From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Nov 05 12:01:31 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 5 Nov 2001 20:01:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 4732 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2001 20:01:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Nov 2001 20:01:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.53) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Nov 2001 20:01:30 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 12:01:30 -0800 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 05 Nov 2001 20:01:30 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Isn't everything a noun? (was Countability) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 20:01:30 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Nov 2001 20:01:30.0692 (UTC) FILETIME=[A93F6040:01C16634] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 Lee Daniel Crocker: > > Is {ro le su'epazemoi be lei nanmu bei le ka clani} awkward? Or the > > glorkable version, {ro le clani nanmu su'epazemoi}? > >I assume you mean {mei} rather than {moi}, unless something has >changed from the refgram I have. {moi} is right: the 1st, 2nd, 3rd,... 17th. >You're right about the sloppy >quantification, but even doing it right I think it is clearer to >have it be a 17-some of {traji} rather than repeating {nanmu} twice: >{ro le xadni clarai be fo nanmu be'o pazemei...} But only one of them is traji. The other 16 are not traji. Only one is 1st, but all of them are "(up to 17)-th". mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp