However, selpa'i's examples don't work here.Should {noi mo} a). be restored into {noi mo cu co'e}I missed the part where "noi mo cu co'e" became grammatical.
implying {fa xi xo'e zo'e noi mo cu co'e} or b). should it instead be considered a continuation of the previous clause said by another speaker like with selpa'i's example with {be ma}?I would have said to "zo'e noi mo cu co'e"Both solutions seem reasonable. Maybe take option b). and treat a discourse split between several people as one sentence with special FUhE .. FUhO markers?mi viska lo pendo FUhE [B asks] be ma [FUhO]mi viska lo pendo FUhE [B asks] noi mo [FUhO]A: - I see a friend.B: - Of whom?A: - I see a friend.B: - Who does what?This would reformulate fragments as parts of discourse so that we can remove them from the grammar. Of course, this would require somehow preparing existing texts by marking them with those FUhE ... FUhO so that we can parse them.It depends on how you define "text". Is a dialogue one text, or a succession of texts? The usual take is that it's a succession of texts, since otherwise a lot of lojban dialogues that seem to parse would not parse. For example the irc logsI also allowed relative clauses in sumti without their heads. If fragments are removed from the grammar then similar things can be useful:sumti_4 = expr:(sumti_5 / relative_clauses / gek sumti gik sumti_4) {return _node("sumti_4", expr);}This could be dangerous, as it makes "ta prenu poi do sisku" grammatical, but not with the expected meaning.
Also things lika {da poi prenu ku'o noi melbi".
This results in {fa noi pendo mi cu melbi} (in fact it may even make {be} useless except when used stylistically).I think it's safer to require a "lo" for bare relative clauses: "lo noi pendo cu melbi" (this was also discussed as a good alternative to "poi'i" in many cases).