Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0pqong-00005SC; Tue, 12 Apr 94 23:11 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0476; Tue, 12 Apr 94 23:10:45 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0474; Tue, 12 Apr 1994 23:10:45 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9245; Tue, 12 Apr 1994 22:09:18 +0200 Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 16:09:17 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: Once again... X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 887 Lines: 28 Colin comments: > I had been thinking that 'krefu' was the best answer, and I still think it's > a good one. But these have a certain attraction. And the unassigned krefu-looking {re'u} is so tempting... > You missed the one that started it, > mi su'ipaxei tcidu I think you can't have VUhUs with ROI. {su'orexei} or {za'upaxei} should work, but I don't see any way to get the number "one more". > But I'm not sure that this merits a cmavo to itself. I think I would express > this by something like > > ..i su'ipamoi nu mi tcidu > > (something is) the +1'th event of my reading. Again, I believe MOIs don't do MEXs. I like {za'upamoi nu mi tcidu}, but if we want to get picky, the claim is not exactly the same, because I'm not claiming that I'm reading, but rather that something is an event of my reading. Does anyone else have an opinion on the proposed cmavo? Jorge