From ia@stryx.demon.co.uk Fri Feb 4 15:55:19 2000 X-Digest-Num: 354 Message-ID: <44114.354.1921.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 23:55:19 -0000 From: "Iain Alexander" Subject: Re: re: 3 loaves On 3 Feb 00, at 14:11, Jorge Llambias wrote: > >2. "another (=one more)": how about "za'u"? or "ny.su'ipa"? > > No, {za'u} is "more than one", or "more than x", but > something like {za'u nanba} refers to each of those > more than one loaves of bread, not to the > more-than-one-th loaf that we want to talk about now, > i.e. not the next one after all those we have talked about > already. {za'umoi} then. (Sounds a bit like "next", but maybe it depends on {le} vs. {lo}.) Robert McIvor's solution is of course good - {krefu citka}. I think John Cowan's problem - {ko'a refcti pa nabytai} suggest that the same loaf was eaten both times - depends on lujvo vs. tanru and other grouping factors. Using a lujvo does indeed make it seem like is a single concept applying to a single loaf. I think {krefu citka lo nabytai} separates them just enough to avoid that implication, but others may prefer stronger measures such as {krefu citka be lo nabytai} or {krefu bo citka lo nabytai} all the way up to {krefu le nu citka lo nabytai}. co'o mi'e .i,n. -- Iain Alexander PGP 1024-bit key id B501A0AD ia@stryx.demon.co.uk I.Alexander@bra0105.wins.icl.co.uk