Last and (as a matter of fact) least: a logical connective is allowed between abstraction markers of selma'o NU. As usual, the connection can be expanded to a bridi connection between two bridi which differ only in abstraction marker. Jeks are the appropriate connective. Example 19.1 and Example 19.2 are equivalent in meaning:
19.1) le ka la frank. ciska cu xlali .ije le ni la frank. ciska cu xlali
The quality-of Frank’s writing is bad, and the quantity of Frank’s writing is bad.
19.2) le ka je ni la frank. ciska cu xlali
The quality and quantity of Frank’s writing is bad.
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:
19.3) mi jinvi le du'u loi jmive cu zvati gi'onai na zvati vau la .iupiter.
I opine the fact-that a-mass-of living-things (is-at or-else isn’t-at) Jupiter.
I believe there either is or isn’t life on Jupiter.
is true, since the embedded sentence is a tautology, but:
19.4) mi jinvi le du'u loi jmive cu zvati la .iupiter.
.ijonai mi jinvi le du'u loi jmive cu zvati la .iupiter.
I opine the fact-that a-mass-of living-things is-at Jupiter
or-else I opine the fact-that a-mass-of living-things isn’t-at Jupiter
is false, since I have no evidence one way or the other (“jinvi” requires some sort of evidence, real or fancied, unlike “krici”).