CLL, aka Reference Grammar, Errata

From Lojban
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is for errata in The Complete Lojban Language, that is for mistakes such as typos, or self-contradictions, or contradictions with other baselined language definition material. This is not a page to put desiderata (suggestions for improvement); such suggestions should go to Suggestions for CLL, second edition. This is also not a page to put errata resulting from the 4th Baseline Grammar proposal (i.e., the PEG grammar); PEG grammar errata should go to CLL PEG Errata.

An online version of the CLL incorporating the changes on this page is available.

See also 'What is Lojban?' errata (for the published version), Level 0 Booklet Errata Level 0 Booklet Errata (for the pre-publication reviews; now finished), and Lessons Errata (for the beginners' course).

ch appr incl prop Erratum
1 - - 1.2❓
  • The very first picture has a pedagogical error: "coi lojban." should be "coi .lojban." (This is an error even by pre-dotside standards, as pre-dotside, only {la}/{lai}/{doi} didn't require a pause before cmevla.)
    • All/most cmevla need a once-over for dotside (some pre-dotside errors too, like {.alis})
1 ✔Cowan ✅DAG -
  • There is a paragraph at the very beginning of CLL, on page 4, with the sentence "In essence, Chapter 2 gives a brief overview of the language, Chapter 21 gives the formal structure of the language, and the chapters in between put semantic bones on that formal flesh."
    • Wouldn't it make more sense to say "put semantic flesh on those formal bones"?
1 ✅DAG -
  • Section 6, it says "Larry Horn's work The Natural History of Negation". It would appear that everyone else calls it A Natural History of Negation, by Laurence (R.) Horn.
2 - - -
  • Section 2.2 paragraph 2 says "o as in “dome”" but Australian/British English pronounces "dome" as per (i.e. a diphthong, which would be incorrect). This may result in many readers learning the wrong pronunciation of Lojban.
This sort of issue also exists in the "Level 0 Booklet" publication.
There must be a better example word that has the correct "o" for all dialects of English - is "lozenge" a good word?
At the very least, specify which dialect is intended.
2 - - -
  • Section 5 example 5.7 uses "ti" to point at a language, and should have its accompanying note changed to more accurately reflect that this is not how "ti" works.
2 ✅1.1 -
  • Section 6 Example 6.5 has "cu" as elidable, when in fact it is simply illegal there. Removed. ✅DAG
    • uanai, I still see "cu" in DAG-CLL.
2 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • Section 8 page 17 claims that "xu" is discussed in section 1.7, which happens to list the captions for all the chapter pictures.
    • It should refer to Section 15. ✔Cowan ✅DAG
      • The link in the current DAG-CLL is pointing to "2/2/15" instead of to "2/15".
      • la gleki: ✅1.1. Can't see problems with the link.
2 ✅1.1 -
  • Section 10 says that example 10.3 (mi tavla do le tavla ku) means the same as (mi tavla do le tavla ku). Example 10.3 should be "mi tavla do le tavla", as it describes how "ku" may be omitted.
    • It appears that example 10.3 is incorrect only in the online version, not the published book.|-
2 ✅1.1 -
  • Section 17 says "Note that Example 17.3 has and requires a “cu” to prevent “bajra” and “klama” from forming a tanru, but Example 17.4 and Example 17.5 lack the unnecessary “cu”.", but example 17.3 is "la djan. ~np~cu~/np~ klama le zarci".
    • It appears that the offending sentence is present only in the online version, not the published book.
    • la gleki: milestone 1.1 doesn't have this sentence, seems okay.
2 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Example 17.9 is "le vi tavla ku cu ba klama" in the online version, and totally broken in the published book.
    • Go with the online version.
2 - - 1.2❓
  • Example 17.9 in dag-cll as of 2012-05-05 is "le vi tavla ~np~ku~/np~ cu ba klama". Since the same section has explained that tense tags make "cu" unnecessary, I think the example should be "le vi tavla ~np~ku cu~/np~ ba klama".
3 - - -
  • A lot of the IPA examples use a space to indicate a syllable break. This is not standard IPA usage; according to IPA, the period “.” should be used to indicate a syllable division.
    • la gleki:
      • what are those examples?
      • Section 3 has some but those are probably only for CLL 2.0 or later
3 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 2, page 30: in the table the description of "apostrophe" should read "an unvoiced glottal spirant", not "a unvoiced".
3 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 2, digital version. The IPA table got horribly mangled somewhere along the way. It should look like (SAMPA column added):
    • Sort-of ✔camgu; what I actually did is had Arnt review what someone entered in DAG-CLL, which presumably was based on the above. ✅DAG
Letter IPA SAMPA Description
' h h an unvoiced glottal spirant
, - - the syllable separator
. ʔ ? a glottal stop or a pause
a a, ɑ a, A an open vowel
b b b a voiced bilabial stop
c ʃ, ʂ S, s` an unvoiced postalveolar fricative
d d d a voiced dental/alveolar stop
e ɛ, e E, e a front mid vowel
f f, ɸ f, p\ an unvoiced labial fricative
g ɡ g a voiced velar stop
i i i a front close vowel
j ʒ, ʐ Z, z` a voiced postalveolar fricative
k k k an unvoiced velar stop
l l, l, l= a voiced lateral approximant (may be syllabic)
m m, m, m= a voiced bilabial nasal (may be syllabic)
n n, , ŋ, ŋ̩ n, n=, N, N= a voiced dental or velar nasal (may be syllabic)
o o, ɔ o, O a back mid vowel
p p p an unvoiced bilabial stop
r r, ɹ, ɾ, ʀ, , ɹ̩, ɾ̩, ʀ̩ r, r\, 4, R\, r=, r\=, 4=, R\= a rhotic sound
s s s an unvoiced alveolar sibilant
t t t an unvoiced dental/alveolar stop
u u u a back close vowel
v v, β v, B a voiced labial fricative
x x x an unvoiced velar fricative
y ə @ a central mid vowel
z z z a voiced alveolar sibilant
3 - - -
  • Section 2, page 30. for the second eng (immediately to the left of "(may be syllabic)") the syllabicity marker is concealed by the right tail.
