Re: TECH: Narrative connectives?

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

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