Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id BAA29868 for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Mon, 26 Feb 1996 01:06:28 -0500
Message-Id: <199602260606.BAA29868@locke.ccil.org>
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 8C3DD732 ; Mon, 26 Feb 1996 0:19:25 -0500
Date:         Sun, 25 Feb 1996 17:45:18 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      short intemperate response to Lojbab on aspectuals' syntax
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length: 681
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Feb 26 10:39:42 1996
X-From-Space-Address: -

> >It is pretty clear that this change will not come about officially.  As
> >far as I'm concerned, Xorxe & I were just pointing out that aspectuals
> >*should* have NAhEish grammar.
> Use a tanru (or a compound/multiple bridi if tanru are too ambiguous for
> you).  All tense/aspectual modifiers are metalinguistic abbreviations
> for another bridi, so if your claim is correct, you should always be
> able to phrase it some other way.

To repeat, X & I were pointing out that the syntax of aspectuals is
suboptimal & could be improved in the way we specified. If you can
discern in your reply anything that is relevant to what I said, please
signal it more clearly.
coo; mie and