> There is an exercise on possessives, convert "pe" to nested form
> le cukta pe le ninmu -->
This one is a sumti (argument for a bridi), modified with {pe}. You need to convert it to a possessive sumti. This topic is covered in Chapter 8, section 7 of the Complete Lojban Language.
It says:
Although any sumti, however complex, can appear in a full-fledged relative phrase, only simple sumti can appear as possessor sumti, without a ``pe''. Roughly speaking, the legal possessor sumti are: pro-sumti, quotations, names and descriptions, and numbers. In addition, the possessor sumti may not be preceded by a quantifier, as such a form would be interpreted as the unusual ``descriptor + quantifier + sumti'' type of description. All these sumti forms are explained in full in Chapter 6.
In the phrase {le cukta pe le ninmu} {le ninmu} is the possessor without elidable terminator {ku}. {le ninmu ku} is a description in its full form, so, being a simple sumti, it is allowed to be inserted between the gadri ({le}) and the selbri ({cukta}).
> I offered:
> le le ninmu cu cukta
> Is it wrong? Answers page says "You can't do this (for now): le le ninmu
> cukta is ambiguous.". But how about "cu"?
This one is grammatically incorrect. Without the first preceding 'le' it is
le ninmu cu cukta
which is a bridi (ready relation), not a sumti (argument for it).
You then add le. But le may be added to selbri, not bridi to form a description sumti.
The correct answer is, of course,
{le le ninmu ku cukta}
In this sumti, {le ninmu ku} is an internal description sumti acting as a possessor.
Without {ku},
{le le ninmu cukta},
this phrase is not 'abmiguous', but simply incorrect.
{ninmu cukta} is a tanru type of selbri.
The first {le} attached to this selbri creates a description sumti {le ninmu cukta}.
But the second outer le runs the whole text to crash, because it is not possible to attach {le} to sumti without anything else.
Yanis Batura