Lo Caslo Monca

I, na lepo pei turka le kochebfii ji nu rojmao vi lo tirfoa fildi {/guo}, pei takna lepei darli fremi lo treci zavbivdiu pe le monbia.
Ibuo lepei durfoa je lepo lentaa la Loglan ga mutce gutra.
Leaving out a guo to close a lepo clause is a very common error. If a missing closure follows the lepo clause, which can be terminated by a comma, then the lepo clause is closed as well, or if the remainder of the sentence can only be parsed by inserting a guo, then it is not necessary. However, In this case, pei can be taken as an additional argument of rojmao. It is advisable to use guo if there is the slightest doubt about its necessity. In the second sentence above, the only feasible parse is by taking ga mutce gutra as the predicate of the argument lepei durfoa etc. Also, a gue to close the je argument would have closed the lepo as well.

Nao, fa lemiu po preni je lo lojbi bilca {/gue}, e lemiu po nu rezmao je la Huvr ze leri notbi kangu, la BeibiDjein ze mi pa prase valda lo nu kanmo je la Fred.
In this instance, non-termination of the je caused the e lemiu p;o nu rezmao... to be part of the je phrase modifying lemiu po preni, rather than a compound part of the fa phrase.

...moi lepo Fai siodja le humnu ze lehei po clivi vi lemuu telfoa.
APL: lemuu telfoa includes you, hoi Ridle, kae, in the 'our'

Na lo monza, na lepo miu fadgoi le sesytursia {/guo}, miu na raba nufunu sifdui le kotvizlei, ne lista je ra kencue jio la Fred pa penso kei nia le natli.
As above.

I miu nufunu donsu Fai, su kotrae ji veslo ne rardjabuu {/gui}, e djimao Fai le bitpoldi ge kotnetre, moi lepo Fai duvrai lo nu dapli je ba jue leFai po kencue jue su feorgalsio.
Another ji clause that needs closing, so as not to swallow the continuation

Nao, la Fred, mutce tcepeo ze ciafro,....
Because APL has put a comma after Fred, ga can be omitted. In most of this novel, he has not used commas after names so a ga before a following predicate is essential for a correct parse
as occurred in the following sentence where two were omitted.

La BeibiDjein {/ga}djadou mi lepo la Casleun {/ga}fulri la Loglan lo purda ji perti lopo filmo guo guo, e blipeo lepo ei la Fred fa cirna la Casleun, ice, ii tao fa nufunu ditca Fai lepo lopo filma ga he.

I {/,}tiehu ba tcabei be ji fungi, e harlii fo negdykua?
Without the comma this becomes Itie hu ba with the current LIP which does not parse as wished.

I miu klimao Fai lepo miu fuo godzi la Caslo Monca, e keopli ri likta lepo kinci la pernu ji lentaa la Casleun.
I do not understand fuo in this sentence. Fuo is a virtual third argument identical to the first argument. I read this to mean "We explained to F that we are going to Whistle Mountain from us. If it is a misprint for fua, it would mean that we will habitually go to Whistle Mountain. I will assume fa was meant

Kie, la Fred pana takna tie ne sintesi po takna patce, ice tie ne taksoa katmei patce Fai saadja lo logla nu takna. I tao plifasru, e gudbi le kotvizlei ze le klakybarta, kiu.
This paragraph does not parse, but evidently because of a problem with the parser. If the Kie and kiu are replaced with Li and lu (quotes instead of parentheses), the paragraph parses correctly, but as is, it fails at the e in the second sentence. The yacc grammar statements are LI utterance LU, and KIE utterance KIU, so I can see no reason for the failure in one case and not the other. No amount of experimenting has given me a clue yet, so some tracing in the parser will be necessary (postponed until I finish the remaining chapters of the novel)
I changed the first Fai in the next paragraph to La Fred, probably unnecessarily, as I am not certain that we agreed that the scope of an anaphora should be limited to one paragraph.

La BeibiDjein ze mi sackao lepo bremao lo fu pacdou lemiu po traci.
I just wanted to point out the subtle difference here, as to whether lemiu po traci is a purpose of the making ready (the third argument of bremou), as written by APL, or as the purpose of the sackou , the third argument of sackou, which would require a guo after pacdou. Both are legitimate possibilities.

I Bai jetcea ne cmalo ractca la Paknurmaosensi Stogrusia lepo tcabei le parti je la Fred gue, ze le komta, ze raba ji nerbi lepo la Fred {,ga}takna le piplo je la Caslo Monca.
The usual.

Nao na le nerpasdei je lemiu po sackaa je la Grasic jue la Caslo Monca, mu {,miu}jmite leumiu fremi vi la Blabi Lepsu, kie ne resra la Lu,is Karyl Kursia kiu, moi lepo ra miu kinci titci
APL: ? ra miu = the whole set of us ?
It parses, and I don't see why not. If fei were used it would indicate leumiu fremi only. Maybe fei ze miu might work, I see ra miu as extending the miu to redefine miu as including the speaker and the entire group with him acting together in communal eating.

I la Selis {/ga}hijra, ize la DjanUein, ize La {Gromkhlitc/Gromxlitc}, ize la Zanquipis.
This does not parse, but as a result of the lexer not recognizing ize as an eeshek, and lexing it as i ze. With ice replacing ize it parses. To be corrected. In the meantime I tried out
Ga hijra ga la Selis, ze la DjanUein, ze la Gromxlitc, ze la Zanquipis, which parses as wished. As this is a lexer bug recently introduced, I have kept APLs version

I la Grom {,ga}nu kinci la Mucrias ze la Marmos, guu ji kasytilba, e mutce fundi la Huvr
I {lemiu/leuvi}fremi ga mutce nu treci lepo (lemiu/la BeibiDjein ze mi ga}vizgoi la Caslo Monca
We defined miu in the previous paragraph as the group eating together. Even if the scope does not carry through, then miu would be expected to include the speaker and his companions. Presumably this group have other friends that may not know about the visit. Having made that assumption about miu, then the travelling group must be specified.

{"/}Ui,{/}" hue La Grom, {/gu}{"/}Selkunbiu lepo tu no ju mordu homp;i le vinjo ji va. I vei {plugou/pluguo}, e mutce forli.{"/}
JCB was very opposed to the use of both quotation marks and either li..lu or hue expressions. An embedded hue expression needs to be terminated, if the following word could have been part of it, hence the gu. Plugou is evidently a misprint.