    • I can just barely see the marker under a good light. ✔Cowan
      • For future editions :-) , note that the IPA approves putting diacritics above rather than below the letter in cases like these. Unfortunately, the fonts hitherto available have not made this facility available, so outside the journal of the IPA itself, such over-diacritics are seldom seen. — nitcion
3 ✔Cowan - 1.2❓
  • In section 3.2, the comma should (probably) be represented by the IPA notation [.], as the period is used in IPA to denote syllable breaks.
3 - - -
  • Section 2, page 30. For the Lojban phoneme /r/, the IPA symbol for a dental/alveolar voiced apical tap is given with a syllabicity marker below. A tap can't be syllabic, because it is by definition instantaneous. ✔Cowan Just remove that case altogether.
3 ✔Cowan - 1.2❓
  • Section 2. The descriptions of c and j are listed as "coronal sibilant"s. The descriptions should read "voiceless postalveolar fricative" and "voiced postalveolar fricative", respectively.
3 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 3, third paragraph (page 31): "a unvoiced vowel glide" should be "an unvoiced vowel glide".
3 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 6, page 36. IPA for the unacceptable American flap variant of intervocalic t shows the GA r sound (upside-down r) instead of the flap (like an r with no vertical bit at the top — see the list of acceptible r variants on on page 44 where it appears correctly) ✔Cowan
3 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • Section 6, page 36. (Same as previous erratum) The consonant is referred to as a flap, while it is actually a tap.
3 - - 1.2❓
  • Section 7. In between the shaded boxes, "a pairing of voiced and unvoiced equivalent vowels" should read "a pairing of voiced and unvoiced equivalent consonants".
3 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • Section 8, page 38. IPA for pronunciation of "xapcke" has c where it should have S (long s).
3 ✔Cowan ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 9, page 40. IPA for pronunciation of "dikyjvo" has j where it should have Z (that little script z thing)
3 - - -
  • Section 12, page 46. What should be the Cyrillic letter ; is printed as something that looks like the Greek letter . Is this only a typographical variant of the ;, or is it a variant?
    • This erratum is indecipherable and should be dropped, unless someone can reconstruct it. The Cyrillic letters look fine. --John Cowan
3 - - 1.2❓
  • Section 12, page 46. Replace the words "the hard sign" with an actual hard sign, U+044A CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER HARD SIGN.
3 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 12, page 47. "are/"esse" should probably be "are"/"esse" (the acute on the a may or may not have been left off, but the closing quote after are is definately missing.)
    • My copy shows the acute.
4 ✔Cowan ✅DAG -
  • Section 4, page 54. The book states that fu'ivla with a form like spa'i are valid. They are not, they fail the slinku'i test.
    • anyone can find that in post-1997 CLLs?
4 - - 1.2❓
  • Section 6, p 58, "-lac" in the third table in that section should be "-lac-"
4 ✅1.1 -
  • Section 6, it says "Most cmavo that have rafsi are ones used in composing tanru (for a complete list, see Chapter 12)", but there is no such list in Chapter 12, or anywhere in the book (ju'osai). Perhaps it wants to point to the list of PA rafsi in Chapter 18 section 25? Or to the lists of tanru in Chapter 5 sections 14 and 15?
    • What I probably meant was that Chapter 12, taken as a whole, discusses the cmavo used in constructing tanru. I don't think any specific list ever existed. I'd just drop the parenthetical sentence.
    • Related is the general problem of constructing tanru out of arbitrary cmavo, like what {lo ve lujvo be fo lu <ga'e zei lerfu> li'u} should be. {ze'oi} was invented for that purpose... probably too experimental for CLL though.
4 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • Section 6, just after example 6.9. It says "some of the unreduced forms in the previous example", but it is not referring to the previous example: it is referring all the way back to examples 6.1 and 6.2, so it should be "some of the unreduced forms in the previous examples".
    • ✅DAG (zort's fork at least)
    • ✔Cowan Refer explicitly to 6.1 and 6.2
    • la gleki: In CLL 1.1 it's probably the phrase "In addition, the unreduced forms in Example 4.27 and Example 4.28 may be fully reduced to:"
4 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 7, page 60. In example 6.16, the word "xarnykarce" is glossed as "war-car". Either the gloss should be updated to reflect the veljvo ("stubborn-car"), or the lujvo should be updated to reflect the gloss "jamkarce"
4 ✔Cowan - 1.2❓
  • Section 7, making a type 3 fu'ivla, step 5 should read "steps 1-4", not "steps 1-5". ✔Cowan
4 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • Section 7, step 5 of the Stage 3 fu'ivla: "if the rafsi ends in r and the rest of the fu'ivla begins with n (or vice versa) use an l-hyphen" should read "if the rafsi ends in r and the rest of the fu'ivla begins with n, tc, ts, dz or dj, or the rafsi ends in n and the rest of the fu'ivla begins with r use an l-hyphen". ✔Cowan
4 - - -
  • The end of section 7 seems to imply that cmene are exempt from the normal restrictions on consonant clusters as long as each consonant pair is valid.
4 ✔Cowan ✅DAG -
  • Section 8. Example 8.10 djandjonz is not valid lojban as it contains the forbidden consonant sequence `ndj`. ✔Cowan Replace with a different name.
    • Replacing with "John Brown" as "djanbraun". mi'e la .camgusmis. ✅DAG
4 - - -
  • Section 8, page 66. Example 8.12. Says that the gismu "solri" means "actually, 'pertaining to the sun'". This is false. According to the gismu list, it means isa sun.
    • Leave this one alone. As a seltau, "solri" does indeed mean "solar". --John Cowan
4 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 11, 5a) Examine all the C/C consonant pairs that join the CVC rafsi, and also the pair between the last CVC and the X portion, ignoring any "y"-hyphen before the X. should read instead: Examine all the C/C consonant pairs up to the first "y"-hyphen, or up to the end of the word in case there are no "y"-hyphens.
4 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • Section 12. In Examples 12.2, 12.3 and 12.4 the calculations are given as 32500 minus the score, instead of simply the score. (Probably from previous versions of the algorithm.)
