On 8 July 2010 14:33, Luke Bergen
<lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
I just tried putting it into jboski and it says that the second lo is misplaced. I thought {joi} and friends worked like {.e} does, not like {je} does. Does {joi} make a tanru of some sort?
{joi} can be within a tanru, but a tanru is not what {joi} makes. I don't think the rule that turns two brivlas into a tanru has anything to do with the rule by which a JOI specifies the kind of connection between grammatical units. The pair of units a JOI is between, is self-evident, given that they must connect things that are on the same syntactic level (which is also the case for every natlang, so far as I hear):
(a) lo [broda] joi [brode]
(b) [lo broda] joi [lo brode]
The first one cannot possibly be a connection between sumtis; and the second one not between brivlas. jboski does not parse these correctly, and that may be a bug (I could be wrong on that, though). What is not a bug is its inability to treat JA as JOI. The proposal (which I support) is that JOI and JA as well as A, BIhI, VUhU and JOhI be merged into just JOI. And this is one of the things jboski's official eye doesn't recognize.