how is .iji'o'e different from .i?

Comment #4: Re: .i ji'o'e

Curtis W Franks (Sat Jun 27 06:54:16 2015)

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.

Comment #6: Re: .i ji'o'e gleki (Sat Jun 27 07:34:37 2015) 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? 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