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 m0qmRRD-00005LC; Sun, 18 Sep 94 21:58 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2482; Sun, 18 Sep 94 21:56:43 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2480; Sun, 18 Sep 1994 21:56:43 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5714; Sun, 18 Sep 1994 20:55:30 +0200 Date: Sun, 18 Sep 1994 14:57:53 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: needing 2 taxis X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 750 Lines: 22 la lojbab di'e la and spusku > UC>If "waiting for a taxi" is "waiting for loi taxi", how do we say > UC>"we're waiting for two taxis". Does "reloi" do this? > > No. [...] > > To make the distinction clear you could wait "loi taxi pamei" vs. > "loi taxi remei", A mass of taxi singlets vs. a mass of taxi pairs ?! > or you could wait for "pa/re selci poi taxi" which is > more or less the same as "pa/re [lo] taxi" If you don't see any problem with "pa/re selci poi karce", I don't know why you wouldn't just use "pa/re karce". Since the problem that the latter has is shared by the former, why use such a convoluted expression at all? The question whether it is any selci or certain selci is exactly the same between any or certain taxi. Jorge