- Home
- Get A Printable Dictionary
- Search Best Words
- Recent Changes
- How You Can Help
- valsi - All
- valsi - Preferred Only
- natlang - All
- natlang - Preferred Only
- Languages
- XML Export
- user Listing
- Report Bugs
- Utilities
- Status
- Help
- Admin Request
- Create Account
|
Discussion of "ji'o'e"
[parent]
[root]
Comment #7:
Re: .i ji'o'e
|
Curtis W Franks (Sat Jun 27 07:36:49 2015)
|
gleki wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > gleki wrote: > > > how is .iji'o'e different from .i? > > > > I figure that just .i separates bridi without making any claim about > > their relation to one another. They could be utterly unrelated. They must > > > be explicitly connected together in order to guarantee some mutual > > relationship, such as both being true together, one being derived > logically > > from the other, being mutually exclusive, etc. Of course, .iju implies > > that one claim is independent of the other (and it does not imply > anything > > about the reverse), but even independence is a relationship of sorts. > Thus > > .iji'o'e does explicitly guarantee a connection between the statements, > > > even if it does not say what it is. > > I suppose variables declared using da or goi are preserved across > iji'o'e sentences?
If they are preserved over .ije, then yes. This word is meant to function exactly as (at least) je does, but without the semantics of je (being elliptical/referencing any connective instead of merely "and").
|
-
Comment #8:
Re: .i ji'o'e
|
gleki (Sat Jun 27 07:47:04 2015)
|
krtisfranks wrote: > gleki wrote: > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > gleki wrote: > > > > how is .iji'o'e different from .i? > > > > > > I figure that just .i separates bridi without making any claim about > > > their relation to one another. They could be utterly unrelated. They > must > > > > > be explicitly connected together in order to guarantee some mutual > > > relationship, such as both being true together, one being derived > > logically > > > from the other, being mutually exclusive, etc. Of course, .iju > implies > > > that one claim is independent of the other (and it does not imply > > anything > > > about the reverse), but even independence is a relationship of sorts.
> > Thus > > > .iji'o'e does explicitly guarantee a connection between the > statements, > > > > > even if it does not say what it is. > > > > I suppose variables declared using da or goi are preserved across > > iji'o'e sentences? > > If they are preserved over .ije, then yes. This word is meant to function > exactly as (at least) je does, but without the semantics of je (being
> elliptical/referencing any connective instead of merely "and").
Another option could be to extend the grammar of STAG BO_CLAUSE so that "mi do'e bo klama" becomes gendra.
Alta grammar now supports it instead of yours "mi ji'o'e do'e bo klama" since joik_ek can now be elided.
The expansion is just mi klama i do'e bo do klama
|
-
|
|
|