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 m0prszP-00006SC; Fri, 15 Apr 94 21:51 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3417; Fri, 15 Apr 94 21:51:51 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 3416; Fri, 15 Apr 1994 21:51:50 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2863; Fri, 15 Apr 1994 20:50:20 +0200 Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 18:47:33 GMT Reply-To: Matthew Faupel Sender: Lojban list From: Matthew Faupel Subject: Re: Once again... X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: message from Jorge Llambias on Thu, 14 Apr 1994 12:31:07 EDT Content-Length: 1107 Lines: 25 I've been away on a training course all week, so I've only just seen the flurry of messages about "one more time". JC: Furthemore, "su'ipa" doesn't mean what Colin seems to think: it's just JC: the forethought form (+ 1), i.e. 1. To say "one more", we need JC: something like "pa su'i no'o", one plus the typical value in this JC: context. Is addition meaningful with only one argument? Surely the addition operator requires at least two operands and so if you provide only one, the listener will (in good Lojban tradition) fill in the missing operand with the obvious value. In this context, the obvious value could well be the (possibly indeterminate) number of times the actor has done the action before. This is a moot point though in that, as has been pointed out, MEX expressions can't be used with MOI or ROI without the rather clumsy {meli ... me'u} bracketing. I had more really brilliant insights to give, however on writing them down they seems far less brilliant than I first thought :-( I think I'll go home, have a relaxing weekend, and then try again on Monday :-) Cheers, Matthew