[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John:
> And Rosta scripsit:
>
> > I remember xorxes discovering this weird locution. As you say,
> > the basic idea of "X's Y" being done as "the Xth Y" is an attractive
> > one, but I can't work out how {me ko'a moi} gets us to that meaning.
> > I'd have guessed it was {mo'e ko'a moi}. What's wrong with {mo'e
> > ko'a moi}? And how can {me ko'a moi} parse, given that {me ko'a}
> > is a selbri and {moi} requires somesort of MEX argument? (I know
> > this was explained first time round, but I can neither remember
> > nor guess what the explanation was.)
>
> It's a hack, that's all. ME+sumti+MOI really has little or nothing
> to do with ME; I just needed something without introducing a new cmavo,
> and that parsed.
>
> The intention is that the sumti should have a numerical value, in
> Lojban's extended sense of "numerical". E.g. me li re su'i ny. boi moi
> means "n+2th". Ordinary MOI without ME can only use a number or letteral
> string, not an arbitrary MEX, still less a non-MEX representation of
> a numerical value.
Does {mo'e ko'a moi} work?
There's a potential ambiguity, I think, between "100th" and
"uniquely pertaining to 100". For example, if we are orded
by our ages, then I am pe li 35, but I am not 35th. So
{me li ci mu me'u moi} is potentially ambiguous.
--And.