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 Example 8.1 and Example 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 Example 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 Example 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 Example 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 Example 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:
10.6) mi ge klama le zarci gi nelci la djan.
I both go to the market and like John.
is equivalent in meaning to Example 9.2.
Of course, either of the connected sentences may contain giheks:
10.7) 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”:
10.8) 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 Example 9.6 is:
10.9) 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 Example 9.9:
10.10) 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:
10.11) 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).