From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Wed Sep 05 14:07:05 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); 5 Sep 2001 21:07:04 -0000
Received: (qmail 99738 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2001 20:52:39 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27)
  by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Sep 2001 20:52:39 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta02-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.42)
  by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2001 20:52:34 -0000
Received: from andrew ([62.255.42.42]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com
  (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP
  id <20010905205233.VOIU29790.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew>
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:52:33 +0100
Reply-To: <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: mo'e (was: RE: [lojban] useless selmaho?
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:51:49 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMMEHLEKAA.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: <01a701c13350$ec661d80$74b6003e@oemcomputer>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>

Adam:
> la .and. cusku di'e
> 
> > Adam:
> > > Isn't "mo'e" supposed to be used in cases like
> > >
> > > li mo'e re dirgo su'i mo'e re dirgo na du li mo'e vo dirgo
> > >
> > > Though perhaps "loi vo lo dirgo na sumji loi re lo dirgo loi re lo
> > > dirgo" is better. (Book p. 456, ch. 18.18.3) Thus "mo'e lo spaji"
> > > would be a surprise, but can be used grammatically as a number. "A
> > > surprising number" would be "[mo'e] lo namcu poi [jai] spaji".
> >
> > Or just "[mo'e] lo [jai] spaji".
> 
> I think that "mo'e lo spaji" would be used in something like "li mo'e
> lo spaji su'i mo'e lo spaji du li mo'e lo mutce spaji" while "mo'e lo
> namcu poi jai spaji" could be used in something like "li fe'a ni'u pa
> du li mo'e lo namcu poi jai spaji".

My point is that there is no reason why "lo (jai) spaji" cannot be
a number. So the only difference between "mo'e lo (jai) spaji"
and the synonymous pair "mo'e lo namcu poi (jai) spaji" and "mo'e
lo (jai) spaji poi namcu" is the the latter covers a subset of what
the former covers.

--And.