From pycyn@aol.com Mon Mar 25 12:31:04 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 25 Mar 2002 20:31:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 74060 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2002 20:31:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Mar 2002 20:31:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r03.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.99) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2002 20:31:03 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id 9.7f.23893995 (3958) for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 15:19:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <7f.23893995.29d0e041@aol.com> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 15:19:13 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] le ze romoi selsku be la Yecus To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_7f.23893995.29d0e041_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13855 --part1_7f.23893995.29d0e041_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/25/2002 1:57:05 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > {ma'uda'aze} is not "(more than all) but seven", it is > "more than (all but seven)", i.e. all but six, all but five, > all but four, all but three, all but two, all but one, or > all (but none). > Talking to cross purposes. My point was meant to be that {ma'u} doesn't mean "more than" at all, but rather "positive number". ({seme'i}? {semau}? OH!) jjllambias@hotmail.com To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Sent from the Internet (Details) la pycyn cusku di'e > > {le ma'uda'azemoi selsku be la iecus} > >I don't see what {ma'u} does here unless we could have all but >more than there are, which I suppose is blocked by overriding >presuppositions. {ma'uda'aze} is not "(more than all) but seven", it is "more than (all but seven)", i.e. all but six, all but five, all but four, all but three, all but two, all but one, or all (but none). <>How about {da'asu'ezemoi}? Well, that one allows "all but seven" too, which should be excluded, but {da'asu'examoi} or {da'ame'izemoi} should work just as well.> Oh yeah, the 0th case is a case. --part1_7f.23893995.29d0e041_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/25/2002 1:57:05 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


{ma'uda'aze} is not "(more than all) but seven", it is
"more than (all but seven)", i.e. all but six, all but five,
all but four, all but three, all but two, all but one, or
all (but none).


Talking to cross purposes.  My point was meant to be that {ma'u} doesn't mean "more than" at all, but rather "positive number". ({seme'i}? {semau}?  OH!)

<Subj: Re: [lojban] le ze romoi selsku be la Yecus
Date: 3/25/2002 1:57:05 PM Central Standard Time
From: jjllambias@hotmail.com
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)




la pycyn cusku di'e

> > {le ma'uda'azemoi selsku be la iecus}
>
>I don't see what {ma'u} does here unless we could have all but
>more than there are, which I suppose is blocked by overriding
>presuppositions.

{ma'uda'aze} is not "(more than all) but seven", it is
"more than (all but seven)", i.e. all but six, all but five,
all but four, all but three, all but two, all but one, or
all (but none).

<>How about {da'asu'ezemoi}?

Well, that one allows "all but seven" too, which should be
excluded, but {da'asu'examoi} or {da'ame'izemoi} should work
just as well.>

Oh yeah, the 0th case is a case.

 --part1_7f.23893995.29d0e041_boundary--