From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Mon Aug 27 09:15:52 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 27 Aug 2001 16:15:52 -0000
Received: (qmail 57123 invoked from network); 27 Aug 2001 15:56:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27)
  by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 27 Aug 2001 15:56:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta01-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.41)
  by mta2 with SMTP; 27 Aug 2001 15:56:09 -0000
Received: from andrew ([62.255.42.247]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com
  (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP
  id <20010827155607.SOGV15984.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew>
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 16:56:07 +0100
Reply-To: <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] useless selmaho? (was: RE: mine, thine, hisn, hern, itsn ourn, yourn and theirn
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 16:55:20 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMEEAIEKAA.a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <F140b6KZmcK8r6beUzm00008188@hotmail.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>

Jorge:
> la and cusku di'e
> 
> >Certainly mo'e is the key one.
> 
> (ni'e can eventually be done as {mo'e LE}.)
> 
> But I'm still not very clear on how to use mo'e.
> 
> According to the Codex, {mo'e re ratcu} is the dimensioned number
> "two rats". Then {mo'e re da} must be the number "two things",
> and {mo'e da} the number "at least one thing" (not just some
> number, which would probably be more useful). And {mo'e lo spaji}
> would be the dimensioned number "at least one surprise", not some
> surprising number.
> 
> Is that how you understand it?

Certainly not. What you say is consistent with the book and with
"Two apples plus two apples is four apples", but I understand it
in the different and much more useful way, where the sumti already
refers to a number, and mo'e simply allows you to use the sumti
as a quantifier with its reference essentially unchanged.

In case I'm not being clear, I just mean I'm in favour of 
mo'e da = some number and mo'e lo spaji = a suprising number.

--And.