Message-Id: <199602130704.CAA13213@mail1.access.digex.net>
Date:         Tue, 13 Feb 1996 04:06:27 -0300
Reply-To: "Jorge J. Llambias" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "Jorge J. Llambias" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject:      Re: GEN: almost-PROPOSAL: intervals
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Status: OR
Content-Length: 1333

And:
>> 2. xe'i (with asperations of te'i-hood)
>I prefer this, because (1) has the further disadvantage of the
>redundancy of calling an interval/distance small or large and then
>saying exactly how big it is.

There is no problem with that: use za, or va, when you don't want
to say that it is a small or large distance.

If having to choose between zi/za/zu is a big problem, then we will
have to add more cmavo for the exactly analogous ze'i/ze'a/ze'u series.

>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.

Jorge