History: WhyDoesxNotParse

Source of version: 1 (current)

* ((joiku|Why doesn't "le broda joi le brode" parse?)) * .i ma cimde platu ty to xu do djuno toi .i ma ty skori merli (Job 38:5) ** A "free modifier" (e.g. a ''to''-expression) attaches to the previous construct, and so generally requires that any normally elidable terminators be explicit. See ((the book)), the end of 18.13, p. 450. * ni'o ja'e bo * ni'o i ja'e bo (is there any way left to begin a paragraph with 'Therefore'?) ** ni'o i is illegitemate *** Great, but then how do you work around the fact that many things you can attach to ''i'' you can't attach to ''ni'o''? How do you attach an attitudinal to the sentence which begins a paragraph without attaching it to the whole paragraph? Why would ''ni'o i'' not parse when ''i i'' does? To sum up these various problems, and the main one (''ni'o ja'e bo'') above which I didn't intend to draw attention away from, what is ''ni'o'' (as well as ''no'i'') doing ((useless selma'o|outside of selma'o I))? --((rab.spir)) ****This isn't really all that strange; you understand perfectly well that ''ni'o ja'e bo'' doesn't parse because ''ni'o'''s grammar doesn't allow it. Not understanding why something doesn't parse is one thing; a grammar change is another. ****In theory, ''ni'o'' is supposed to be used to show a change of topic, so I'm not sure why you would to start a new topic with ''therefore''. (Nevertheless, moving NIhO to I may be worthwhile change in order to increase flexibility, but the reason ''ni'o ja'e bo'' doesn't parse is because the grammar doesn't allow it.)