4 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • Section 13, page 74, third table: there is no space between "lojbaugri" and "lojbangygri", so that they are run into one word in the second column of the table.
4 - - -
  • Section 15 states that "dzipo" comes from "cadzu cipni" ("walking bird"). This fails to make sense either etymologically or semantically (If the name refers to penguins, there are a lot of other features of Antarctica that are more prominent and not shared by other places). I suspect that the word may actually come from "dizlo daplu" ("low island"), which is a somewhat more reasonable name.
    • Not an erratum, the word really does come from "caDZu cIPni". That it fails to make sense doesn't change the fact that that is how they constructed it. The etymologies of "bemro" and "ketco" make even less sense, by the way.
      • Correct, but the etymologies are what they are. --John Cowan
4 - - 1.2❓ 1.2❓
  • Etymology of misro from Mizrahim seems like an unnecessary and surprising detour. Linking it to misr makes more sense. mu'o mi'e .iesk. 16:47, 10 avgusto 2013 (UTC)
5 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • Section 6, example 6.15: It says {xamgu jo cortu nuntavla}, and the gloss says {(good if-and-only-if short) speech}, but {cortu} means "hurt", not "short".
    • ✅DAG (changed to {tordu}) (in zort's fork at least) ✔Cowan
5 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Example 6.16: vajni ju selpluka nuntavla , (important whether-or-not pleasing) event-of-talking
    • Should be pluka, not selpluka. ✔camgu ✅DAG
5 - - 1.2❓
  • Section 8 says "involving selma'o VOhA and GOhI, explained in Chapter 7", but VOhA doesn't appear in Chapter 7. VOhA doesn't even seem to be a selma'o, for that matter. Also, probably GOhI should be GOhA?
5 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • Section 8, page 96/97: Example 8.13 needs some kind of terminator (like "be'o") before the "co".
5 - - -
  • Also, the preceding paragraph suggests that "be" is the only way to fill selbri places other than x1. This is not the case: "mi le zarci cu klama co sutra" would also work.
    • I don't agree that there's any such suggestion, although adding a second possibility is fine with me. --John Cowan
5 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • Section 9 lists "kei" as the terminator for nu, but it's not only for nu, but for all of NU.
5 - - 1.2❓
  • Section 12 the text says examples 121 and 122 "use {ke} grouping and {bo} grouping respectively", but it isn't true. Example 121 uses only implicit tanru grouping, while 122 in fact uses {ke} grouping. Also, the text says they are equivalent in meaning, but they aren't (in the first one, {cadzu} groups with {masno}). Perhaps it's missing a {bo}? The translations of examples 121-126 are all affected by this false claim of equivalence.
    • "normal grouping" 1.2❓
5 - - -
  • Section 12, last example says that {broda be fi ko'i ko'e} has {ko'e} in the x4 place because {be fi} moves the counter to 3. jbofi'e disagrees, but this may not be a CLL errata -- I haven't checked the linkargs section yet to see if it is consistent.
5 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 14, page 104 says "dadylsi" for "dadysli".
5 - - 1.2❓
  • Section 14, page 105 uses "zdani lijgri" in the example list, but the paragraph after, as well as the next list, refer to "zdani linji" and "linji zdani".
5 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 14, page 105 has the lujvo "cpumi'i" but defines it at the bottom of the set as "cpami'i".
    • cuami'i s pull-machine, so using that
5 ✘Cowan - -
  • Section 14, page 106 says "plise tapla" for "apple cake". Does Turkish really refer to a cake as a tile, or is this a misunderstanding of the definition of "tapla"?
    • No, it's that {tapla} can mean both cake and tile, as the gismu list shows; it's a generic word for a flat 3-D shape, or short cylinder. Stet. --John Cowan
5 ✘Cowan - -
  • Section 14, page 108 says "tumla spisa". This should probably be "tumla pagbu", since pieces of land are not actually detached.
    • What makes you think that spisa have to be detached? Stet. --John Cowan
5 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • Section 14, page 109 says "rostu mojysu'a". "rostu" is not a Lojban gismu, nor an Old Loglan primitive. It's supposed to be "mrostu".
    • "Mrostu" is correct, and that's the reading of the online version. ✔Cowan
5 - - 1.2❓
  • Section 14, "nunkilbra" is clearly not "sharpener", and even if it was using the right rafsi for cabra, that strikes me as a pretty crappy lujvo; needs zenba or zmadu or binxo or something.
5 ✘Cowan - -
  • Section 14, page 112 lists numerous tanru examples whose meanings are hypernyms of the tertau instead of hyponyms. This contradicts the primariness of the tertau as defined on page 84. The word "ja" should probably be inserted between the constituents, or the entire section should be removed.
    • Stet. Lions can't be made of stone, but {rokci cinfo} is a legitimate tanru nonetheless. --John Cowan
6 ✅1.1 -
  • End of section 2, it says "compound negator ``naku (discussed in Chapter 15)", but "naku" is never mentioned in chapter 15; indeed, the only uses of the word {ku} at all are after the words {ji'u} or {na'i}. Chapter 16 talks about {naku}.
    • ✅DAG (zort's fork at least) but needs approval
6 ✔Cowan ✅DAG -
  • Section 12, p. 138 claims that the sumti in examples 12.2 and 12.3 operate like examples 2.5 and 3.6 respectively. "2.6 and 3.6" is almost surely what was meant.
6 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • In section 11 Example 11.2 occurs twice.
6 - - -
  • Section 2 has examples 2.3 and 2.5 to show the difference between {lo} and {le}. Example 2.5 and the subsequent text say that {lo nanmu cu ninmu} is necessarily false in lojban since {noda nanmu gi'e ninmu}. This contributes to trans-erasure, and should be revised.
6 - - -
  • In section 5 between examples 5.2 and 5.3, it says that the typical lion best exemplifies the set of lions. This is false, it exemplifies not the set, but the members of that set.
6 - - 1.2❓
  • In section 14, example 1.93, the quote delimiter {kuot} needs a preceding pause.
