[16:41] <vensa> why is {gi} defined as "logical connective: ALL BUT TANRU-INTERNAL forethought connective medial marker.", if it is in fact used also within a forethought TANRU construct?
[16:49] == rossi [~rossi@HSI-KBW-109-193-128-041.hsi7.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de] has quit [Quit: leaving]
[16:55] <kribacr> It's not, as far as I know.
[16:57] <vensa> It's NOT what?
[16:59] <kribacr> I believe *{broda GI brode GA brodi} is a parsefail.
[17:00] <vensa> huh? how does that answer the question?
[17:00] <vensa> I'm talking about {da GUhA broda gi brode}
[17:02] <vensa> gerna da gu'a broda gi brode de
[17:02] <gerna> (0[da CU {<gu'a broda gi brode> <de VAU>}])0
[17:02] <vensa> seems ok
[17:02] <vensa> so why the ill-worded def?
[17:02] <@xalbo> right, GI works with GUhA too. The definition is in error.
[17:02] <vensa> I suspect a copy-paste error
[17:02] <vensa> .ui
[17:02] <vensa> xalbo: can you fix it (officialy)?
[17:03] <kribacr> Ah... yeah.
[17:03] <kribacr> Didn't click, you're right.
[17:03] == kucli [52e89185@gateway/web/freenode/ip.82.232.145.133] has joined #lojban
[17:03] <kribacr> I forgot about that.
[17:03] <vensa> np
[17:03] <kucli> Coi ke'u
[17:03] <@xalbo> byfy is working through defining all the cmavo. When we get to {gi}, I'm sure it won't look like that.