Message-Id: <199602131435.QAA03185@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 13 Feb 1996 14:10:24 +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: 1263
Lines: 27

> > 2. xe'i (with asperations of te'i-hood)
> >   New cmavo; I do not know which selma'o, but it needs to combine
> >   freely with tenses. Meaning of {xe'i <sumti>} should be "<sumti>
> >   distance/interval". xe'i could be taken to signify only temporal
> >   distance, and let fe'exe'i take care of the spatial ones, or
> >   could signify distance in space-time (type of sumti decides which
> >   it is, like xe'i lo mitre is clearly spatial, and xe'i lo nanca
> >   is clearly temporal).
>
> 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.

That's one of the least of my arguments. I don't care which one you guys
choose, I just want to make one official, so I don't have to type slang.

> 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.

That's exactly what I'm saying. It really ought to be there already. It is
a gap, an oversight, and people kept glancing over it. It *should* be put
into imaginary journeys.

I'll just shut up for now about that. I hope I have made my case clear.

co'o mi'e. goran.