I don't think Yanis made the mistakes you saw... HeliodoR wrote:
doi daVID. mi na tolcertu be la lojban. "mi na tolcertu la lojban."
It is also perfectly correct to say {tolcertu be la lojban}. Semantically, in a construction like that, there's no difference between the forms. The {be} binds the second sumti more tightly to the selbri, making it actually part of the selbri, but since there's nothing after it, the changed precedences don't matter.
.i lo du'u do ka'e fanva so'a da la lojban. cu xamgu
"lo nu do [...]"
Maybe {nu} would be better; the distinctions among the abstractors can be hard to pin down.
.i ni'i lo go'i do ka'e la'a fanva zoi gy. authority .gy. la
lojban. .iku'i pe'i do na kakne
"ni'i lo nu go'i [...]"
No, {lo go'i} makes perfect sense here. {lo go'i} is the x1 of the previous sentence, and that x1 is {lo du'u do ka'e fanva...}. It's not because of {the fact that {the fact that you can translate into Lojban} is good}, it's because of {the fact that you can translate into Lojban}.
Usually for {lo nu go'i} I've seen {la'edi'u}, which is similar, though less specific.
~mark