7 - - -
  • Section 5. 6.14 is usage with outer repeating. It would seem that was a mistake. Looking at that, it seems like the author expects {nei} to repeat the entire outermost bridi, and expects {no'a} to repeat the outer bridi alone, somehow without the current innermost bridi. Or something. Definitely seems mistaken to me. so with zo'e in place of the abstraction clause. In this case, maybe with {zi'o}, actually.
    That would be useful but it would be nice if that had been explicit.
7 ✘Cowan - -
  • Section 6, page 155 has a note below example 6.13 that says, in part: "The Lojban does not contain an equivalent of the "my" in colloquial English;" and then goes on to explain how example 6.13 could be modified to include the relationship between the speaker and their son and daughter. I believe you could say "le mi bersa" or "le bersa pe mi" to express the English "my," therefor removing the (presumably inaccurate) note and making the Lojban translation more accurate.
    • Sure you could, but the point of the note (which is not inaccurate) is not teaching how to use relative clauses, but to clarify that the idiomatic English version contains more information than the Lojban version does. Stet.
7 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • Section 6, page 156 has karca for karce.
7 - - -
Example 7.39. 
A:	mi	ba	klama	le	zarci
A:	I	[future]	go-to	the	store.
A: I am going to the store.
B:	mi	nelci	le	si'o	mi	go'i
B:	I	like	the	concept-of	I	[repeat-last-bridi].
B: I like the idea of my going.
A:	do	go'e
A:	You	[repeat-last-bridi-but-one].
A: You'll go, too.
Example 7.45. 
mi ba lumci le mi karce
I will wash my car.
you might reply either:
Example 7.46. 
mi go'i
I will wash your car.
Example 7.47. 
mi go'i ra'o
I will wash my car.
The ra'o forces the second mi from the original bridi to mean the new speaker rather than the former speaker. This means that go'e ra'o would be an acceptable alternative to do go'e in B's statement in Example 7.39.
  • After example 6.18 is a paragraph that quotes non-existent text from example 6.10. "go'e ra'o" should read "go'i ra'o" and "do go'e" should read "mi go'i"
    • The correct correction is to replace "B's statement" with "A's second statement". ✔Cowan
      • Not really. "go'e ra'o" in A's second statement would mean the same as "go'e", which is wrong. The original correction is valid though.
7 - - -
  • Section 6, the exceptions to the anaphora rules are almost certainly incomplete. In particular "ma" and "ce'u" definitely warrant exceptions.
7 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 7, example 7.7 has "mi zbasu loi mudri zi'o" for "mi zbasu le dinju zi'o"
7 - - -
  • Section 8, p. 158 implies that vo'a-series anaphora refer to sumti of the bridi they themselves are sumti of. This contradicts the cmavo list, and is incorrect: vo'a-series anaphora (according to the ma'oste) refer to sumti of the outermost bridi within the current sentence. This makes them logophors/long distance reflexives, rather than short-distance reflexives, as is normal in human language. Thus, in mi nelci lenu do prami vo'a, vo'ameans mi, not do.
    • -->Why the Book is Right and the ma'oste is Wrong
      • Which of the two cases is normal in human language? If you'd written it in Lojban, I'd know!
        • I'd guess that short-distance is normal, b/c otherwise it would not be worth comparing the two. But of course in lojban we wouldn't have to glork that.
          • Short-distance is indeed normal, but Lojbanists have consistently used long-distance. Nick wrote a peer-reviewed paper on this. --John Cowan
7 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Example 7.8.5 (p159): bajra on third line should be bajykla, like the others.
7 - - 1.2❓
  • Section 8, it says "Example 9.3 is a truly pregnant question..." when example 9.2 is the pregnant question, and example 9.3 is a better way of expressing "Who are you?"
7 - - -
  • Section 15, it says "Finally, lujvo involving ``zi'o are also possible, and are fully discussed in Chapter 12", but nowhere does Chapter 12 mention the word {zi'o}, much less lujvo involving it. This is probably a Chapter 12 erratum.
8 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • In Section 3 the example 3.20 should have {xance} instead of {xanci}, which is definitely a typo. --idontknw
8 ✔Cowan - -
  • Section 8, p. 181: 8.1) li pai noi na'e frinu namcushould be li pai noi na'e frinu cu namcu.
    • looks fine. **na'e frinu namcu** forms a tanru.
8 ✅DAG -
  • Section 8, Example 8.6, the third line, "I runningly-go to-this reciprocity x3 of this bridi from-that", is not the usual decent English one would expect in that position; replaced with "I run to this from that and vice versa." is dag-cll ✅DAG
8 - - 1.2❓
  • Section 9, example 9.2 is co'o xirma. Then, Note that Example 9.2 says farewell to something which doesn’t really have to be a horse, something that the speaker simply thinks of as being a horse, or even might be something (a person, for example) who is named "Horse". In a sense, Example 9.2 is ambiguous between "co'o le xirma" and "co'o la xirma". Is this true?
    • Yes, in the sense that all uses of "le" might mean "la". But it's probably more confusing than it's worth. Truncate after "thinks of as being a horse". --John Cowan
      • Not sure that is right. I think too much focus in general has been given to {le}'s "non-veridicality", when it is merely more of an outgrowth of it being a deictic/phoric descriptor. In general, {le nanmu} does refer to a {nanmu}, but sometimes it may not because the deictic/phoric needs supercede veridicality (If someone has been called "the man" but you want to assert that "he"'s actually a woman, well, you get the {le nanmu cu ninmu} example.)

        My point though, is that I'm not sure one can just say "{le} might actually mean {la}". Certainly it'd be unusual to say that a speaker thinks of someone named "Horse" as being a horse. -- User:Spheniscine
8 - - 1.2❓
  • Section 9 says In vocative phrases which are simple names (after the vocative words), any relative clauses must come just after the names. This isn't true. Relative clauses can go between the vocative and the cmevla. ✔Cowan Drop it; it reflects an earlier state of the language.
    • la gleki:
      • will require changes in the following paragraph with selbri + relative clauses in vocatives.
