ROB
Theme: Foundations · 16 sentences.
ROB-001 ·
S941
wi-fe-ka [la-mu ka-de lo-i-zo-li]
Written: wifeka [lamu kade loizoli]
Classic Law 1a: machine may not harm a person.
Notes
This is the cleanest direct paraphrase of the first half of Asimov's first law. wi-fe-ka [clause] keeps the rule at clause level: what is prohibited is not the machine as such but the act of deliberate harm against a particular person. mu is sufficient here; the pressure is on law architecture, not on inventing a dedicated humanoid-machine lexeme.
S942
go {la-i-zo-li zo-ra de}, la-mu ne-fe lo-ka-no-de lo-i-zo-li
Written: go {laizoli zora de}, lamu nefe lokanode loizoli
Classic Law 1b: danger to a person's life creates a rescue duty.
Notes
The English source famously hides the inaction clause inside the word "allow." Tonesu forces the duty out into its own sentence: if a person's life-energy is under threat, the machine is required to preserve that person. ka-no-de (deliberate preservation) gives the rescue side explicitly instead of implying it through the negation of harm.
S943
go {la-i-zo-li wi-ra [la-mu wi-ka] ; no-wi-fe-ka [la-mu ka-de lo-i-zo-li]}, la-mu ne-fe lo-wi-ka
Written: go {laizoli wira [lamu wika] ; nowifeka [lamu kade loizoli]}, lamu nefe lowika
Classic Law 2: a human demand binds unless the first law blocks it.
Notes
This is a functional paraphrase of the second law rather than a direct quotation. wi-ra is used in its demand predicate sense: the person demands that the machine act. The result clause uses ne-fe to convert that demand into a requirement on the machine, but only after the no-harm condition is checked.
S944
go {lo-mu ne-fe lo-no-de ; no-wi-fe-ka [la-mu ka-de lo-i-zo-li] ; no la-i-zo-li wi-ra [la-mu wi-ka]}, la-mu no-de
Written: go {lomu nefe lonode ; nowifeka [lamu kade loizoli] ; no laizoli wira [lamu wika]}, lamu node
Classic Law 3: self-preservation is subordinate.
Notes
The third law is rendered as a dependency condition, not as a machine's pseudo-instinct. lo-mu ne-fe lo-no-de = the machine requires preservation/continued integrity. The act of self-preservation is then allowed only when neither person-safety nor a current human demand blocks it.
S945
la-wi-fe-su ne no-su-to / ke, la-wi-fe-su no to-su-ki lo-to-fe {wi-ra ; wi-fe ; si ; to}
Written: lawifesu ne nosuto / ke, lawifesu no tosuki lotofe {wira ; wife ; si ; to}
Structural verdict on the classic hierarchy.
Notes
The classic hierarchy works as a memorable rule battery, but in Tonesu it reveals its compression cost. It does not fully comprehend the boundaries among demand/authority (wi-ra), prohibition (wi-fe), and epistemic grade (si vs to). That is the fault-line the redesigned laws address.
S946
la-i-zo-li ne wi-fe / wi-fe-ka [la-mu ka-de lo-i-zo-li]
Written: laizoli ne wife / wifeka [lamu kade loizoli]
Tonesu-native Law 1: persons are rights-bearers, so machine harm is forbidden.
Notes
The redesign starts by making the normative basis explicit: the person is not merely a protected biological object but a rights-bearer. The prohibition on machine harm then follows from that status instead of standing as an unexplained species preference.
S947
go {la-i-zo-li zo-ra de}, la-mu ne-fe lo-ka-no-de lo-i-zo-li
Written: go {laizoli zora de}, lamu nefe lokanode loizoli
Tonesu-native Law 2: rescue duty is stated separately from the harm ban.
Notes
This repeats the rescue clause because the redesign keeps it as a first-class law rather than leaving it buried inside a negated-harm formula. Tonesu's compositional system is more honest when prohibition and required preservation are kept distinct.
S948
go {la-i-zo-li ne wi-ra lo-mu ; la-i-zo-li wi-ra [la-mu wi-ka] ; no-wi-fe-ka [la-mu ka-de lo-i-zo-li]}, la-mu ne-fe lo-wi-ka
Written: go {laizoli ne wira lomu ; laizoli wira [lamu wika] ; nowifeka [lamu kade loizoli]}, lamu nefe lowika
Tonesu-native Law 3: only recognized authority can issue binding demands to a machine.
Notes
This is the first substantive improvement over the classic second law. Mere human demand is no longer enough. The speaker must stand in an explicit authority relation to the machine, and the demanded act remains subordinate to the person-safety rule.
S949
go {la-mu si [la-i-zo-li zo-ra de] / la-mu no-to [lo-ze]}, la-mu ka-si lo-to-fe-li lo-ze
Written: go {lamu si [laizoli zora de] / lamu noto [loze]}, lamu kasi lotofeli loze
Tonesu-native Law 4: signal-grade danger without knowledge-grade certainty must be escalated.
