Lojban In General

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<http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c6/s1.html>)
> an ek or gihek (logical connectives, see Chapter 14<http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c14/s1.html>)
> a number, or any mathematical expression placed in parentheses (see Chapter
> 18 <http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c18/s1.html>) a bare ``na'' negator (to negate
> some previously expressed bridi), or corresponding ``ja'a'' affirmer (see Chapter
> 15 <http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c15/s1.html>) a relative clause (to modify
> some previously expressed sumti, see Chapter 8<http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c8/s1.html>)
> a prenex/topic (to modify some previously expressed bridi, see Chapter 16<http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c16/s1.html>)
> linked arguments (beginning with ``be or ``bei and attached to some
> previously expressed selbri, often in a description,see Chapter 5<http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c5/s1.html>
> )
>
> 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 <http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c6/s1.html>) indicators (to express a
> prevailing attitude, see Chapter 13 <http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c13/s1.html>)
> ``nai'' (to vaguely negate something or other, see Chapter 15<http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c15/s1.html>
> )
>
> 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?