General considerations

1. Lojban terms are used for most parts of speech, except for quantifiers and descriptors. Needlessly inconsistent?
2. In chapter 3, section 6, restriction no. 2 already forbids 8 of the 12 consonant pairs that are forbidden by restriction no. 3; perhaps it's better to just explicitly forbid the pairs "cs", "jz", "sc" and "zj" like in the last restriction.

• I kind of like that the explanation for those pairs being forbidden is given, even if it includes things already forbidden. I would like it slightly better if the word "sibilant" were used. Perhaps for consistency the reason could be given for the last restriction instead of listing seemingly-random pairs. .imi'e .skaryzgik.

1. In chapter 4, section 7, in the procedure for making a non-Lojban word into a valid Stage 3 fu'ivla, double consonants are to be eliminated before the sounds are to be converted to their closest Lojban equivalents, but it is possible that consecutive consonants have different sounds (like in 'eccentric'). So these actions should swap places. The same goes for section 8, in the procedure for Lojbanizing a name.
2. It would be better if formal definitions were separated from comments, and not going mixed.
3. It would be better if numbered were not only chapters and sections, but also sentences like in the Bible.

Typographical

The brush-stroke placeholders for logical connectives should be written in "blackboard bold" instead, to make it look more formal.