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 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. |