Message-Id: <199602131435.QAA03193@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 13 Feb 1996 14:10:38 +0100
Reply-To: Goran Topic <topic@STUDENT.MATH.HR>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Goran Topic <topic@STUDENT.MATH.HR>
Subject:      Re: GEN: almost-PROPOSAL: intervals
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1073
Lines: 22

> >I believe that the omission of this feature from the current
> >language is just an oversight; I think it would be in there if whoever
> >made the system had remembered they were needed.
>
> Whoever made the system did remember they were needed, because
> zi/za/zu are precisely there to mark the interval size between the event
> and the reference point. There was no omission or oversight. The problem
> comes when they are forced to mark the reference point, which is
> already the function of the PUs. It makes little sense to have
> them duplicating that function.
>
> I oppose any new cmavo for this simply because I'm perfectly happy
> with what the current grammar provides. (The same applies to the
> lambda variable, btw.) My usage may be slightly at odds with a small
> part of the tense paper, but I'll just have to live with that. In any
> case, it is perfectly grammatical.

.i ja'ago'i .iku'i lego'i cu frica le cnano noi ca'a puze'a pilno no'i
ri'a lenu loi vajni cu jdice ledu'u tu'a zo va co'a cnano keikei mi
gleki pilno zo va zu'i

co'o mi'e. goran.