Message-Id: <199602140952.LAA05380@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Wed, 14 Feb 1996 04:50:05 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: sera'aku GEN: almost-PROPOSAL: intervals
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 970
Lines: 21

>Are you aware that just that little difference made you throw away all

of course

>of the nifty imaginary journeys devices (not counting the aspectuals
>(?))? Why bother with PU at all, if you can do it with
>purci/balvi/cabna? Why bother with ZEhA, if you can do it with NAhE
>clani temci? Why have mo'i FAhA? There is always muvdu be lo
>bersa/trixe...

In general, as in tense structures in the natlangs, the little tense
particles in teh language are quite vague (fuzzy?), and you need to
go to some kind of phrase in order to get specific.  All those nifty
devices were intended to correspond to the particles, often embedded in
morphology within words (declensions/conjugations) or prepositions
of natlangs.  Unlike natlangs, we have fi'o to add an indefinite number
of new "prepositions" intot he language, and we have a recursive language
which alllows both garbage and convenient if conventional expansions of
things that in natlangs are very sparse.

lojbab