Re: [jboske] me+moi (was: RE: la, lai, me

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

And Rosta scripsit:

> Does {mo'e ko'a moi} work?

No. The argument of MOI must be either a digit-string or a letteral-string
or ME+sumti. An operand is not grammatical. The problem arises because
MOI is afterthought, as in IE languages (unlike Gua\spi and Chinese where
it is forethought), and without a leading cmavo of some sort, one must
restrict what kinds of things can precede it in order to make the Yacc
grammar work.

> There's a potential ambiguity, I think, between "100th" and 
> "uniquely pertaining to 100". For example, if we are orded
> by our ages, then I am pe li 35, but I am not 35th. So
> {me li ci mu me'u moi} is potentially ambiguous.

It clearly means 35th, because the force of "moi" is undimmed by the
construction.

-- 
Henry S. Thompson said, / "Syntactic, structural, John Cowan
Value constraints we / Express on the fly." jcowan@reutershealth.com
Simon St. Laurent: "Your / Incomprehensible http://www.reutershealth.com
Abracadabralike / schemas must die!" http://www.ccil.org/~cowan