Re: [lojban-beginners] Not needing terminators

[Minimiscience <minimiscience@gmail.com>]

de'i li 18 pi'e 02 pi'e 2010 la'o fy. Ian Johnson .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra.
> I'm trying to work out when you need and don't need terminators. For
> example, here's a sentence I wrote today:
> xu do se nandu lonu do tavla mi fo la lojban. lonu do tatpi
> In idiomatic English, what I'm intending here is: "Do you find it difficult
> to talk with me in Lojban when you are tired?"
> I put this sentence into jbofi'e and it appears to have parsed it the way I
> intended. However, when writing it, I was not sure if I needed to have a
> {kei} after {la lojban.}. I know {cu} makes it so you don't need terminators
> in situations like these, but what exactly makes it so that {lonu do tatpi}
> does not run into the {tavla} clause here? Is it that the place structure of
> {tavla} has now been exhausted (since I just filled the x4 place and there
> is no x5 place)? jbofi'e makes me seem to think this; changing {fo} to {fi}
> without adding a {kei} creates (according to jbofi'e) a rather nonsensical
> sentence in which {lonu do tatpi} is the x4 of {tavla}.
.skamyxatra

You need to put a "{kei}" after "{lo lojban.}."  If you fill up all of a
{selbri}'s places, adding on more {sumti} (even beyond x5) just attaches them
to the same {selbri} with an implicit "{do'e}."  Jbofi'e already has some known
problems with filling places correctly (e.g., under certain conditions the
{sumti} after a {selbri} are numbered from x2 without regard to other
constructs that indicate otherwise), and this seems to be another one.  Someone
recently tried to start fixing all the bugs in jbofi'e, but I don't know what
ever happened with that.

mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.

-- 
lo paroi cumki cu rere'u cumki