Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qqPR8-00005XC; Thu, 29 Sep 94 19:38 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5634; Thu, 29 Sep 94 19:38:42 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 5631; Thu, 29 Sep 1994 19:38:41 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0633; Thu, 29 Sep 1994 18:35:49 +0100 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 1994 13:25:06 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: doi xorxes. do ponse xo tanxe X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 985 Lines: 31 la veion cusku di'e > xy. zo'u la xorxes. ponse vei xy tanxe .i li xy. du li xo > E(x) : Jorge has x boxes. x = ? mi ponse so'i tanxe > BTW. is it possible to say just {do nitcu xo tanxe}? I think it is. But I don't think it means the same as what the English question "How many boxes do you need?" usually means. > I find something like {do nitcu le nu do ponse xo tanxe} > somewhat odd. That's exactly why I want {xe'e}, to avoid having to use the cumbersome expression in the opaque case. > And, if {do nitcu xo tanxe} is OK, > then why not {mi nitcu re tanxe}? It is OK. It just doesn't mean "I need (any) two boxes". (All this is assuming that nitcu accepts an object. If it only accepts abstractions, then there's no way around it other than {mi nitcu tu'a re tanxe}, {do nitcu tu'a xo tanxe}, etc.) Jorge PS: Did my post with the Zipf anecdote get through? I didn't get my copy, so maybe I should write it again.