From - Wed Feb 14 12:50:15 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 CAA02471 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 02:37:35 -0500 Message-Id: <199602130737.CAA02471@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 2F892B40 ; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 2:01:27 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 04:06:27 -0300 Reply-To: "Jorge J. Llambias" Sender: Lojban list From: "Jorge J. Llambias" Subject: Re: GEN: almost-PROPOSAL: intervals X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1367 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