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 m2HAZYg-00007dC; Thu, 7 Feb 136 09:49 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8707; Wed, 15 Mar 95 19:27:35 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8705; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 19:27:35 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5620; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 18:22:23 +0100 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 12:19:08 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: mo'e X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 978 Lines: 30 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