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 m0qWUhj-000023C; Fri, 5 Aug 94 22:13 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5620; Fri, 05 Aug 94 22:11:53 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 5616; Fri, 5 Aug 1994 22:11:49 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7463; Fri, 5 Aug 1994 21:10:45 +0200 Date: Fri, 5 Aug 1994 15:10:04 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: TECH: Narrative connectives? X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199408041949.AA07244@nfs1.digex.net> from "Veijo Vilva" at Aug 4, 94 10:43:34 pm Content-Length: 1718 Lines: 54 la veion. cusku di'e > 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 > > However, there is no way to shorten a straigth narrative > > (3) mi nelci ti .i mi nelci ta > mi citka .i mi pinxe Well, actually there are ways, using different mechanisms. (I know you know about these, but not everybody on this list will.) 3a) mi nelci ti .i go'i ti mi citka .i pinxe where the latter case elides x1 but is not a classic "observative". > 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 I believe that this proposed change (whatever its syntax) would violate the general nature of non-logical connectives (which is really what it is, as you say below: a vague non-logical connective). The essence of a non- logical connective is that it doesn't transform into multiple sentences: "mi pinxe loi ckafi ku joi loi tcati" is not the same as "mi pinxe loi ckafi .ijoi go'i loi tcati", and it is questionable what the latter might mean at all. > Here {gi} is a new type of non-logical connective, a narrative > connective. It builds loose compounds which don't fit well > into the set of existing non-logical compound types. > ({i} can be thought of as a narrative sentence connective.) Your analysis is sound enough. [material on afterthought comparisons deleted] -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.