do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati

[Chris Bogart <cbogart@quetzal.com>]

I was thinking more about the discussion of whether the answer ".a" to the
question:

        "do djica loi ckafi ji loi tcati"

is evasive or not.  When the question is answered ".a" that means:

        "mi djica loi ckafi .a loi tcati"

which expands to:

        "mi djica loi ckafi .ija mi djica loi tcati"

Now suppose I want tea, and I don't want coffee; and suppose I answer ".a"
to the question. I would be telling the truth, because "mi djica loi ckafi"
would be false, "mi djica loi tcati" would be true, and the ".ija" of the
two statements would therefore be true.  So saying ".a" doesn't really tell
the questioner what I want to drink!

But instead of adding new connectives or something, I think the real problem
is that the question was misphrased.  The correct translation of "would you
like coffee or tea?" should be:

        "do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati ku"

("je'i" being the tanru connective question-word) -- and the response could
be "ja" or better yet "jonai" to mean "either"; or "jenai" to mean you want
tea, or "na'i" to mean you're not thirsty.

I suggest using a tanru connective not because the semantics of the tanru
connectives are hazier, but because it allows you to put the connective
within the scope of "loi", which (I think) is a barrier preventing
conversion of the sentence (answered by "ja") into two sentences connected
by ".ija".  So if I don't want coffee I can't get away with evasively saying
"ja", since the possibility of

        "mi djica loi tcati" being true, and
        "mi djica loi ckafi" being false,

is not really implied or even addressed by the statement:

        "mi djica loi ckafi ja tcati".



Alternately you could find some way of abstracting the connective without
resorting to tanru connection, like:

        "do djica lenu mi dunda do loi ckafi ji loi tcati".

I think ".a" here as an answer would generalize to:

        "mi djica lenu do dunda mi loi ckafi
                     gi'a dunda mi loi tcati kei"

but *not* to:

        "mi djica lenu do dunda mi loi ckafi
    .ija mi djica lenu do dunda mi loi tcati".



Or how about this:

        "do djica tu'a loi ckafi ji loi tcati lu'u"

(can "tu'a" enclose two connected sumti like that?  Or is there an implied
"lu'u" before "ji"?)
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Chris Bogart
 cbogart@quetzal.com
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~