spheniscine wrote:
> I think it's meant to work something like:
>
> li re manjetu lo ka raltca lo mergu'e kei la .paris. la .uacintyn. la
> .cikagos. la .sanfranSISkos.
>
> x_1 points to the number of the "correct answer" sumti among the sumti
> after x_2. i.e. x_x_1+2 ckaji x_2


So the definition is:
"the x₁st (li; natural number) option among those that follow is the
option that correctly satisfies x₂ (abstraction), where the
aforementioned options are: x₃, x₄, ..., x_n"?

In that case, I think that x₂ needs ce'u or something so that x_(x1
+2) fills the correct/intended terbri within the abstraction's bridi.

Also, there cannot be an infinite number of terbri. That is mathematically
bad (this word can support an arbitrary number of terbri, not an infinite
number), but it is also linguistically bad. Every unspecified terbri will
get implicitly filled with zo'e; if there are an infinite number of
terbri and if these ellipticals have mutually independent semantic/referent
sets, then things start to get wack. For example, everything (which can be
counted) in the world can become and eventually option for the answer (or
at least all cities). If x₂ has a nonunique answer, then even if only
one correct answer is explicitly given, the later ellipticals can start
referencing it or other options (possibly repeatedly), which can be
problematic for answering some questions. Thus, one could get tons of
extraneous, bad, or redundant options; a question could always be answered
in an entirely unhelpful way. Moreover, a party can utter "le se xi
x_(n+m) manjetu" (for n specified and m being a natural number), which
can be trippy. I may not have convinced you, but it seems like unintended
consequences can arise.
I would propose that the word supports an arbitrary natural number of
terbri (at least two) and that, in context, it has n+3 terbri (except in
one case, which I will state momentarily), where n is the number of
explicitly stated options; in this case, after the last explicitly stated
option (which fills the (n+2)nd terbri of this word), there is always an
implicit option that is constituted of the response "none of the
aforementioned explicit options is correct"; zo'e may fill any of the
terbri of this word after the second, except this implicit last one (the
"no good options" one), but must do so explicitly. The one exception is the
case where zi'o fills the third terbri of this word and no other option
is explicitly stated after it; then this word has just the first two
terbri.