From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199404131617.AA08413@access2.digex.net> Subject: Re: Once again... To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 12:17:04 -0400 (ADT) Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group) In-Reply-To: <199404122127.AA15993@nfs1.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at Apr 12, 94 04:09:17 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1112 Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Wed Apr 13 12:17:44 1994 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab la kolin. cusku di'e > > You missed the one that started it, > > mi su'ipaxei tcidu la xorxes. cusku di'e > 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". Jorge is right, we can't do MEX expressions inside tenses, because that would make the preparser grammar too complicated (tenses are always compounded by the preparser). Furthemore, "su'ipa" doesn't mean what Colin seems to think: it's just the forethought form (+ 1), i.e. 1. To say "one more", we need something like "pa su'i no'o", one plus the typical value in this context. > Again, I believe MOIs don't do MEXs. There is a kludge for this: me li [me'u] : ti me li re su'i re boi [me'u] moi le'i ratcu That is the (2+2)th rat [of the set I have in mind]. Either the "boi" or the "me'u" can be elided, but not both, as the consecutive appearance of "re" and "moi" fools the compounder into seeing "li re su'i remoi" which doesn't parse. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.