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 XAA28119;  for <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET> ; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 23:55:14 -0500
Message-Id: <199602130455.XAA28119@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 1D6F2160 ; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 23:52:06 -0500
Date:         Mon, 12 Feb 1996 18:21:28 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: GEN: almost-PROPOSAL: intervals
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 841
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Feb 12 23:55:23 1996
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU

Goran:
> 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.

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.

coo, mie and