From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sat Jul 08 20:43:12 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19942 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2000 03:43:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Jul 2000 03:43:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 Jul 2000 03:43:12 -0000 Received: from m8-mp1-cvx1c.gui.ntl.com ([62.252.12.8] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 13B7qk-0000ig-00 for lojban@egroups.com; Sun, 09 Jul 2000 04:33:47 +0100 To: Subject: RE: "which?" (was: RE: [lojban] centripetality: subset vs component Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 04:43:01 +0100 Message-ID: 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: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 3506 John: > On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, And Rosta wrote: > > > BTW, does nonveridicality extend to the end of the sumti? That is, > > in "le broda poi brode", is "brode" nonveridical? I was assuming, > > perhaps incorrectly, that "le mo broda" is approximately equivalent > > to "le broda poi mo", but if it is in fact instead approximately > > equivalent to "le broda voi mo", then of course my suggestion is > > useless. > > This distinction is made by having two attachment points for relative > clauses: inside the descriptor (lo broda poi brode ku) and outside > (lo broda ku poi brode). The former is the default, since elidable > terminators are inserted only when they absolutely must be, i.e. > as late as possible. Of course, this is a distinction without a difference > unless the description and the relative clause introducers disagree > in veridicality or some other such property. Ah; I remember now. It was Colin who discovered there to be a difference, as I recall. > > As for "xomoi", which I see in a different thread, I don't understand > > it and have not come across a decent explanation of it. But it sounds > > promising. > > "You see here door number one, door number two, and door number three. > Which [xomoi] door do you choose?" In any choice situation in which the > choices are or plausibly could be numbered, "xomoi" is reasonable > for "which?". But the answer would not normally be a number, right? Anyway, it might be reasonable for "which?", but does not seem wholly satisfactory, since {xomoi} might equally be an enquiry about the ordinal position of the referent rather than its identiy, and even if it has a unique ordinal position, this information is not necessarily going to be sufficient for the rogator to identify the referent. I rather feel that a Q-word in LE and/or KOhA would have been added if this problem had been noticed prior to the baseline. As things stand, {ma du} strikes me as the best way to say it, on the grounds that I can think of no potentially relevant answer but one that specifies which. --And.