Mystery mistake

[cbmvax!uunet!gnu.ai.mit.edu!grackle!bob]

I made a mistake (one that I found :-) with the complicated
forethought expression in the mystery story I posted yesterday.

The sentence is supposed to say:

    If the thief opened the lock box and did not break it, 
    then he knew the process of open-operating the box-door.

The sentence should use:

                ganai ... gi ... 
    forethought if...     then ...   GEK/GIK lexeme

Instead, I said:

    Both the thief opened the lock box and broke it, 
    and it is false that he knew the process of open-operating the box-door.

using: 
                genai ... gi ...         
    forethought both...   and-it-is-false-that...

(which may also be translated as:  ... but not ... )

The story uses forethought mode here because the detective is supposed
to be thinking hard about the mystery of how the thief opened the safe
without damaging it.

Here is what I think is the correct solution using GEK and GIK:

    ganai   le  zekri prenu goi ko'a 
    only-if the crime person    X1     

        ge   kalri rinka le stela tanxe gi  na'e       porpi  rinka ri
        both open  cause the lock box   and other-than broken cause it

    gi   ko'a cu djano lo nu       kalri sazru   le  tanxe vorme
    then he      knows the process open  operate the lock  box.


The if...then... construction is based on the EBNF rule:

    sentence-1<41>      = term ... [/CU#/] bridi-tail 
                            | gek sentence-1 gik sentence-1 | 


The both...and... construction is based on the EBNF rules:

    bridi-tail<50>      = bridi-tail-1 | gek-tail | tagged-tail
    gek-tail<51>        = gek bridi-tail gik bridi-tail 


Incidently, I used GEK/GIK in another place, but this time with two
sumti:

    mi faski    lo    za'i        ge   lo  vorme gi lo  stela   na  porpi 
    I  discover that the state of both the door and the lock is not broken.

In this instance, the both...and... construction is based on the EBNF
rule:

    sumti-4<96>         = (LAhE | NAhE BO #) sumti-3 
                            | sumti-5 [relative-clauses]
                            | gek sumti gik sumti-3

where a sumti-3 may be a sumti-4.

Finally, in another sentence I used afterthought GIHEK to join two
bridi-tails:

    le  minra  pa ferlu      lo  bitmu    lo  loldi gi'a pa porpi 
    The mirror    fell  from the wall  to the floor and     broke.

This GIhA construction is based on the EBNF rules:

    sentence-1<41>      = term ... [/CU#/] bridi-tail 
                            | gek sentence-1 gik sentence-1

    bridi-tail-1<53>    = bridi-base [gihek bridi-tail-2 tail-terms] ...

    bridi-tail-2<62>    = bridi-base [gihek [stag] BO # bridi-tail-2]

    bridi-base<63>      = selbri tail-terms 
                             [gihek [stag] KE # bridi-tail /KEhE#/] ...

    tail-terms<71>      = [term ...] /VAU#/


    Robert J. Chassell               bob@gnu.ai.mit.edu
    Rattlesnake Mountain Road        (413) 298-4725 or (617) 253-8568 or
    Stockbridge, MA 01262-0693 USA   (617) 876-3296 (for messages)