I'm sure I've talked about this here before.
It's true that = {da de broda be di} is equivalent to {da broda di de}, but it's not tru= e that {broda be di} has different place structure than {broda}. It's j= ust that the second place is already filled, so {de} takes the next unoccup= ied place. Meanwhile, {da fe de broda be di} is equivalent to {da broda de = fe di}, so there are two sumti for the second place (possibly equivalent to= {da broda de jo'u di} or something).
At least that's how it is now, I'm not sure whether you're talk= ing about current Lojban or proposing new things.

I don't know if you could really call it "the= way Lojban is now" because stuff like this is extremely rare. What I&= #39;m trying to do here is provide a comprehensive analysis of what happens= on the selbri level when linked arguments are used. The conclusion that I = reached is that {be} is a selbri operator much like {se} that will indeed *= modify* the place structure. {broda} and {se broda} are indeed different se= lbri, even though one is clearly derived from the other. Similarly, {broda = be ko'a} and {broda} are *different* selbri.=A0

(I have put parentheses around the selbri in places whe= re isolating it aids comprehension.)

With that sai= d, it shouldn't be unusual that the place structures be different. Beca= use using {be} drops a place from the structure, the other places should mo= ve forward. {ko'a ko'e (broda be fo'a)} is equivalent to {ko= 9;a (broda be fo'a) ko'e} =A0because we are allowed to move sumti f= rom the head into the tail freely. The sumti that are linked directly into = the sumti are invisible to the formal structure sumti. This becomes more ob= vious when we isolate the selbri and write this out in {me'au} notation= . {me'au} is an experimental cmavo that allows function abstractions (i= .e. {ka}-abstractions) to become selbri.

e.g. {mi do (me'au lo ka ce'u cinba ce'u)} = -> {mi cinba do}
(Formally, {me'au} is of selma'o ME.)=

Do demonstrate the effect of be operating on a se= lbri level, using me'au helps, such that {broda be ko'a} as a selbr= i is equivalent to {lo ka [ce'u] broda ko'a [ce'u] ...}

Therefore, {.i fo'a fo'e (broda be ko'a)} -= > {.i fo'a fo'e (me'au lo ka ce'u broda ko'a ce'= u)}
Using {fe} on the top level therefore has no effect, as it is= operating on the formal place filling level and not the selbri-internal le= vel, where {ko'a} resides in the example just above.

{.i fo'a fe fo'e (broda be ko'a)} -> {.i fo'a fe fo= 'e (me'au lo ka ce'u broda ko'a ce'u)} which is equival= ent to {.i fo'a fo'e me'au lo ka ce'u broda ko'a ce'= ;u}. The {fe} indeed has no effect of double-assigning a place, in this cas= e. Another way of looking at it would be to say that using be moves the sum= ti directly into the selbri, which is outside the scope of top-level FA. Ev= en if at this point it were still debatable, saying that it causes double a= ssignment would be less productive, I think, as double assignment in genera= l is unuseful. (I don't think it's entirely pointless; it's one= solution to the problem of using {sei} and splitting quotes: {.i lu coi pe= ndo li'u selsku lo verba fa lu .i do mo li'u})

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o