From jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:46:41 2010
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: mo'e
Date: Wed Mar 15 18:46:20 1995
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Mar 15 18:46:20 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Message-ID: <7JJILXd4jOD.A.QbG.Rv0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

la lojbab cusku di'e

> >Is {mo'e li ci} the same as {ci} as a quantifier? Or is it the number
> >of numbers three, like supposedly {mo'e pa plise} is the number of apples
> >in "one apple"?
>
> Yes!

I hate that answer when I ask "A or something incompatible with A?"

> First, mo'e is suppossed to be the inverse of 'li', so the firsst is
 definitely
> true.

Ok. In that case, {mo'e lo namcu} is "some number", and {mo'e ci namcu}
is meaningless, because {mo'e} takes a referent of one number, not several
referents.

> The second is effectively true, because when we add 'one apple' and
> 'one apple' to get 'two apples' we are in effect adding the number of apples
> in 'one apple'.

This doesn't make sense to me. If {mo'e li ci} is the number 3, then
{mo'e lo plise} has to be a number of type apple, not the number of apples
in {lo plise}.

What do you get when you add 'one number' and 'one number'? 'Two numbers' or
'one number'? (Please don't answer "yes"  :)

Jorge