[lojban] Missing out obvious words

[Christopher Done <chrisdone@googlemail.com>]

Some Lojban words that we use in casual conversation seem unnecessary.

An example is:

Person 1: {mi tavla}
Person 2, response 1: {tavla ma}
Person 2, response 2: {go'i ma}
Person 2, response 3: {ma}

It seems that response 3 has obvious meaning. We can take it to different selbri places, too:

{tavla fi ma} => {go'i fi ma} => {fi ma}

Has this kind of usage been observed to be common in casual Lojban conversation? This kind of elision is acceptable for answers to questions:

Person 1: {do tavla fi ma}
Person 2: {mi tavla fi la djan} => {tavla fi la djan} => {go'i fi la djan} => {la djan}

An example of pragmatism of this flavour, which I have seen recently, brought to my attention by Daniel Brockman, is {ja'a} and {na} (NA). Is {go'i} required when using these in response?

Person 1: {do tavla la djan}
Person 2: {na go'i}
or
Person 2: {go'i}

This seems common on the Lojban IRC. But what about:

Person 1: {do tavla la djan}
Person 2: {na}
or
Person 2: {ja'a}

Looking at the CLL (Chapter 19, Section 5), this is acceptable. To quote:

The full list of non-bridi utterances suitable as answers to questions is:

any number of sumti (with elidable terminator ``vau'', see Chapter 6) an ek or gihek (logical connectives, see Chapter 14) a number, or any mathematical _expression_ placed in parentheses (see Chapter 18) a bare ``na'' negator (to negate some previously expressed bridi), or corresponding ``ja'a'' affirmer (see Chapter 15) a relative clause (to modify some previously expressed sumti, see Chapter 8) a prenex/topic (to modify some previously expressed bridi, see Chapter 16) linked arguments (beginning with ``be'' or ``bei'' and attached to some previously expressed selbri, often in a description,see Chapter 5)

At the beginning of a text, the following non-bridi are also permitted:

one or more names (to indicate direct address without ``doi'', see Chapter 6) indicators (to express a prevailing attitude, see Chapter 13) ``nai'' (to vaguely negate something or other, see Chapter 15)

Where not needed for the _expression_ of answers, most of these are made grammatical for pragmatic reasons: people will say them in conversation, and there is no reason to rule them out as ungrammatical merely because most of them are vague.

    See here for the page: http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c19/s5.html

So proceeding with the knowledge that many bridi-less answers are allowed, presumably because they are so obvious, it seems an interesting idea that questions can be bridi-less, when obvious, as above.

I haven't discovered anything in the CLL about bridi-less questions, this is why I'm asking here.

Thoughts?