You want {le fadni po'u la'o gy ... gy}, otherwise the second sumti will fill
a different argument slot.
Isn't that a kind of relative phrase? What would you do if you wanted {fadni} to directly describe the {la'o gy ... gy} so that they become a tanru?
> 3) Is {lei so'i ...} valid? Also, is the tanru structure {lei ... co ... ce ... ce ...} valid?
You could say {so'i ki'o ki'o} for "millions". I would use {jo'u} rather
than {ce}, but the structure is correct.
I think "millions of" is quite a metaphor. Even if {so'i ki'o ki'o} can too deliver that metaphoric meaning (so, "many as thousand thousand"), would that be a favourable Lojban _expression_?
I used {ce} because I wanted to mean a set by {lei}. But you're right, {jo'u} sounds better.
What is the final {ri}? It refers to {le gunma ke dikca paprysfe}, also you
would need {le drata be ri} if you mean it to fill the x2 of drata.
Yes, {ri} is meant to refer to {le gunma ke dikca paprysfe}. And by {le drata ri} I wanted to say "other-type-of le-gunma-ke-dikca-paprysfe"
i.e. "other documents of the world wide web". I thought "interlinked web pages" and "documents of the world wide web" are the same things. Hence the pro-sumti reference. But now I'm in doubt myself whether {ri} can make a tanru like {le drata ri}.
I don't think {ba'e} corresponds to anything in the English version.
It's as if you said in English: "It is a _network_ of networks", with an
emphasis on "network". You may want {pe'a} for the effect of the quotes
in English, and fu'e-fu'o to extend its effect to the whole phrase,
otherwise ba'e/pe'a only affect the following word.
I must have firstly written {ba'e ke ciste be fi lei ciste ke'e} and then somehow changed it. Would that use of {ke ... ke'e} here be valid?
{pe'a} looks good, but on the list it isn't said to be a forethought one, while {ba'e} is. You suggested {pe'a fu'e ciste fi lo ciste fu'o}, so, is {pe'a} actually forethought? Then I'm not sure how it differs from {ba'e}.
I'm not sure I understand what {ni'i} is doing there.
The "network of networks" is an interpretation by which the Internet can be identified. And there is a logical ground on which this interpretation can be possible. If the Internet doesn't "consists of millions of smaller domestic, academic, business, and government networks, which together carry various information and services, such as electronic mail, online chat, file transfer, and the interlinked web pages and other documents of the world wide web", then there isn't a reason by which people should call it a "network of networks". Conversely, if the Internet does "consists ...", then that's the reason why the emphasized _expression_ is possible. And that's why I used {ni'i} there.