To be or not to be? Coffee or tea?

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

Recently Nick posted a translation of the beginning of
Hamlet's "to be or not to be" thing. The first line was:

>       .i pu'o zasti .ei xu .i di'u ra'i preti

I think that that line is probably Shakespeare's universally
most recognized, and that it is essential for that recognition
to have the "be-not be" contrast in any translation. Of course,
purely meaningwise it's probably unnecessary, but there's more
than meaning involved here. I also couldn't understand what
{pu'o} was doing there, and I think {preti} is not the best of
translations for this type of "question", it is the issue that
is being pointed out, rather than the interrogative statement.
(I prefer {ai} instead of {ei} too, but that's more subtle.)

I'd say something like:

        i aixu zasti  i xu na zasti  i terjdi ia


But the subject of this post is logical connectives. I don't think
they should be used for Hamlet's question, but I also have some trouble
in general with the "decision or".

        do djica tu'a loi ckafi ji loi tcati

[In the draft grammar, djica is used without tu'a in several places.
Is this sumti raising?]

Now, suppose I want to respond "either". If I say {.a}, I'm only
saying that I want at least one of them, but I'm not saying which.
How do I say that I want either? I would say {du'ibo}, but that's
not grammatical yet.


And to add some confusion, consider

        mi djica le nu do pinxe loi ckafi .a loi tcati

which expands to

        mi djica le nu do pinxe loi ckafi gi'a pinxe loi tcati

Does it further expand to

    mi djica le nu do pinxe loi ckafi kei .a le nu do pinxe loi tcati

?

At first sight they seem equivalent, but...

The first one means that I want that you drink at least one of them,
but I don't have to want that you drink one in particular. In the second
one, I have to want that you drink one in particular.

I hope what I wrote makes any sense to someone.

Jorge