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 m0pr9aU-00005NC; Wed, 13 Apr 94 21:22 EET DST
Message-Id: <m0pr9aU-00005NC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 2190; Wed, 13 Apr 94 20:21:18 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2188; Wed, 13 Apr 1994 20:21:06 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1730; Wed, 13 Apr 1994 18:16:46 +0200
Date:         Wed, 13 Apr 1994 12:17:04 -0400
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: Once again...
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  <199404122127.AA15993@nfs1.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at
              Apr 12, 94 04:09:17 pm
Content-Length: 1151
Lines: 32

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 <MEX> [me'u] <MOI>:

        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 <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban.