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).