From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sat Sep 01 06:39:06 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 1 Sep 2001 13:39:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 54277 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2001 13:39:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Sep 2001 13:39:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta05-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.45) by mta3 with SMTP; 1 Sep 2001 13:39:05 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.41.102]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010901133904.FAZO20588.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 14:39:04 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: mo'e (was: RE: [lojban] useless selmaho? Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 14:38:15 +0100 Message-ID: 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) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <032f01c13236$e46176e0$8ab5003e@oemcomputer> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10370 Adam: > 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". Or just "[mo'e] lo [jai] spaji". --And.