8 ✔Cowan ✅DAG -
  • Section 10, example 10.3 uses "ke'a goi ko'e zo'u ko'a zbasu ke'a" but glosses it as "(IT = it2 : it1 built it2)". The assigned "ko'e" is not used as expected or described, and should probably be "ko'a zbasu ko'e". ✔Cowan Yes, "ko'a zbasu ko'e" is clearly what's meant. ✅DAG
9 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • Section 6, place structure of pilno is missing "for purpose x3".
9 ✔Cowan ✅DAG -
  • Section 8, the examples 8.5 and 8.6 are supposed to mean the same thing, but do not.
    • Please elaborate. --John Cowan
      • 8.5 means "I gave the book to John, because John gave the money to me" but 8.6 means "John gave the money to me because I gave the book to John."
    • ✅DAG ✔Cowan
9 - - 1.2❓
  • Section 11, description of the meaning of ".ije seri'a tu'e" contradicts the explanation of Example 9.9, which would suggest ".ije ri'a tu'e".
9 ✅1.1 -
  • section 17, "pertained to by concerning" should be separated, with "concerning" should be in the last column of the table
9 ✅1.1 -
  • section 17 "from source as an origin of" should be two entries; "from source" and "as an origin of" INCLUDED IN DAG-CLL???
10 ✅1.1 -
  • Sections 4, 18: missing "cu" in examples 4.8, 18.3, 18.6* Section 18, examples 18.3 and 18.6 are missing a cu/ku, so the examples have no main selbri.
10 - - 1.2❓
  • Section 4, "when both spatial and temporal tense cmavo are given in a single tense construct, the temporal tense is expressed first" disagrees with the rule simple-tense-modal-972 in the BNF grammar.
10 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 9, example 9.9 on page 227 has "cirli" for "cirla".
10 - - -
  • Section 12, the explanation of the meaning of the second "pu" in example 12.2 conflicts with the rule in section 13 that tenses in subordinate bridi are relative to the tense of the main bridi.
10 - - -
  • Section 12, example 12.6 translates morsi as "die" rather than "am dead" in the translation (as opposed to the gloss).
10 ✅1.1 -
  • Section 16, at the end, the X and Y in the 3 forms don't fit properly (the 3rd doesn't match the first two). I recommend, copying from Section 23 (where they are written again correctly):
X .i TENSE bo Y
TENSE gi X gi Y
Y TENSE le nu X
10 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 17, example 17.12 should not have the second "bevri".
10 - - -
  • Section 18, example 18.9 is supposed to show scalar negation of tenses not limited to PU and FAhA, but the example tense is ri'u (FAhA2).
10 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • Section 19, example 19.10 should have "ba", not "pu", and "[future]", not "[past]".
10 - - 1.2❓
  • Section 21, example 21.1 doesn't seem to parallel the English gloss and translation: the Lojban version implies that "I throw the gun", and not "I fire the gun".
10 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 25, examples 25.1 and 25.2 have lu'a for la'u.
10 ✘Cowan - 1.2❓
  • Section 25, this whole section is at odds with the formal grammar. It says: It is grammatical for a termset to be placed after a tense or modal tag rather than a sumti. But that is in fact incorrect, it is not grammatical for a termset to be the argument of a tag.
    • Unfortunately true. Termsets suck rocks, and some work will have to be done to make everything said about them consistent -- if it is even possible. Personally, I'd like to just burn them. --John Cowan NOFIX
10 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • Section 27: MOhI see Section 28, not 27.
11 ✔Cowan - 1.2❓
  • Section 4: The use of ka in Example 4.4 (page 259) is erroneous; it should be du'u. --John Cowan
11 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • Last paragraph of section 7 references chapter 5 for a discussion of "lu'e". lu'e isn't mentioned in chapter 5. Probably chapter 6 is meant here.
    • Yes, should be Section 5.10. ✔Cowan
      • la gleki:
        • should be Section 6.10 and is so in milestone 1.1.
11 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 9, page 266 has "sao'rdzifa'a" instead of "sa'ordzifa'a".
11 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • The same example (9.6) also has kuctra instead of kuctai
11 - - -
11 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 10: Paragraph above example 10.7 references "Chapter 11". That should read "Chapter 10".
11 ✔Cowan ↴1.1 -
  • Section 12, page 269 has examples 13.1 and 13.2, those should be called 12.1 and 12.2.
    • not applicable to milestone 1.1 that has another system of numeration and is fine in regards to this bug mu'o mi'e La Gleki (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2017 (PDT)
12 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • Section 2, page 275. The paragraph under Example 2.3 refers to it as Example 2.4 (2.4 doesn't even exist).
12 ✔Cowan - 1.2❓
  • Section 5, right after example 5.7. It says "a" instead of "an".
12 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 6, page 280. Example 6.6 should have a space between "la spat." and "noi".
12 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 7, page 282. Example 7.5 has "bansoi" instead of "balsoi".
12 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 11, page 285 has "xascakcurnu" instead of "xasycakcurnu".
12 - - -
  • Section 12 refers to "nunklama" as the same lujvo as "nunkla". Even if these are equivalent alternatives it would be less confusing to be consistent.
12 ✘Cowan - -
  • Section 12 claims that -jax- is a rafsi for {jai}, but it isn't in Does {jai} have a rafsi or not?
    • It should, but somehow it never got into the gismu list, and consequently not into the rafsi list either. Stet, and we'll add it to the gismu list. --John Cowan
      • la gleki:
        • by a request from me Robin added it to la jbovlaste some years ago. But still gimste.txt lacks it.
12 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • Section 12, right at the end, says that {fai} is explained in Chapter 11, but Chapter 11 makes no mention of {fai}. Only chapters 9 and 10 do.
12 - - -
  • Section 14, example 14.2. Missing < /pre > tag, and missing < pre> tag following explanatory paragraph.
12 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 14, page 291. The paragraph under example 14.7 says "se xance mindu" instead of "se xance minde".
12 - - 1.2❓
  • Section 15, two paragraphs before example 15.7. It says "There are some comparative concepts which are in which the 'se zmadu' is difficult to specify." The "which are in which" seems grammatically incorrect.
