Rejistanian would use: 

Il'ma 'vetix "X" rejistaniha sunreja?

2S-be_able (INF)express "X" rejistanian how?

How do you express X in a rejistanian manner?

Neoquux has more serious issue with this. I will avoid the issue of using the name "English", but even the X already is an issue.

Txy qusatithz44 m44thza. Txy jeeXli pvvntathzii. 'vvqhv quXza pvvntaa'44. Caarhe'a'achy laa. 'vvqhv quucaaxa'a je.
It is my wish for the future that quuxa and humans to communicate. It is my wish for the future that humans talk about X. It is my suggestion that a quuxa explains X. There is a relation between planet and language. It is my suggestion that a quuxa uses language.

Why? Mostly because Neoquux has no deixis or just about anything else which males a language tick and these things have to be provided by pragmatics. The distilled meaning, with all intended deixis resolved is this: It is my wish that I can talk to you about X. Can you explain X to me and can you use the language of this planet?

Am 30.05.2013 um 16:20 schrieb Zach Wellstood <[log in to unmask]>:

> łaá siri is probably not too different in its actual structure, maybe it is
> in how the sentence is translated though.
> "How do you say 'word' in łaá siri?"
> ri                 łaá siri tłar          la'            «word»
> laa'ara'ilu?
> INTERR   ł.s.          INSTR    ABSTR    word
> ABSTR-ABSTR-APPLIC-by.what.means-comprehend
> Using łaá siri, how can one comprehend/understand «word»?
> INTERR - interrogative
> INSTR - instrumental postposition
> ABSTR - abstract demonstrative / abstract deictic conjugation
> APPLIC - applicative (used almost solely for instrumental constructions)
> All of English's traditional question words (what, who, how) are actually
> modified evidentials which appear where normal evidentials in łaá siri's
> verbs would. So -ra'i- can be translated as "by what means" or "how."
> Zach
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On 30 May 2013 14:24, George Corley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Hey, people.  I'm working on a series of shorts for Conlangery on some
>>> simple phrasebook-style phrases, one of which will be asking for the
>>> definition or translation of a word.  I've thought of a couple somewhat
>>> interesting examples from languages I know:
>>> Spanish: "Que quiere decir (X)?" lit. "What does X want to say?" (with
>> some
>>> word order fun)
>>> Mandarin: X有什么意思? "What meaning does X have."
>>> And of course the more mundane examples that literally translate as "What
>>> does X mean?" or "How do you say X?" or "What is X?"
>> French does it much like Spanish does: "Qu'est-ce que X veut dire ?". But
>> interestingly enough, despite being an isolate Basque does exactly the
>> same: "Zer esan nahi du X-ak?" . "Esan" means "to say" and "nahi du" is an
>> expression that is equivalent to "to want" ("nahi" is a noun meaning "will,
>> desire"). And X takes the ergative case (if it can take case at all),
>> To keep with its Basque influence, Moten does it much the same way: _X
>> mudutun zvezi ige?_ (_mudutun_ is _mut_: "what" in the accusative case,
>> while _zvezi ige_ is the desiderative mood of _isej_: "to say, to tell").
>> In this sentence, X is the subject of a verb in the desiderative mood, so
>> it will be in the nominative case.
>>> So, basically, I'm asking about interesting ways that natlangs or
>> conlangs
>>> express this idiomatically, as a way to provoke some creative thinking.
>>> I'm also interested in how to express the "... in LANGUAGE" bit, as in,
>>> "How do you say simpático in English?" In the past, I have tended to use
>> an
>>> instrumental for this meaning, but I'm not sure if this occurs in natural
>>> languages -- Mandarin might be close, as I believe you can say something
>>> like 用中文说, "use Chinese to say", but that may be in contexts more related
>>> to what language a message is conveyed in, and not more generally.
>> Using an instrumental to mean "in LANGUAGE" does occur in natlangs, don't
>> worry about it :) . In fact, my impression is that it's relatively common
>> as soon as a language has a specific instrumental case or construction. In
>> particular, it's the normal way to do it in Basque. In the sentence "Nola
>> esaten da euskaraz "house"?": "How do you say "house" in Basque?",
>> "euskaraz" is the instrumental case of "euskara": "the Basque language". In
>> the same way, you have "ingelesez": "in English" and "frantsesez": "in
>> French". And Basque being what it is, those phrases see a lot more use than
>> that :) . For example, you can over-inflect them to use them as noun
>> complements, as in "euskarazko eleberri": "Basque-language novel".
>> Japanese is similar, using the instrumental (among other meanings) で (de)
>> particle to mean "in LANGUAGE". For instance: 日本語で手紙を書いた (nihongo de tegami
>> o kaita): "I wrote the letter in Japanese".
>> Here again, Moten simply copies what Basque already does: from
>> _motenku|leju_: "the Moten language", one gets _komotenku|leju_: "in Moten"
>> (_ko-_ being a prefix marking the instrumental), which can be overinflected
>> to form _komotenku|lejvuj nanaguz_: "Moten-language book".
>> --
>> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
> -- 
> raa'lalí 'aa! - [sirisaá! <>]