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. Jeks are the appropriate connective.

Example 14.170.

le	mikce	cu	se	cinri	le	pu'u	jenai	za'i	mi	sipna
The	doctor			is-interested-in	the	process-of	and-not	state-of	me	sleeping.

The doctor is interested in the process of me sleeping but not in the state of me sleeping.

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 14.171.

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 14.172.

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 ).