From araizen@newmail.net Sat Sep 01 17:44:14 2001
Return-Path: <araizen@newmail.net>
X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 2 Sep 2001 00:44:14 -0000
Received: (qmail 94924 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2001 00:44:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27)
  by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Sep 2001 00:44:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO out.newmail.net) (212.150.54.158)
  by mta2 with SMTP; 2 Sep 2001 00:44:09 -0000
Received: from oemcomputer ([62.0.182.116]) by out.newmail.net ; Sun, 02 Sep 2001 03:45:11 +0200
Message-ID: <01a701c13350$ec661d80$74b6003e@oemcomputer>
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
References: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMCEGEEKAA.a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
Subject: Re: mo'e (was: RE: [lojban] useless selmaho?
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 03:19:28 +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>

la .and. cusku di'e

> 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".

I think that "mo'e lo spaji" would be used in something like "li mo'e
lo spaji su'i mo'e lo spaji du li mo'e lo mutce spaji" while "mo'e lo
namcu poi jai spaji" could be used in something like "li fe'a ni'u pa
du li mo'e lo namcu poi jai spaji".

mu'o mi'e .adam.