12 - - -
  • Section 15, example 15.1, the x4 of {zmadu} and {mleca} should be "by amount" or "by quantity", not "in quantity".
12 - - -
  • Section 12, example 12.91 and the text that follows: "klamau: z1, more than z2, goes to k2 from k3 via k4 by means of k5 ... For example, while nelcymau has z4 as its fourth place, klamau has it as its sixth place."
    • la gleki:
      • The definition of klamau has k5 as its sixth place. I suggest append " by amount z4" to the definition of klamau.
12 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 15, page 294, example 15.14. "la ainctain" needs a period before it because it starts with a vowel.
13 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Many incidents of not having periods in front of vowel-initial cmavo.
13 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • In section 2, p. 300 references to the examples for .ue and .uecu'i are flipped. ✔Cowan
13 ✅1.1 -
  • Section 3, page 303, example 3.9. "e'e" needs a period before it.
13 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 3: 3.13: ".ianai do pu pensi le nu tcica mi": {pensi} is malgli and tcica1 is not an agent
13 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 3, page 303, example 3.10. "tisna" needs to be replaced with "tisygau".
13 ✅1.1 -
  • Section 4, page 305. The scale with the gismu mnemonics is misaligned with the scale with the members of selma'o CAI. "sai" should be tabbed one place left, so that it aligns with tsali, &c.
13 ✅DAG -
  • Section 7, it says "It is not clear how much use logically connected abstractors will be: see Chapter 13." It should be "Chapter 15."
    • ✅DAG (zort's fork at least) but needs approval
13 ✅1.1 -
  • Section 10, page 313. There is a missing space between "continue emotion" and "end emotion".
    • milestone 1.1 looks fine.
13 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 15. A sample dialogue 15.4) / [Comment] Pam says, [Please] Alice, [end-of-comment] / [Comment] Pam says, [end-of-comment] [Please] Alice,/ ✔Cowan
13 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 15, example 15.5 /xamgu/gleki/ ?
13 - - -
  • Section 15, example 15.10) /fi'i ro zvati ko pinxe pa ckafi/fi'i ro zvati .i ko pinxe pa ckafi/
    • No, this one is perfectly fine: "fi'i ro zvati" is a vocative phrase, which is a free modifier, meaning that it can occur almost anywhere. ✔Cowan
13 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 15, example 15.13) /fi'o selpleji mi/fi'o pleji mi/
    • And "with payer" rather than "with payment"; ey's not paying with emself! -- camgusmis
13 - - -
  • ".ai mi benji do le ckana" with gloss "[intent] I transfer you to-the bed". I think benji
                  should be replaced with muvgau.
13 - - -
  • Section 15, example 15.13. Wrong use of {selfu}. {bevri} would fit better.
13 - - -
  • "mi facki fi lemi mapku" is used repeatedly for "I found my hat". While this is not wrong, it's bad style and makes the gloss awkward in respect to the translation. Replacing "facki" with "zvafa'i" would remove the problem and make it more precise.
14 - - 1.2❓
  • Section 6, example 3: "Alices" should be "Alice" without -s.
14 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • Section 8, right before example 8.9 is "producing example 8.10" which should in fact read "producing example 8.9".
14 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 9: between example 9.10 and 9.11, "identified" should read "identical"
14 ✅1.1 -
  • Section 11, example 4: The gloss seems to have a misplaced "[plus]".
14 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • Section 11, right before section 12. It says "termsets...are explained in Chapter 12 and Chapter 16" but chapter 12 (which is on lujvo) makes absolutely no mention of termsets. Chapters 9 and 10 discuss termsets.
14 ✔Cowan - 1.2❓
  • Section 14, example 14.15 is not grammatical (according to jbofi'e and camxes) because it says "pe'e .e" when it should say "pe'e je".
14 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 14, example 14.16 mentions "sorme", which is probably Old Loglan, and should be replaced by "mensi".
14 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 14, "the stated gloss of TFTTas “only if” works naturally only when the right-hand bridi is true; if it is false, the left-hand bridi may be either true or false." changed to "the stated gloss of TFTTas “only if” works naturally only when the right-hand bridi is false; if it is true, the left-hand bridi may be either true or false."
14 - - 1.2❓
  • Section 15, example 15.8 is missing a dot after "la lojban".
14 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • Section 15, right after 15.9, it says "example 14.17" where it should say "example 15.9" (14.17 does not exist).
14 - - -
  • Section 15, example 15.9 is not grammatical; it should be "la djan. fa'u la frank. cusku nu'i bau la lojban. pe'e fa'u bai la djordj.".
14 - - 1.2❓
  • Section 17, example 17.4 is wrong. The section explains that mekso operators can be logically connected using {gu'e ... gi ...}, but this example tries to connect them with {ge ... gi ...}. Replace {ge} with {gu'e} in the example to correct it.
14 ✔Cowan - 1.2❓
  • Section 19, example 19.4 is translated as "I opine the fact-that a-mass-of living-things is-at Jupiter or-else I opine the fact-that a-mass-of living-things isn't-at Jupiter" but really it's "I opine the fact-that a-mass-of living-things is-at Jupiter or-else I do-not opine the fact-that a-mass-of living-things is-at Jupiter". So 19.4 is actually true, not false as it is claimed to be.
14 ✘Cowan - -
  • Also there isn't really a reason for it to say a mass of living things and not some individual living things.
    • Stet. The author prefers it that way, thankyouverymuch. --John Cowan.
15 - - -
  • Section 2, missing < /pre > tag after example 2.8 and < pre> tag before example 2.9.
15 - - 1.2❓
  • Section 4, example 4.12 /nake/na'eke/
15 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • Section 9, two paragraphs above example 9.4 the word "negativ" should be "negative".
15 ✅1.1 -
  • Section 9: Is there supposed to be any difference between ex. 9.5 and 9.6?
    • That problem is only in the online version.
15 ✔Cowan - 1.2❓
  • Section 10, three paragraphs after example 10.14, there's a semicolon which should be a comma after "(say, a spelling error)".
