Re: Mad Proposals II: The watered down version.

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

la djan cusku di'e

> I hadn't really given thought to these proposed {gijoi} forms before.  The
> main question is, what do they mean?  Bridi-tails aren't really semantically

[li'o]

> 3)      mi klama le zarci .ijoi do klama le zarci
>
> and in fact Example 3 doesn't have a well-understood meaning.  (What does it
> mean to construct a mass of two sentences, or of the claims of two sentences?)

I never claimed {gijoi} is more meaningful than {.ijoi}, but it's not less
meaningful either. When we discover what {.ijoi} means, we'll know what {gijoi}
means (it's not just an expansion, but their meanings are related).

Or are we going to eliminate all constructions for which we don't know the
meaning yet?

> The only ijoik explained in my reference grammar is ".ice'o", which separates
> the elements of an ordered list of bridi.

"gice'o" would have a very similar meaning (from the same example):

{mi ba kanji lo ni cteki kei gice'o lumci le karce gice'o dzukansa le gerku}

is just as meaningful as

15.9)   mi ba gasnu la'edi'e
                .i tu'e kanji lo ni cteki
                .ice'o lumci le karce
                .ice'o dzukansa le gerku tu'u
        I [future] do the-referent-of-the-following:
                ( Compute the quantity of taxes.
                And-then wash the car.
                And-then walkingly-accompany the dog. )
        List of things to do:
                Figure taxes.
                Wash car.
                Walk dog.

>
> I believe that non-logical bridi-tail connectives have no place in the
 language,
> because they have no natural semantics.

They have the same natural semantics that non-logical bridi connectives have,
since bridi-tails are just a type of bridi. If they don't have a place in the
language, neither do non-logical bridi connectives.

And here's a possible example with {gijo'u}:

mi zgana le se tivni gijo'u citka le cidja
"I watch the TV program along-with eat the food"

Any doubt what that means? I think {gijo'u} is what is meant in many cases
that {gi'e} is now used, because there's no other option. {gi'e} makes the
two claims without establishing any connection (other than the logical one)
between them, while {gijoi} and company make a single claim, composed of
subclaims that are not claimed separately.

Here's another one:

mi'a cinba vo'a gijoi dasgau vo'a noda

I'll let you all figure out what that one means.

Jorge

(This makes me think that we urgently need the {gijoi}'s, if nothing else.)