From pycyn@aol.com Fri May 12 12:47:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32435 invoked from network); 12 May 2000 19:46:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 12 May 2000 19:46:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo19.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.9) by mta1 with SMTP; 12 May 2000 19:46:38 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id a.2f.52ccbfd (3855) for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 15:46:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <2f.52ccbfd.264db99c@aol.com> Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 15:46:36 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] "which" word To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 33 From: pycyn@aol.com In a message dated 5/12/00 10:35:23 AM CST, graywyvern@hotmail.com writes: << stidi zo xomoi .i mu'a cusku lu le xomoi to beti toi cu broda li'u (Maybe: "Which-th" as in "Which-th (of these), is (something)?") >> Remind me what is wrong with {mo} here, except it forces left grouping when you might want something rightward. {xomoi} assumes (in words. if not in fact) that every concept has a place in a well-ordering so that we can call it up by number. While the assumption is trivially true in most set theories, it is practically false for any language, so this is a rather misleading suggestion.