Re: Once again...

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

la kolin. cusku di'e

> > You missed the one that started it,
> >         mi su'ipaxei tcidu

la xorxes. cusku di'e

> I think you can't have VUhUs with ROI. {su'orexei} or {za'upaxei} should work,
> but I don't see any way to get the number "one more".

Jorge is right, we can't do MEX expressions inside tenses, because that would
make the preparser grammar too complicated (tenses are always compounded by
the preparser).

Furthemore, "su'ipa" doesn't mean what Colin seems to think: it's just the
forethought form (+ 1), i.e. 1.  To say "one more", we need something like
"pa su'i no'o", one plus the typical value in this context.

> Again, I believe MOIs don't do MEXs.

There is a kludge for this:  me li <MEX> [me'u] <MOI>:

	ti me li re su'i re boi [me'u] moi le'i ratcu
	That is the (2+2)th rat [of the set I have in mind].

Either the "boi" or the "me'u" can be elided, but not both, as the
consecutive appearance of "re" and "moi" fools the compounder into seeing
"li re su'i remoi" which doesn't parse.

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.