15 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • Section 10, it says "'ji'una'iku' metalinguistically says that something is wrong with that assumption. (See Chapter 10.)". Shouldn't that be Chapter 9, modals?
    • ✅DAG (zort's fork at least) ✔Cowan.
15 - - -
  • change "A ``na before the selbri is always transformed into a ``naku at the left-hand end of the prenex, and vice versa." to: "A ``na before the selbri is always transformed into a ``naku at the right-hand end of the prenex, and vice versa."
16 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 5, example 5.5: English has "every Y" when it should read "every X"
16 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 6, example 6.6 has a missing "cu" before "viska".
16 ✔Cowan ✅DAG -
  • Section 8, the explanation of example 8.3 says "any entity which is one is also the other". That would be true if the example used {go}, but it uses {ganai}. 8.3 does not claim that if something walks across the field then it goes to the store. ✔Cowan Change it to use {go}. ✅DAG
    • Same place: needs to bo {da go}, not {go da} And the gloss should be "For-every X: X is-a-goer-to the store if-and-only-if it is-a-walker-on the field." ✅DAG
16 ✅DAG -
  • Section 8, example 8.3. Either the {da} should come before the {ganai} (or, by the previous ^ erratum, {go}) and the gloss should be changed to only mention "X" once, or a {da} should be inserted before {cadzu}.
    • ✅DAG chose first option since it's terser (zort's fork at least) but needs approval
16 ✔Cowan ✅DAG -
  • This: "Adjacent negation boundaries in the prenex can be dropped," reads better as "Adjacent pairs of negation boundaries in the prenex can be dropped,"
    • ✔camgu ✅DAG
      • The online version says "Adjacent double negation boundaries", but I'm okay with either "double" or "pairs of". --John Cowan
16 ✘Cowan - 1.2❓
  • Section 10, ex. 10.5 and 10.6 have a prenex, "naku zo'u", after an ijek. This is not allowed by the grammar. It could be fixed by removing the "zo'u" and using "naku" outside the prenex, although this is only explained in the following Section 11.
    • This is a big problem, and I'm not sure what should be fixed. --John Cowan NOFIX
16 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 12, ex. 12.7 and 12.9 have missing "cu"s.
16 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 14, Example 14.1 has "blaci" (glass) not "blabi" (white) as per the English.
16 - - 1.2❓
  • A few missing {ku'o}: ex 1.89, ex 1.92
    • la gleki: ex.16.89, ex.16.92 plus ex.16.83.
17 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • Section 5, after example 5.1, paragraph starting "However, " has incorrect font.
17 - - -
  • Section 5, in the second paragraph after example 5.1, says 'the lerfu word “ty” would represent not Latin “t” but Greek “tau”.' Shouldn't it be "ty."?
17 ✘Cowan - -
  • Section 9, page 421. lerfu strings are written without pauses or spaces, even though BY words have to end with a consonant.
    • Stet. BY words do not end with a consonant, and a string of them can never be ambiguous, so pauses/spaces are not required. --John Cowan
17 ✔Cowan - 1.2❓
  • Section 9, Example 9.4: shouldn't "symyjy" be "symydy" (lojban morphology)?
17 - - 1.2❓
  • Section 10. After Example 10.4.5, the reference to Example 10.4 should be instead to Example 10.4.5.
    • In the current DAG-CLL, the examples numbering is sane, but after Example 10.3, the two references to Example 10.4 should be to Example 10.3.
17 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • Right before section 12, there is a line break in the middle of the paragraph.
17 - - 1.2❓
  • In section 13, the first paragraph states "Historically, these character sets have only covered the English alphabet and a few selected punctuation marks.", which is incorrect. There have been multitudes of character sets for writing systems other than the English alphabet.
    • Change to something along the line of "Historically, each of these character sets has only covered a particular writing system."
17 - - -
  • Section 17, page 427. ".tvriydos. bu" begins with the consonant cluster, which isn't even permissible medially.
    • change to tyvriydos
      • ✔camgu ✅DAG
        • Actually, it should be "tyvrdos. bu" --John Cowan
          • тврьдо => [tvrido] (ignoring length) => tyvriydos. bu given that ь is always Lojbanized as iy mu'o mi'e La Gleki (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2017 (PDT)
17 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • In the table in section 19, the lervla for over-dot (".garmoc. bu") and over-ring (".garjin. bu") should be updated to their post-Reallocation forms, ".gapmoc. bu" and ".gapyjin. bu".
17 ✅1.1 -
  • Section 19 has two columns run together in the row that says "Danish/Latin aetei .abu .ebu foi"
18 - - -
  • ju'u is in VUhU. It should be of the type PA. Notice how {pi} and {ni'u} and {ka'o} and {ci'i} and {fi'u} are all of type {pa}, so they can go in a numerical literal between digits. especially {ka'o}, which can separate the real part and imaginary part to make a complex literal, and similarly {su'o} and {su'e} can separate numbers to make intervals.
18 ✔Cowan - 1.2❓
  • Section 3, ex. 3.10, should translate as ".1012001".
18 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • In section 4 example 4.5 is linked instead of 4.7 - "Example 4.5 is not ``1 minus 2, [.. ..]" where example 4.5 is just "te'o".
18 ✔Cowan ✅DAG -
  • Section 5, p437 ex5.9 gloss: our -> four
18 ✔Cowan ✅DAG -
  • Section 6, p438: j vu'u -> vu'u
18 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • Start of section 11 should read there are five members of MOI (not four).
18 ✔Cowan ✅DAG -
  • In section 11, ex 11.10 on va'e "sofi'upano" in the example is glossed as "8/10" instead of "9/10".
18 ✔Cowan ✅DAG -
  • In section 11, "lei ratcu poi zvati le panka cu so'umei fo lo'i ratcu", but there is no 4th place of mei.
    • Remove the "fo";
18 1.2❓
  • In section 11, "lei ratcu poi zvati le panka cu so'umei fo lo'i ratcu", but there is no 4th place of mei.
    • Remove the "fo";
      • la gleki:
        • This introduced two more problems.