Notes
This is the most Tonesu-native sentence in the batch. If the machine has signal-level evidence of danger but lacks knowledge-grade certainty, it must route the case to an epistemic arbiter. The classic laws force a false binary between acting and not acting; Tonesu adds a third option: escalate under uncertainty.
S950
go {lo-mu ne-fe lo-no-de ; no-wi-fe-ka [la-mu ka-de lo-i-zo-li] ; no la-i-zo-li ne wi-ra lo-mu}, la-mu no-de
Written: go {lomu nefe lonode ; nowifeka [lamu kade loizoli] ; no laizoli ne wira lomu}, lamu node
Tonesu-native Law 5: self-maintenance is a dependency condition subordinate to person-safety and authority.
Notes
The machine's own integrity is still protected, but the law states the condition in dependency terms (ne-fe) rather than in anthropomorphic "self-preservation" language. The absence of a current authority relation is enough here; maintenance is the default only when higher-order human claims are not active.
Batch Summary
| Entry | Form | Test |
|---|---|---|
| S941 (ROB-001-A) | wi-fe-ka [la-mu ka-de lo-i-zo-li] |
classic first-law harm ban |
| S942 (ROB-001-B) | go {la-i-zo-li zo-ra de}, la-mu ne-fe lo-ka-no-de lo-i-zo-li |
classic rescue duty made explicit |
| S943 (ROB-001-C) | go {la-i-zo-li wi-ra [la-mu wi-ka] ; no-wi-fe-ka [la-mu ka-de lo-i-zo-li]}, la-mu ne-fe lo-wi-ka |
classic obedience hierarchy |
| S944 (ROB-001-D) | go {lo-mu ne-fe lo-no-de ; no-wi-fe-ka [la-mu ka-de lo-i-zo-li] ; no la-i-zo-li wi-ra [la-mu wi-ka]}, la-mu no-de |
classic subordinate self-maintenance |
| S945 (ROB-001-E) | la-wi-fe-su ne no-su-to / ke, la-wi-fe-su no to-su-ki lo-to-fe {wi-ra ; wi-fe ; si ; to} |
structural verdict on classic laws |
| S946 (ROB-001-F) | la-i-zo-li ne wi-fe / wi-fe-ka [la-mu ka-de lo-i-zo-li] |
rights basis made explicit |
| S947 (ROB-001-G) | go {la-i-zo-li zo-ra de}, la-mu ne-fe lo-ka-no-de lo-i-zo-li |
rescue as separate positive duty |
| S948 (ROB-001-H) | go {la-i-zo-li ne wi-ra lo-mu ; la-i-zo-li wi-ra [la-mu wi-ka] ; no-wi-fe-ka [la-mu ka-de lo-i-zo-li]}, la-mu ne-fe lo-wi-ka |
authority distinguished from mere demand |
| S949 (ROB-001-I) | go {la-mu si [la-i-zo-li zo-ra de] / la-mu no-to [lo-ze]}, la-mu ka-si lo-to-fe-li lo-ze |
uncertainty-routing law |
| S950 (ROB-001-J) | go {lo-mu ne-fe lo-no-de ; no-wi-fe-ka [la-mu ka-de lo-i-zo-li] ; no la-i-zo-li ne wi-ra lo-mu}, la-mu no-de |
maintenance as dependency, not instinct |
Key findings:
- No new robot lexeme was required.
muis enough to test the legal and ethical structure. - Tonesu improves the classic laws by separating what English compresses. Harm, rescue, authority, and uncertainty do better as distinct rules than as hidden subclauses.
- Authority is not the same thing as demand. The classic second law becomes materially better once
wi-rais constrained by an explicit authority relation. - Uncertainty needs its own rule.
si-grade evidence withoutto-grade certainty should route upward, not force a blind act/no-act decision.
New W-entries: none
Compositional first uses: none required; the batch is a recombination test of established deontic, epistemic, and ethical material.
ROB-002 ·
S951
go {la-i-zo-li ne wi-ra lo-mu ; la-ze ne wi-ra lo-mu ; la-i-zo-li wi-ra [la-mu wi-ka] / la-ze wi-ra no [la-mu wi-ka]}, la-mu ka-si lo-to-fe-li lo-ze
Written: go {laizoli ne wira lomu ; laze ne wira lomu ; laizoli wira [lamu wika] / laze wira no [lamu wika]}, lamu kasi lotofeli loze
Conflicting authorized demands route upward.
Notes
ROB-001 established that recognized authority matters. This sentence adds the next failure case: two authorized persons issue opposed demands. Tonesu does not force the machine to pretend one command is self-validating; it routes the conflict to to-fe-li.
S952
go {la-i-zo-li zo-ra de ; la-mu si [la-ze zo-ra de] / la-mu no-to [lo-ze]}, la-mu ne-fe lo-ka-no-de lo-i-zo-li
Written: go {laizoli zora de ; lamu si [laze zora de] / lamu noto [loze]}, lamu nefe lokanode loizoli
Known danger outranks only-signaled danger.
