Subject: Re: [lojban] le ze romoi selsku be la Yecus

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 15:19:13 EST

In a message dated 3/25/2002 1:57:05 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> {ma'uda'aze} is not "(more than all) but seven", it is
> "more than (all but seven)", i.e. all but six, all but five,
> all but four, all but three, all but two, all but one, or
> all (but none).
> 

Talking to cross purposes. My point was meant to be that {ma'u} doesn't mean 
"more than" at all, but rather "positive number". ({seme'i}? {semau}? OH!)

<Subj: Re: [lojban] le ze romoi selsku be la Yecus 
Date: 3/25/2002 1:57:05 PM Central Standard Time 
From: <A HREF="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> 
To: <A HREF="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> 
Sent from the Internet (Details) 

la pycyn cusku di'e

> > {le ma'uda'azemoi selsku be la iecus}
>
>I don't see what {ma'u} does here unless we could have all but
>more than there are, which I suppose is blocked by overriding
>presuppositions.

{ma'uda'aze} is not "(more than all) but seven", it is
"more than (all but seven)", i.e. all but six, all but five,
all but four, all but three, all but two, all but one, or
all (but none).

<>How about {da'asu'ezemoi}?

Well, that one allows "all but seven" too, which should be
excluded, but {da'asu'examoi} or {da'ame'izemoi} should work
just as well.>

Oh yeah, the 0th case is a case.