From lojbab@lojban.org Fri May 12 13:13:14 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7347 invoked from network); 12 May 2000 20:12:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 12 May 2000 20:12:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy.cais.net) (205.252.14.63) by mta3 with SMTP; 12 May 2000 20:12:45 -0000 Received: from bob (121.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.121]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA04651 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 16:11:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000512161143.00a6ef00@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 16:14:55 -0400 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] "which" word In-Reply-To: <2f.52ccbfd.264db99c@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 03:46 PM 05/12/2000 -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: >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. The classic argument against "mo" has been that it is too vague and practically invites irrelevancy. It is saying "supply me a selbri here", which in the case of "le mo broda" is asking only for a modifier - it is not necessarily asking for a clarifier. lojbab ---- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org