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 ).