Re: doi xorxes. do ponse xo tanxe

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

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.