From jcowan@reutershealth.com Sat Aug 25 21:54:59 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jcowan@reutershealth.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 26 Aug 2001 04:54:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 18897 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2001 04:54:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Aug 2001 04:54:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.reutershealth.com) (204.243.9.36) by mta3 with SMTP; 26 Aug 2001 04:54:58 -0000 Received: from localhost (jcowan@localhost) by mail.reutershealth.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA21636; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 00:56:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 00:56:42 -0400 (EDT) To: And Rosta Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [lojban] RE: mine, etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote: > Indeed, it seems confusing to me to have {me ... me'u MOI} for either > the snowball in hell or the n+1th. {me...me'u} should yield a selbri and > hence not be combinable with MOI. I'd prefer to see {mo'e ... MOI} > for the snowball in hell, and (tho I don't know if it's grammatical) > {vei n+1 (ve'o) MOI}. Those would, indeed, have been better, but MOI is recognized by the preprocessor, and can't take recursive syntax like a a whole mekso. The me...me'u MOI was a kluge to make the semantics possible. -- John Cowan, klugeur