[lojban] "gi" in place of "zi'e"

[tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>]

Multiple relative clauses (NOI) / phrases (GOI) can be joined up,
officially by "zi'e":

  da poi [ broda ] zi'e noi [ brode ]
  da poi [ broda ] zi'e pe [ de ]

I wonder if "gi" could substitute for that joiner:

  da poi [ broda ] gi noi [ brode ]
  da poi [ broda ] gi pe [ de ]

We would then have to consider if there is any possible syntactical
conflicts with the conventional forethought usages of "gi":

  ge < da poi [ broda ] gi noi [ brode ] > gi < zo'e >
  ge < da poi [ broda ] gi pe [ de ] > gi < zo'e >

  ge < da poi [ broda ] gi noi [ brode ] cu brodi > gi < co'e >
  ge < da poi [ broda ] gi pe [ de ] cu brodi > gi < co'e >

  joi gi < da poi [ broda ] gi noi [ brode ] > gi < zo'e >
  joi gi < da poi [ broda ] gi pe [ de ] > gi < zo'e >

  joi gi < da poi [ broda ] gi noi [ brode ] cu brodi > gi < co'e >
  joi gi < da poi [ broda]  gi pe [ de ] cu brodi > gi < co'e >

I feel as though the role of "gi" in "gi NOI/GOI" would always be
unambiguous; it could not be interpreted to be doing anything other
than joining the following unit to the last unit of the same indicated
type. In other words, "gi NOI/GOI" would entail another NOI/GOI before
it:

  ... gi NOI/GOI [ clause/phrase ] --> NOI/GOI [ clause/phrase ] gi
NOI/GOI [ clause/phrase ]

A somewhat similar and more noted case is that of JA/JOI being
technically capable of substituting for the A connectives:

  [ da poi broda ] .e [ de ] = [ da poi broda ] je [ de ]
  [ da poi broda ] .e [ lo brode ] = [ da poi broda ] je [ lo brode ]

This substitution is theoretically possible because such connectives
followed by a bare sumti or a gadri cannot be interpreted to be doing
anything other than joining the following unit to the last unit of the
same type, namely sumti:

  ... JA/JOI [ sumti ] --> [ sumti ] JA/JOI [ sumti ]

"gi" already works similarly according to its surroundings; its role
varies depending on what comes to which of its side. BPFK defines "gi"
varyingly as:

  - Separates the first from the second clause in a general FLC
[forethought logical connective] construct.
  - Converts a non-logical connective into a coordinating conjunction.

  http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Logical+Connectives#cmavo:_gi_GI_

And I suspect there might be even more to this cmavo than that.

mu'o

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.