From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Sat Aug 25 15:30:21 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 25 Aug 2001 22:30:21 -0000
Received: (qmail 85238 invoked from network); 25 Aug 2001 22:30:20 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27)
  by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 25 Aug 2001 22:30:20 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta06-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.46)
  by mta2 with SMTP; 25 Aug 2001 22:30:20 -0000
Received: from andrew ([62.253.84.6]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com
          (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP
          id <20010825223018.GZJD6330.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew>
          for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 23:30:18 +0100
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] RE: mine, etc.
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 23:29:32 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMIEPDEJAA.a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <bc.1944c45c.28b94662@aol.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Importance: Normal
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10103

pc:
> It is important to note that the {me ... me'u} in these constructions with 
> MOI have only an accidental connection with the ordinary {me ... me'u}.  The 
> regular one converts a sumti into a selbri somehow related to the sumti, the 
> present one converts any sumti into a number-like sumti, it serves merely as 
> a bracketting device and could have been sone as easily (and more clearly) 
> with something usually used for such bracketting, {vei...ve'o} for example. 

This seems true to me, based on what little I know. However, had the me...
mo'u construction not existed, Jorge could have used {mo'e mi moi} in
exactly the same way. (I think -- I am corrigible here.)

Indeed, it seems confusing to me to have {me ... me'u MOI} for either 
the snowball in hell or the n+1th. {me...me'u} should yield a selbri and
hence not be combinable with MOI. I'd prefer to see {mo'e ... MOI}
for the snowball in hell, and (tho I don't know if it's grammatical)
{vei n+1 (ve'o) MOI}.

--And.