From - Tue Feb 20 14:54:33 1996
Received: from wnt.dc.lsoft.com (wnt.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.7]) by mail1.access.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA18392;  for <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET> ; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 09:36:06 -0500
Message-Id: <199602131436.JAA18392@mail1.access.digex.net>
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by wnt.dc.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.0a) with SMTP id 3110B700 ; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 9:32:28 -0500
Date:         Tue, 13 Feb 1996 14:10:50 +0100
Reply-To: Goran Topic <topic@STUDENT.MATH.HR>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Goran Topic <topic@STUDENT.MATH.HR>
Subject:      Re: sera'aku GEN: almost-PROPOSAL: intervals
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length:  729


> > >mi klama la glazgov. puza lo nanca belipimu
>
> I agree with this usage.  It also allows things like:
>
>     mi klama la glazgov. zalo nanca belipimu pulenu xabju la belfast.
>     I went to Glasgow six months before I lived in Belfast.

Analogously for

.i mi klama la glazgov. pulenu xabju la belfast. ku xe'ilo nanca belipimu
.i mi klama la glazgov. pulenu xabju la belfast. ku zanoi nanca belipimu

All three proposals *allow* us to say it. I am asking you, which one has
the best ratio of pro/con arguments.

> The one problem I foresee is what does zi/za/zu mean in this context?

Just as they would normally - a subjective estimate of the length of the
interval/distance.

co'o mi'e. goran.