Re: re: 3 loaves

["Iain Alexander" <ia@stryx.demon.co.uk>]

On 3 Feb 00, at 14:11, Jorge Llambias wrote:

> >2. "another (=one more)": how about "za'u"? or "ny.su'ipa"?
> 
> No, {za'u} is "more than one", or "more than x", but
> something like {za'u nanba} refers to each of those
> more than one loaves of bread, not to the
> more-than-one-th loaf that we want to talk about now,
> i.e. not the next one after all those we have talked about
> already.

{za'umoi} then.

(Sounds a bit like "next", but maybe it depends on {le} vs. {lo}.)

Robert McIvor's solution is of course good - {krefu citka}.

I think John Cowan's problem -
{ko'a refcti pa nabytai} suggest that the same loaf was eaten both times
- depends on lujvo vs. tanru and other grouping factors.  Using a lujvo does 
indeed make it seem like <repeat-eat> is a single concept applying to a 
single loaf.  I think {krefu citka lo nabytai} separates them just enough to 
avoid that implication, but others may prefer stronger measures such as 
{krefu citka be lo nabytai} or {krefu bo citka lo nabytai} all the way up to 
{krefu le nu citka lo nabytai}.

co'o mi'e .i,n.

-- 
Iain Alexander               PGP 1024-bit key id B501A0AD
ia@stryx.demon.co.uk   I.Alexander@bra0105.wins.icl.co.uk