Re: Mad Proposals II: The watered down version.

> MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 2:
> 
> Replace {gi'e}'s by {gije}'s, and allow {gijoi}'s for the same function.

I hadn't really given thought to these proposed {gijoi} forms before.  The
main question is, what do they mean?  Bridi-tails aren't really semantically
meaningful in the Lojban context; "gi'e" exists primarily to imitate natural
languages which have NP-VP sentences:

1)	mi klama le zarci gi'e cadzu le bisli
	I go-to the market and walk-on the ice.

In the English sentence, the "and" is connecting VPs, but in the Lojban it's
connecting a selbri-plus-trailing-sumti, a purely "surface syntax" notion.

We explain giheks by the corresponding ijeks, as it is a principle in Lojban
that all logical connectives "expand out" to bridi logical connection.  For
non-logical connection, though, this rule does not hold:

2)	mi joi do klama le zarci
	I massed-with you go-to the market

does not expand to

3)	mi klama le zarci .ijoi do klama le zarci

and in fact Example 3 doesn't have a well-understood meaning.  (What does it
mean to construct a mass of two sentences, or of the claims of two sentences?)
The only ijoik explained in my reference grammar is ".ice'o", which separates
the elements of an ordered list of bridi.

I believe that non-logical bridi-tail connectives have no place in the language,
because they have no natural semantics.

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.