Return-Path: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@vms.dc.LSOFT.COM
Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id QAA03189 for <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 16:35:24 +0200
Message-Id: <199602131435.QAA03189@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 4183A509 ; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 15:34:41 +0100
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
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 703
Lines: 20

> > >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.