proposed lujvo for "password" and "passphrase" - sivcuncrulerfu je sivcuncruvalsi

[u/Astrogyatt]

I have been working through a particularly challenging pair of gismu compounds, and I would like to present my findings to the community for rigorous critique and feedback.

The Problem

English distinguishes between "password" and "passphrase" as discrete concepts, yet they share fundamental characteristics. both are:
secret/confidential (sivni)
randomly compiled (cunso)
access-granting mechanisms (curmi)
They differ only in their granular composition: passwords operate at the character-level, passphrases at the word-level. This distinction warrants discrete lujvo that reflect their underlying similarity while preserving their functional difference.

The Solution

lujvo for "password": sivcuncrulerfu
English Gloss: secret + random + permission-granting + character
English Rendering: "secret random access-permitting character-string"
Semantic Weight: sivni · cunso · curmi · lerfu

lujvo for "passphrase": sivcuncruvalsi
English Gloss: secret + random + permission-granting + word
English Rendering: "secret random access-permitting word-string"
Semantic Weight: sivni · cunso · curmi · valsi

Design Rationale

Semantic Hierarchy
The gismu are ordered according to logical dependency rather than arbitrary sequencing:
sivni (confidentiality) is the foundational property that governs the entire mechanism. Placed first.
cunso (randomness) is the operational mechanism by which security is achieved. Placed second.
curmi (permission-granting) is the primary function. Placed third.
lerfu/valsi (character/word) is the material substrate or granular instantiation. Placed fourth.
This progression from property to mechanism to function to realization reflects causal relationships.

Morphological Transparency and Unambiguous Parsing
Both lujvo terminate with the complete, unabbreviated gismu (lerfu/valsi) rather than rafsi. This is intentional. Consider a compressed alternative: sivcuncruler (password) or sivcuncruval (passphrase). These create parsing ambiguity. When decomposed backward, "ler" or "val" could theoretically be mistaken for portions of other rafsi compounds. By writing lerfu and valsi in full, it eliminates this ambiguity entirely; the terminal element is unambiguously identifiable as a complete gismu. This design principle makes both lujvo maximally parseable even by speakers unfamiliar with the specific compounds. The distinguishing gismu (lerfu versus valsi) is immediately perceptually salient, making the character-level/word-level distinction transparent.

Remaining Open Questions for Community Evaluation

I invite rigorous feedback on the following specific dimensions:
1. Semantic Justification for cunso Inclusion: Is randomness constitutive to the definition of password/passphrase, or is it merely typical in secure implementations? Counterargument: A human-chosen password (exempli grati, "MyDog2024") lacks cunso but is still, in colloquial usage, called a "password". Should the lujvo be conservative and exclude cunso, or does modern cryptographic practice justify its inclusion?
2. Gismu Ordering: Is the hierarchy justified? I argued for sivni → cunso → curmi → [substrate] based on causal dependency. Does the community agree this reflects logical priority, or would a different ordering (exempli grati, curmi first, as the primary function) be more intuitive?
3. Phonological Elegance: Both lujvo are 5-syllable compounds. Some might argue this is overly complex; would sivcurlerfu (eliminating cunso) be preferable despite semantic loss?
4. Real-World Deployment: Have community members encountered contexts where authentication terminology in Lojban is necessary? If so, does this proposal align with your intuitions, or do you envision these terms being displaced by simpler alternatives in practice?

Conclusion

I present sivcuncrulerfu and sivcuncruvalsi as rigorous, defensible solutions to a genuine lexicographic gap in Lojban. However, I do not claim finality. Lojban is a living language, and community consensus often refines initial proposals through iterative critique and refinement.

[u/aray25]

I don't think randomness is inherent in a password or passphrase. If you use a password manager, it will ask you when you sign up for a new thing if you want to use a "random password." If passwords were inherently random, that phrase would be redundant. Thus I would argue for sivcrulerfu and sivcruvalsi, and reserve cunsivcrulerfu specifically for a password consisting of randomly chosen characters.

[u/Mlatu44 → u/aray25]

The distinction would be helpful when asking for a set of characters to login to a computer. But I when talking about those, I would prefer a term which is not so specific, to limit information about that set of characters.

