [last official reference grammar](https://lojban.github.io/cll/5/2/) that “All tanru are ambiguous semantically.”

For a surer version:

* {`lo gerku poi ta'e zvati lo zdani cu barda`}: The dog that uses to live at the house is big
* {`lo zdani poi zukte ke'a lo nu stuzi lo gerku cu barda`}: The house that is aimed so that dogs could live in is big.

EDIT: added an explanation on how it's ambiguous, and the surer examples.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: The example you've given here seems quite clear in terms of scoping and what modifies what, so why do you/the official reference grammar say that tanru are ambiguous?  
> **username_2**: It's not because it's the scoping the modifications are not ambiguous that the overall meaning is not ambiguous. Retaking {`gerku zdani`}, one can _only_ be sure that 1) it's some kind of house (zdani) and 2) it's related to dogs (gerku) in some way; not that it's a _specifically_ a kennel (it could be a pound or whatever in fact). Good remark still, I've added an additional explanation.  
> **username_1**: Ah, gotcha. Well that ambiguity would exist outside of tanru wouldn't it? Or does each root only have a singular meaning (no polysemy at all), and you must compound roots to get further meanings?  
> **username_2**: As for the roots (i.e. the gismu), I don't remember any of them to have multiple meanings; but it doesn't mean some of them aren't vague, e.g. {remna} which means "human", while "ninmu", means "woman" and "nanmu" means "[male] man". I don't really see what do you mean by "further meanings": more precise or more vaguer (since the topic is tanru as a mean to vagueness)? In fact, though tanru are ambiguous, they are used and I would even say designed to still precise the meaning; a "quick 'n dirty" way to precise it, as i've shown, more precision require more verbosity.  
> **username_2**: But tanru can also be used to increase imprecision, e.g. by taking the word {co'e} (though not a gismu, morphologically speaking), which is just a generic predicate. By generic, it's totally generic, you can say {na co'e} or {co'e} (where {na} is a negative particle), it wouldn't matter since it's so generic and vague. The tanru {gerku co'e} is so even vaguer than {gerku} alone (a dog), since it means "a/any/all/some kinds of thingamajig related to dog [in some unprecised way]"  
> **username_3**: Despite the coldly logical, hyper-artificial appearance of the language, Lojban is actually designed to allow for evolution over time by human (biological?) speakers (just, in a way that can be parsed by machines without needing to rely on heuristics or special cases). Lujvo largely exist in order to capture the most common understandings of tanru that are in common use, and lexicalize them. `gerku zdani` could be a kennel, a pound, or even someone's house that was architected to look like a dog; but `gerzda` [is specifically a doghouse](https://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/gerzda).  
> **username_3**: @curiousdannii polysemy even in natural languages is a pretty subjective judgment anyway. For an extreme example, Japanese uses the same kanji in words for "minute" (duration of time), "understand", "1/10" (as well as measures that are 1/10 of various implied units), "percentage", "allocation" and "enough". A dictionary might give over a dozen glosses for the kanji itself. And yet it is really all the same *core* meaning: splitting into parts.  

---

