{lo nu ja'a broda pu ja'a brode}

[Gleki Arxokuna]

I don't remember if that's a known issue but this phrase is parsed differently:

lo nu ja'a broda pu ja'a brode

standard grammar: ([{lo <nu (¹[ja'a broda] [pu KU] VAU¹) KEI> KU} CU] [ja'a brode] VAU) 

exp. grammar: ([{lo <nu (¹CU [ja'a broda] VAU¹) KEI> KU} CU] [pu {ja'a brode}] VAU) 

As you can see {pu} is now after {cu} in the current realization.

Was it intended or what?

[Jorge Llambías]

Yes, iockun reported he made this change on Jan 9, after I changed it in the zasni gerna page, after guskant suggested it..

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Ilmen]

Yeah, this is an inténded behâvior. For the standard Camxes, I copied
the behâvior of Jbofi'e regárding the absórbtion of tags into the
follọwing selbri as selbritcita, whereás in the expériméntal Camxes I
implemented a simpler and arguably more consístent version of this grammar.

Bāsically in Camxes-std, trailing sumtcita withín the bridi-tail of an
abstráction cannot become a selbritcita of a selbri dīréctly behînd (but
outsíde) this abstráction. On the ọther hand, in Camxes-exp, an empty
tag follọwed by a selbri is always a selbritcita of this selbri (and
thus part thereóf), regárdless of whether this tag is withín an inner
bridi or not.

You're free to choose which option is your fāvoritẹ one. As a side note,
bōth of the abọ́ve versions of the grammar are different from that of the
oríginal Camxes, which never parses a tag follọwed by a selbri as a
selbritcita, unléss you explícitly use {cu} befóre the selbritcita.

mi'e la .ilmen. mu'o