From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Tue May 15 23:24:15 2001
Return-Path: <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>
X-Sender: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 16 May 2001 06:24:14 -0000
Received: (qmail 97364 invoked from network); 16 May 2001 06:24:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 16 May 2001 06:24:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ci.egroups.com) (10.1.2.81) by mta1 with SMTP; 16 May 2001 06:24:14 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de
Received: from [10.1.2.133] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 16 May 2001 06:24:14 -0000
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 06:24:09 -0000
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Parsing
Message-ID: <9dt6e9+m02b@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <F65KLHpc4ssd3z8CHP40000885a@hotmail.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 858
X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster
X-Originating-IP: 62.104.218.72
From: "A.W.T." <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>

--- In lojban@y..., "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@h...> wrote:
> 
> la aulun cusku di'e
> 
> >{.i latyte'a gi'e bau la madjar. sipta'a}
> >
> >Does this mean that the first utterance is ungrammatical (which I doubt) 
> >or=
> > just that the algorithm expects a selbri to immediately
> >follow the {gi'e}?
> 
> It is ungrammatical because {gi'e} must be followed by a "bridi-tail",
> which must start with a selbri.

I'm having problems to agree with this:

1) mi tavla do bau la lojban. (grammatical)
2) mi bau la lojban. [cu] tavla do (as well) or
3) mi do bau la lojban. [cu] tavla

hence: leaving out the first place {mi} gets me a bridi-tail, e.g. {... tavla do bau la lojban.} or {bau la lojban. tavla do} etc.
Is there a rule explicitely stating in the Book that only bridi-tails *starting with a selbri* are allowed after {gi'e}?

co'o mi'e .aulun.