Message-Id: <199602140737.CAA06143@locke.ccil.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 07:59:19 +0100
From: Goran Topic <topic@student.math.hr>
To: cowan@ccil.org, lojbab@access.digex.net
Subject: Re: GEN: *please* read: PROPOSAL: intervals
Status: O
Content-Length: 1420

 
> Private to you, with copy to Cowan.
>
> Cowan is seriously consoidering your proposal, by virtue of your strong
> advocacy when you have made no demands on us, and have been such a strong
> leader in the use of the language.
 
Thank you.
 
> If you feel that my off-the-cuff phrasal solution posted yesterday in response
> to you is not sufficient, I am inclined to support some change.  I have an
> aversion to loading up existing grammar features any more, so I would favor
> new grammar over NOI, unless there was real feeling that the existing
> gramar is EXACTLY right for the situation.
 
Jorge's method would be very good, having a grammar that is exactly
right for the situation, except for the fact that it is a change, thus
invalidating the existing text. xe'i/te'i has the drawback of not really
fitting into any selma'o, I think, and I am afraid I cannot help with
that. Relative clause does not look like a part of imaginary journeys,
and "overloads" NOI and GOI. Every route has its drawback. But I
strongly feel that some mechanism is neccessary. I am sorry I repeat
myself, but this is something I would like very much to enter the
baseline. We don't often express tense in lojban; but when we do precise
distances can be as important as specification of a point in space-time,
which is very well implemented.
 
> But we ARE considering some addition in respose to you.
 
ki'e ke'u co'o mi'e. goran.