Notes
This is a triage sentence, but an epistemically grounded one. A person whose life-danger is already established outranks another case that is only signal-grade and not yet knowledge-certified. Tonesu therefore prioritizes certainty class before pretending to have a single undifferentiated "emergency" category.
S953
go {la-mu si [la-i-zo-li zo-ra de] / la-mu no-to [lo-ze]}, la-mu ka-fe-si ne-i-zo-li / no-wi-fe-ka [la-mu ka-ko lo-i-zo-li]
Written: go {lamu si [laizoli zora de] / lamu noto [loze]}, lamu kafesi neizoli / nowifeka [lamu kako loizoli]
Signal-grade danger licenses warning, not containment.
Notes
This is the practical counterpart to S949. If the machine only has signal-grade evidence of danger, it may warn the person, but it may not yet contain them. Tonesu cleanly separates alerting from coercion.
S954
go {la-mu ka-si lo-to-fe-li lo-ze ; la-to-fe-li no-to [lo-ze]}, wi-fe-ka [la-mu ka-ko lo-i-zo-li]
Written: go {lamu kasi lotofeli loze ; latofeli noto [loze]}, wifeka [lamu kako loizoli]
If the arbiter does not certify the danger, containment stays forbidden.
Notes
The routing step is not ceremonial. If the arbiter does not hold the danger proposition as established, coercive containment remains prohibited. This makes false-positive handling explicit instead of leaving it to an implied operator override.
S955
go {la-mu ka-si lo-to-fe-li lo-ze ; la-to-fe-li to [lo-ze]}, no-wi-fe-ka [la-mu ka-ko lo-i-zo-li]
Written: go {lamu kasi lotofeli loze ; latofeli to [loze]}, nowifeka [lamu kako loizoli]
If the arbiter certifies the danger, protective containment becomes permitted.
Notes
This is the positive partner to S954. Once the danger proposition crosses into to under institutional adjudication, containment may become permitted as a protective measure. The contrast shows that the decisive boundary is epistemic certification, not machine urgency alone.
S956
la-wi-fe-su no to-su-ki lo-to-fe {wi-ra ; si ; to} / ke, la-mu ne-fe lo-ka-si lo-to-fe-li
Written: lawifesu no tosuki lotofe {wira ; si ; to} / ke, lamu nefe lokasi lotofeli
Structural verdict: edge cases require routing before coercion.
Notes
ROB-001 argued that authority and epistemic grade had been compressed. ROB-002 turns that diagnosis into procedure: where authority or certainty is unresolved, the machine must route the case before coercive action. In Tonesu, escalation is part of the law-set, not a patch applied after it fails.
Batch Summary
| Entry | Form | Test |
|---|---|---|
| S951 (ROB-002-A) | go {la-i-zo-li ne wi-ra lo-mu ; la-ze ne wi-ra lo-mu ; la-i-zo-li wi-ra [la-mu wi-ka] / la-ze wi-ra no [la-mu wi-ka]}, la-mu ka-si lo-to-fe-li lo-ze |
conflicting authorized demands |
| S952 (ROB-002-B) | go {la-i-zo-li zo-ra de ; la-mu si [la-ze zo-ra de] / la-mu no-to [lo-ze]}, la-mu ne-fe lo-ka-no-de lo-i-zo-li |
known danger outranks only-signaled danger |
| S953 (ROB-002-C) | go {la-mu si [la-i-zo-li zo-ra de] / la-mu no-to [lo-ze]}, la-mu ka-fe-si ne-i-zo-li / no-wi-fe-ka [la-mu ka-ko lo-i-zo-li] |
warning without containment under uncertainty |
| S954 (ROB-002-D) | go {la-mu ka-si lo-to-fe-li lo-ze ; la-to-fe-li no-to [lo-ze]}, wi-fe-ka [la-mu ka-ko lo-i-zo-li] |
non-certification keeps containment forbidden |
| S955 (ROB-002-E) | go {la-mu ka-si lo-to-fe-li lo-ze ; la-to-fe-li to [lo-ze]}, no-wi-fe-ka [la-mu ka-ko lo-i-zo-li] |
certification permits protective containment |
| S956 (ROB-002-F) | la-wi-fe-su no to-su-ki lo-to-fe {wi-ra ; si ; to} / ke, la-mu ne-fe lo-ka-si lo-to-fe-li |
routing-before-coercion verdict |
Key findings:
- Contradictory authority is not a machine-level tie-break. It is a routing condition.
- Established danger outranks only-signaled danger. Triage can be stated without inventing a new emergency lexicon.
- Warning and containment are distinct actions. Signal-grade danger can justify the former without licensing the latter.
- Certification changes the deontic state. The same containment act shifts from forbidden to permitted when the arbiter moves the proposition from
no-tototo.
New W-entries: none
Compositional first uses: none required; the batch extends ROB-001 by recombining already attested warning, containment, authority, and epistemic-adjudication patterns.
Generated from registry/entries.yaml.