whyDoesxNotParse

• 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 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.)