14.19. Abstractor connection and connection within abstractions

Last and (as a matter of fact) least: a logical connective is allowed between abstraction markers of selma'o NU. As usual, the connection can be expanded to a bridi connection between two bridi which differ only in abstraction marker. Jeks are the appropriate connective. Example 14.170 and Example 14.171 are equivalent in meaning:

Example 14.170. 

le ka la .frank. ciska cu xlali
The quality-of that-named Frank's writing is-bad,
.ije le ni la .frank. ciska cu xlali
and the quantity-of that-named Frank's writing is-bad.

Example 14.171. 

le ka je ni la .frank. ciska cu xlali
The quality and quantity of that-named Frank's writing is-bad.

As with tenses and modals, there is no forethought and no way to override the left-grouping rule.

Logical connectives and abstraction are related in another way as well, though. Since an abstraction contains a bridi, the bridi may have a logical connection inside it. Is it legitimate to split the outer bridi into two, joined by the logical connection? Absolutely not. For example:

Example 14.172. 

mi jinvi le du'u loi jmive
I opine the fact-that a-mass-of living-things
cu zvati gi'onai na zvati vau la .iupiter.
(is-at or-else is-not at) that-named Jupiter.

I believe there either is or isn't life on Jupiter.


is true, since the embedded sentence is a tautology, but:

Example 14.173. 

mi jinvi le du'u loi jmive cu zvati la .iupiter.
I opine the fact-that a-mass-of living-things is-at that-named Jupiter
.ijonai mi jinvi le du'u loi jmive
or-else I opine the fact-that a-mass-of living-things
na zvati la .iupiter.
isn't-at that-named Jupiter

is false, since I have no evidence one way or the other (jinvi requires some sort of evidence, real or fancied, unlike krici).