Nah, it doesn't work that way. First, «mi noi le mlatu sisku cu sipna» parses successfully. It means 'Me, whom the cat sleeps' (whatever the idea of a sleeped thing is). Second, Lojban doesn't have this notion of 'if this happens, then that doesn't parse'. If your «ku» hasn't been closed, the «le» will eat more than you want it to, even at the occasional costs of not parsing.
~ uakci
On Sep 1, 2016 8:15 PM, <vpbr...@gmail.com> wrote:The {cu} is not elidable, it is optional, but leaving it in tends to make a lot of other things elidable.--
The reason that {ku} should be elidable (based on the rule) is that there is unambiguously only one place that the required {ku} could occupy.
The phrase {mlatu sisku} can not be a tanru because {noi},{kuho} must enclose a bridi, and {le mlatu sisku ku keha vau} is not a bridi.
That clause no verb.
On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 4:02:51 PM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:The reason you can't leave out {ku} in {le mlatu ku sisku} is because it is already omitting {cu}. The longest form of this phrase would be {le mlatu ku cu sisku}. Most people pretty much always omit either {ku} or {cu}, but you need at least one between the x1 and the selbri.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com .
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout .