Giheks can be combined with “bo” in the same way as eks:
✥10.1 mi nelci la djan. gi'e nelci la martas. gi'abo nelci la meris. I like John and (like Martha or like Mary).
is equivalent in meaning to ✥8.1 and ✥8.2. Likewise, “ke … ke'e” grouping can be used after giheks:
✥10.2 mi dzukla le zarci gi'e dzukla le zdani gi'a ke dzukla le ckule gi'e dzukla le briju [ke'e] I walk-to the market and walk-to the house, or walk-to the school and walk-to the office.
is the gihek version of ✥8.9. The same rule about using “ke … ke'e” bracketing only just after a connective applies to bridi-tails as to sumti, so the first two bridi-tails in ✥10.2 cannot be explicitly grouped; implicit left-grouping suffices to associate them.
Each of the pairs of bridi-tails joined by multiple giheks can have its own set of tail-terms:
✥10.3 mi dejni lo rupnu la djan. .inaja mi dunda le cukta la djan. .ijabo mi lebna le cukta la djan. [If] I owe some currency-units to John, then I give the book to John or I take the book from John.
is equivalent in meaning to:
✥10.4 mi dejni lo rupnu nagi'a dunda gi'abo lebna vau le cukta vau la djan. [If] I owe some currency-units then (give or take) a book to/from John.
The literal English translation in ✥10.4 is almost unintelligible, but the Lojban is perfectly grammatical. “mi” fills the x1 place of all three selbri; “lo rupnu” is the x2 of “dejni”, whereas “le cukta” is a tail-term shared between “dunda” and “lebna”; “la djan.” is a tail-term shared by “dejni” and by “dunda gi'abo lebna”. In this case, greater clarity is probably achieved by moving “la djan.” to the beginning of the sentence, as in ✥9.5:
✥10.5 fi la djan. fa mi dejni lo rupnu nagi'a dunda gi'abo lebna vau le cukta To/from John, [if] I owe some currency-units then [I] give or take the book.
Finally, what about forethought logical connection of bridi-tails? There is no direct mechanism for the purpose. Instead, Lojban grammar allows a pair of forethought-connected sentences to function as a single bridi-tail, and of course the sentences need not have terms before their selbri. For example:
10.5.5) mi ge klama le zarci gi nelci la djan. I both go to the market and like John.
is equivalent in meaning to ✥9.2.
Of course, either of the connected sentences may contain giheks:
✥10.6 mi ge klama le zarci gi'e dzukla le zdani gi nelci la djan. I both (go to the market and walk to the house) and like John.
The entire gek-connected sentence pair may be negated as a whole by prefixing “na”:
✥10.7 mi na ge klama le zarci gi dzukla le zdani [False!] I both go to the market and walk to the house.
Since a pair of sentences joined by geks is the equivalent of a bridi-tail, it may be followed by tail terms. The forethought equivalent of ✥9.6 is:
✥10.8 mi ge dunda le cukta gi lebna lo rupnu vau do I both (give the book) and (take some currency-units) to/from you.
Here is a pair of gek-connected observatives, a forethought equivalent of ✥9.9:
✥10.9 ge klama le zarci gi dzukla le briju Both a goer to-the market and a walker to-the office.
Finally, here is an example of gek-connected sentences with both shared and unshared terms before their selbri:
✥10.10 mi gonai le zarci cu klama gi le bisli cu dansu I either-but-not-both to-the office go or on-the ice dance. I either go to the office or dance on the ice (but not both).blog comments powered by Disqus