[lojban-beginners] Re: omitting zo'e in a compound bridi

["Vid Sintef" <picos.picos@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/25/08, Vid Sintef <picos.picos@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > ¿Would the intended construct still be clear if I omit the {zo'e} in this:
>  > do te ke dunda le cukta [vau] gi'e lebna zo'e [vau] [ke'e] vau mi ;
>  > .i.e
>  > do te ke dunda le cukta gi'e lebna vau mi?
>
>  That's not grammatical. Or rather, it is grammatical if you omit
>  [ke'e], but it parses like this:
>
>   do te ke dunda [ke'e] le cukta [ku] [vau] gi'e lebna zo'e vau mi [vau]
>
>  If you omit {zo'e}, it would expand to:
>
>   do te dunda le cukta mi .ije do lebna mi
>
>  mu'o mi'e xorxes

I see. {ke} cannot override {gi'e}, therefore {te} is needed for both
{dunda} and {lebna} to have {do} as their mutual x3:

 do te dunda le cukta [ku] [vau] gi'e te lebna zo'e [ku] [vau] vau mi

Now, is this {zo'e} elidable?


mu'o mi'e tijlan