Re: PLI: *cukta za'o nanmu (PU: *old response to and #1)

["Jorge J. Llambias" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

>> >I am afraid you have lost me completely. .i do ranxi .ijo ki'u ma .ijonai
>> >do cusku ma
>> i oisaizo'o pe'u doi goran e'o sisti le nu pilno zo jo i le do jufra
>> na ka'e terjimpe
>.i .a'onai.aunai mi tcenei zo jo .i'e .i de'u xamgu lenu cusku zoigy.
>Are you ironical? If so, ..., and if not, ... .gy. .i xu na go'i

i na go'i

{ijo} does not mean "if so". At best it means "if and only if".
Let's consider the first part of your sentence: i do ranji ijo ki'u ma [go'i]

What is And to answer? Suppose he agrees that he is an irony, then he
has to make the second part true as well, for example {ki'u le nu mi
djica}. Now suppose that he does not agree that he is an irony. Then
he must make the second part false as well. The same answer will do.
So what do you conclude from that answer? Nothing, because it works
whether he is an irony or not.

The second connection complicates things even more. The convention is
left bracketing, so if he answered so as to make the first part true,
he must now answer so that {la and cusku ....} is true. Otherwise,
he must make it false. {ijonai} does not mean "if not", and in any
case it does not connect with the first part only, but with the whole
connected first two parts.

You would do slightly better with {inaja} for "if so", but it is still
not quite right.

>.i ra mutce satci je simsa belo sambau .u'i

i ku'i srera

co'o mi'e xorxes