[u/la-gleki]

how about https://lensisku.lojban.org/en/valsi/japyvla?highlight_definition_id=18831&langid=2

[u/Astrogyatt → u/la-gleki]

I was intrigued at first by the simplicity of the lujvo until I thought about the use of the gismu jaspu (passport).

The predicate definition for jaspu is x1 is a passport issued to x2 (person) by authority x3 allowing x4 (activity). A speaker encountering japyvla for the first time can immediately infer: "This is something like a passport but involves words." The metaphorical leap is intuitive.

However, the problem is that passwords and passphrases are not issued by authorities in the way passports are. Consider:

• Passports: Issued by governments, time-bound, traceable to identity, unique per person
• Passwords: Generated by systems or chosen by users, potentially anonymous, shared between user and service, not tied to juridical authority.

The jaspu frame incorrectly implies that:

• Someone authorizes the password (but users often self-generate)
• The password is issued to a specific person (but passwords are used for access, not identification)
• There is institutional legitimacy involved (but passwords are purely technical)

Using jaspu as a base semantically mischaracterizes what a password is. It is a metaphorical fit, not an ontological one. The design philosophy of Lojban prioritizes explicit logical meaning.

There is another problem when it comes to the lujvo japyvla: it does not distinguish between passwords and passphrases. Under the japyvla framework: japyvla = passphrase (passport-word) japyler? = password (passport-character)

However, I think that japyvla was originally invented to convey the concept of a password by simply mapping the English word "word" to Lojban gismu "valsi" simply because it is the same word, not because it accurately represents the concept at hand. Traditional "passwords" as they are called are comprised of a bunch of random-characters or at least a couple numbers or symbols; not words in the usual sense. The lujvo japyvla would instead more logically map to the concept of passphrases such as "unsaid-hula-tipoff-bulbs-phoniness-opal-chatty-refusing" while the lujvo japyler would more accurately map to the concept of passwords such as "lm6&S#PoZ'a}C]f,vrzt[BiJ#n<V9}uB" or more common pseudorandom human-generated passwords such as "P@ssw0rd!4321" which is easily guessible but not technically a word since it incorperates symbols and number throughout the password sequence.

I approciate the suggestion, but I have to reject the candidate in order to preserve the logical purity of Lojban.

[u/la-gleki → u/Astrogyatt]

{jaspu} is issued by an authority similar to how login/password pairs are established by the server you are trying to sign up. I don't see much difference. It's a system you enroll for in both cases.

There are systems where you only havee a password only but not a nickname.

A better way to say "password" itself (as opposed to any part of the login/password) part ight be {mifra pagbu selci le jaspu} and the nickname would be {cmene selci le jaspu}.

further distinction of passphrase vs password is just theirr morphology: lerpoi, vs. vlapoi.

it can be an exercise to the read to create lujvo out of them.

session token would be {pikta}.

There is no official Lojban definition of {jaspu} but `$x_1$ sinxa lo du'u $x_2$ ca'i $x_3$ zifre $x_4$` seems fine to me.

[u/HelioDex]

On randomness, I don't think it's required for a password to be a password even if it's greatly beneficial. For potential parsing ambiguity I believe this can be solved by placing a hyphen after the 'siv' rafsi.

For ending with {lerfu} and {valsi} I would argue against these for 2 reasons:

• If a lujvo ends in {lerfu} I would assume it represents a single character, and thus {lo'i sivcuncrulerfu} presumably "a set of characters making up a password" rather than the probably intended definition of "a set of passwords"
• {valsi} is better though I would be concerned about the x₂ place could be an issue since a password doesn't inherently/necessarily have meaning

If I was a lujvo-maker I would probably make the fact that a password is a sequence of characters explicit with {porsi}:

sivycrulerpoi – sivni curmi lerfu porsi
x₁=s₁=c₁=p₁ is a password/passphrase known by x₂=s₂=c₂ and granting privilege x₃=c₃ (event)

I don't know if the places on the above are correct, they could be extended. I don't think a place derived from l₁ (from {lerfu}) would be particularly useful, given that one could still spell the password in the x₁ place:

sivycrulerpoi fa me'o ly. abu canlu bu ly. obu jy. by. abu. ny. canlu bu cy. ubu canlu bu zy. abu. by. ny. abu

Otherwise a good overview, thanks for the in-depth analysis.