From sentto-44114-1920-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Fri Feb 04 23:54:26 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 14925 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2000 23:54:21 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 4 Feb 2000 23:54:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 18474 invoked by uid 40001); 4 Feb 2000 23:56:12 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 18471 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2000 23:56:11 -0000 Received: from hj.egroups.com (208.48.218.12) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 4 Feb 2000 23:56:11 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-1920-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.38] by hj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2000 23:56:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 5301 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2000 23:56:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.10.38 with QMQP; 4 Feb 2000 23:56:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net) (194.217.242.92) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 4 Feb 2000 23:56:07 -0000 Received: from stryx.demon.co.uk ([158.152.74.164] helo=stryx) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Gsa6-00068o-0Y for lojban@onelist.com; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 23:56:06 +0000 To: lojban@onelist.com Priority: normal In-reply-to: <20000203221117.58874.qmail@hotmail.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a) Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@onelist.com; contact lojban-owner@onelist.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@onelist.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 23:55:19 -0000 From: "Iain Alexander" Subject: Re: [lojban] re: 3 loaves Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Iain Alexander" On 3 Feb 00, at 14:11, Jorge Llambias wrote: > >2. "another (=one more)": how about "za'u"? or "ny.su'ipa"? > > No, {za'u} is "more than one", or "more than x", but > something like {za'u nanba} refers to each of those > more than one loaves of bread, not to the > more-than-one-th loaf that we want to talk about now, > i.e. not the next one after all those we have talked about > already. {za'umoi} then. (Sounds a bit like "next", but maybe it depends on {le} vs. {lo}.) Robert McIvor's solution is of course good - {krefu citka}. I think John Cowan's problem - {ko'a refcti pa nabytai} suggest that the same loaf was eaten both times - depends on lujvo vs. tanru and other grouping factors. Using a lujvo does indeed make it seem like is a single concept applying to a single loaf. I think {krefu citka lo nabytai} separates them just enough to avoid that implication, but others may prefer stronger measures such as {krefu citka be lo nabytai} or {krefu bo citka lo nabytai} all the way up to {krefu le nu citka lo nabytai}. co'o mi'e .i,n. -- Iain Alexander PGP 1024-bit key id B501A0AD ia@stryx.demon.co.uk I.Alexander@bra0105.wins.icl.co.uk --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- Valentine's Day Shopping Made Simple. Click Here ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com