Re: "which?" (was: RE: [lojban] centripetality: subset vs component

[John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>]

And Rosta wrote:

> > "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?

Well, if you wanted to be comic about it you could reply "nu'a le xekri"
(the-number the black-one), where "nu'a" converts an arbitrary sumti
into a number.

> 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 identity,

But on the Lockean principle of the identity of indiscernibles, if you know
the ordinal position of something (given that the sequence to which it
belongs is uniquely determined by context), then you know its identity
as well.

> 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.

It was noticed: indeed Loglan has a word for "which" as does -gua!spi.
The problem was a lack of theory, not a lack of opportunity.

> 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.

That certainly works, provided your interlocutor is properly Gricean
and doesn't just echo back the original description!

-- 

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)