Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi  with smtp
	(Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qWACf-000023C; Fri, 5 Aug 94 00:19 EET DST
Message-Id: <m0qWACf-000023C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 3748; Fri, 05 Aug 94 00:18:24 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 3746; Fri, 5 Aug 1994 00:18:24 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8438; Thu, 4 Aug 1994 23:17:27 +0200
Date:         Thu, 4 Aug 1994 17:22:00 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: TECH: Narrative connectives?
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1967
Lines: 79

la veion cusku di'e

> I was just thinking...

Always a dangerous activity :)

> Logically connected sentences
>
>   (1) mi nelci ti .ije mi nelci ta
>       mi citka .ije mi pinxe
>
> can be conveniently shortened to
>
>   (2) mi nelci ti .e ta
>       mi citka je pinxe

Actually, the second one should be

        mi citka gi'e pinxe

because a tanru is not really automatically expandable to two sentences.

Also, you could have had {mi citka ti .ije mi pinxe ta} which is
{mi citka ti gi'e pinxe ta}, and you probably, in (1), didn't mean to say
that you were eating and drinking the same thing.

Your point is just as valid, though.

> However, there is no way to shorten a straigth narrative
>
>   (3) mi nelci ti .i mi nelci ta
>       mi citka .i mi pinxe
>
> in a similar way. Sometimes it would be quite natural and
> convenient to be able to say, e.g.
>
>   (4) *mi nelci ti gi ta
>        I like this  ... and that
>
>       *mi citka gi pinxe
>        I eat   ... and drink

Unfortunately, I think it doesn't work. Consider:

        ge mi citka ti gi do pinxe ta

Will the parser understand it as:

        ge (mi citka ti) gi (do pinxe ta)

or as:

        ge mi citka (ti gi do)

and then find an error with the next word?

I had thought along these lines at the time of the Mad Proposal. :)

> This structure could then be expanded to handle afterthought
> comparisons (as I proposed in an earlier posting)
>
>   (5) mi nelci ti .isemaubo mi nelci ta
>       -> *mi nelci ti gisemaubo ta
>
> (still using the {gi} which Jorge wouldn't like to have :_)

I don't mind it, if it can be made to work, but my way is more zipfy :)
(That's always a good argument to use in convincing Lojban Central :)


> and tense relationships within tanru (not presently allowed)
>
>   (6) mi citka .ibabo mi pinxe
>       -> *mi citka gibabo pinxe

I think this was permitted under Mad Proposal. It has to be bridi-tail
connection though, not tanru connection.

Jorge