a. da fonta'a .i ko smadi lo du'u da mokau
b. mi tirna da .iku'i na ga'ezga da makau
c. do troci tu'a lo drata .ei selzva
d. xu da jungau do de tu?
e. ganai da'i do viska da gizibo ko jungau mi (this doesn't parse, and I'm not
sure where to put "zibo")
g. la .djan. na viska da
h. mi jinvi lodu'u noda djuno le danfu
i. roda zo'u le banxa cu rivbi lo nu jdice da
j. roda zo'u curmi lo nu do cinba da
l. lo'e gerku cu se tuple voda
While I won't protest in general about stretching the CLL's extremely vague rule about how {da} scope behaves with {.i} in the absence of an ijek, there's some other problems with this:
a. da fonta'a .i ko smadi lo du'u da mokau
Since ordinarily this would bind da in the du'u-scope, I'm skeptical as to whether you can stretch the rule without an ijek here. I'm also not sure what ijek would fix the job, and not sure whether {lo go'i} is actually sensible when the previous x1 is {da}.
h. mi jinvi lodu'u noda djuno le danfu
Depending on context this could be a problem, but that's really just having to do with {le danfu} (this one's not that bad really). This also makes sense, with somewhat different semantics, with {na jinvi lo du'u da ...}, and is arguably closer to the original that way.
i. roda zo'u le banxa cu rivbi lo nu jdice da
This is just wrong, even under unrestrictive models of {da}. {le banxa} is certainly in {ro da} in this context. That is, the most lax model of {da} I know of that actually makes sense includes everything that is actually in the current context in {ro da}. This gives you {le banxa cu rivbi lo nu jdice vo'a} which is absurd. I'm not sure what a legitimately good fix for this is, because you need some kind of a restriction on the {da}. {ro da poi co'e} seems like a copout, {ro da poi ka'e se jdice} seems clumsy if not sketchy for other reasons
j. roda zo'u curmi lo nu do cinba da
Same as the previous, though the justification feels significantly more pedantic in this case.
l. lo'e gerku cu se tuple voda
sei mi na pante This one's actually better than the original, because the original is of course false; in fact I would have trouble interpreting the original as generic.
mi'e la latro'a mu'o