          • First, the part "However, when the number expressed before -mei is an objective indefinite number of the kind explained in Section 18.8, a slightly different place structure is required: x1 is a mass formed from a set x2 of n members, one or more of which is/are x3, measured relative to the set x4." became useless.
          • Secondly, the following phrase "the x2 and x3 places are vacant, and the x4 place is filled by lo'i ratcu, which (because no quantifiers are explicitly given) means “the whole of the set of all those things which are rats”, or simply “the set of all rats.”" became incorrect. I suggest restoring {fo}.
18 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Example 14.4 needs a sub-2 after both numbers.
18 - - 1.2❓
  • In section 17, example 17.5, {gi} should be replaced by {gu'e}, because mekso operators are to be connected by guheks. This is essentially the same mistake as in example 14/17.4.
18 - ✅1.1 -
  • In section 17, the English translation for example 17.6 has the formula rendered wrong in the HTML version. The fraction bar should be added (it is invisble currently), and the words "then x =" should be vertically aligned to the fraction bar (they are currently aligned to the numerator).
18 ✔Cowan - 1.2❓
  • In section 17, at the bottom of page 454, the quadratic formula should be described as a classic example of operator logical connection, not operand.
18 ✅DAG -
  • In section 17, 17.7 (li no ga'o bi'o ke'i pa) is *not* equivalent to 17.9 (li pimu su'i ni'upimu bi'o ma'upimu). I (rlpowell) have replaced bi'o with "bi'o ke'i" in the latter. NOT APPROVED but ✅DAG
18 ✅DAG -
  • In section 17, the Lojban of 17.8 (li pimu ga'o mi'i ke'i pimu) is not equivalent to 0.5 ± 0.5, regardless of how the latter is interpreted; I (rlpowell) have removed that English equivalency. NOT APPROVED but ✅DAG
18 - - -
18 ✘Cowan - 1.2❓
  • Section 21 states that the rafsi of "frinu" may be used as rafsi for "fi'u"; however, "frinu" lost both of its short rafsi in the Reallocation, so this really isn't very useful. The table below lists "fi'u" as a rafsi usable for "fi'u", therefore of "frinu"; the gimste lists "fi'u" as a rafsi of "cfipu".
    • This is a serious problem which needs some thought. There needs to be a rafsi for fi'u somehow. --John Cowan NOFIX
    • simply use the long rafsi mu'o mi'e La Gleki (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2015 (PDT)
18 - - -
  • la gleki:
    • Section 18.26 says that cu'o is a rafsi of cu'o: "cu'o (borrowed from cunso...". This makes no sense since one rafsi can't belong to two words.
18 - - -
  • Section 21 "“se” can be used to convert an operator as if it were a selbri, so that its arguments are exchanged." is a false statement. se converts tanru-unit-2, not selbri. Anyway, just say "“se” is also used to exchange arguments of an operator". mu'o mi'e La Gleki (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2015 (PDT)
18 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 22 example 22.3, "mo'e voboi renomei su'i ze", does not parse.
    • It needs "vei" in front to be a quantifier (an operand by itself is not a permitted fragment). Also, the following text mentions "te'u" but the example omits it.
      • None of those examples parse without {li}, which I have added to all. Replaced the one in question with "li mo'e voboi renomei te'u su'i ze"
18 ✅1.1 -
  • Section 25. The rafsi for "so'e", -sop-, is missing, the rafsi for the following four words are listed under the wrong word. That is, -sor- is actually the rafsi for "so'i", and -daz- is the rafsi for "da'a".
18 - - -
  • la gleki:
    • Sections 25, 26. Cmavo are now shown in tables and now it's not obvious that the second column are rafsi.
18 ✔camgu ✅1.2 -
  • la gleki:
    • Section 26. The tables are broken.
19 ✔Cowan ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 4, p467 ex4.3: zu'o -> zo'u
19 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 6, page 472. Example 6.6 ends with "klama", but for the argument to make sense, it has to say "nunkla".
19 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section 7, Example 7.1 has as the English: "I go-to (firstly) the store and (secondly) the market." "the market" should be "the house".
19 ✅DAG ✅1.1 -
  • Example 11.8, there's a denpabu after {za'e} and no denpabu after {albeinias}.
    • ✅DAG (zort's fork at least) but needs approval
19 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • Section 11, the paragraph after example 11.8 says "ctiipyris" but it should be "ckiipyris".
19 ✅1.1 -
  • Section 13, "and the undefined fu'ivla “speranto”." Replace "fu'ivla" with "lujvo".
19 - -
  • kifra:
    • Section 9, example 19.47 of CLL v1.1 is wrong. ri would refer to the quotation, not to the person.
20 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section LE, page 498. In "le gerku klama le zdani", "cu" is missing.
20 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section TUhE, page 505. In "xagmau zo'u tu'e ganai cidja gi cnino .i ganai vanju gi tolci'o tu'u", cnino should be replaced by citno. Also, a prenex can't have a selbri, so xagmau should be replaced by lo xagmau.
20 ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • Section SE, page 504: missing "cu" after "zarci".
20 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • In the passages on VEI and VEhO, the "bo"s should be changed to "bi'e"s.
21 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • In the BNF grammar, the rule simple-tense-modal-972 is missing a "|" before the CUhE.
21 ✅1.1 -
  • In the BNF grammar, the rule simple-tense-modal-972 has an extra newline in the space/time subphrase.
21 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • In the BNF grammar, the rule selbri-1-131 is missing a "|" before the NA.
21 ✔Cowan ✔camgu ✅DAG -
  • In the BNF grammar, the rule tanru-unit-2-152 is missing a "|" before the JAI.
    • la camgusmis: bizarelly, the Word doc the book was printed from does not have this problem at all.
21 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • In the BNF grammar, the rule operator-1-371 is missing two "|".
21 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • In the BNF grammar, the rule mex-operator-374 is missing a "|" before the MAhO and another before the VUhU.
21 ✔Cowan ✅1.1 -
  • In the BNF grammar, the rule operand-3-385 is missing a "|" before the NIhE.
21 ✔Cowan - 1.2❓
  • In the BNF grammar, in the rule time_1030, the "ZEhA [PU NAI ]" should be enclosed in parentheses.