From araizen@newmail.net Fri Aug 31 08:07:23 2001
Return-Path: <araizen@newmail.net>
X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 31 Aug 2001 15:07:22 -0000
Received: (qmail 59154 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2001 15:05:20 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27)
  by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 31 Aug 2001 15:05:20 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO out.newmail.net) (212.150.54.158)
  by mta2 with SMTP; 31 Aug 2001 15:05:19 -0000
Received: from oemcomputer ([62.0.180.216]) by out.newmail.net ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:06:20 +0200
Message-ID: <032f01c13236$e46176e0$8ab5003e@oemcomputer>
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
References: <F267X4RlGdzjKwCQ98B000143ea@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] useless selmaho? (was: RE: mine, thine, hisn, hern, itsn ourn, yourn and theirn
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:02:43 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
From: "Adam Raizen" <araizen@newmail.net>
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10328

Isn't "mo'e" supposed to be used in cases like

    li mo'e re dirgo su'i mo'e re dirgo na du li mo'e vo dirgo

Though perhaps "loi vo lo dirgo na sumji loi re lo dirgo loi re lo
dirgo" is better. (Book p. 456, ch. 18.18.3) Thus "mo'e lo spaji"
would be a surprise, but can be used grammatically as a number. "A
surprising number" would be "[mo'e] lo namcu poi [jai] spaji".

mu'o mi'e .adam.