From - Wed Feb 14 12:51:29 1996 Received: from wnt.dc.lsoft.com (wnt.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.7]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id KAA17886 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 10:08:41 -0500 Message-Id: <199602131508.KAA17886@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by wnt.dc.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.0a) with SMTP id 2F9CB4A0 ; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 9:32:26 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 14:10:24 +0100 Reply-To: Goran Topic Sender: Lojban list From: Goran Topic Subject: Re: GEN: almost-PROPOSAL: intervals X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1294 > > 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 } should be " > > 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.