Re: GEN: almost-PROPOSAL: intervals

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

Jorge:
> >> 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.

What if I don't want to say it's a medium distance, either? What if
I just want to say what the distance is, without making a judgement
of its magnitude relative to other distances?

> >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.

Yes, but no way is provided for specifying the distance, except in this
relative way. I think it's an oversight because English does offer a
way, and it's used a lot, so I reckon that if the designers had noticed
that english does this then they would have copied it, that being a
common and sensible method in the design process.

I wonder how "four score and ten years ago" was done: Lojbab translated
it a few years back. [See? "a few years back". Ubiquitous.] Does
anyone have the gettysburg address translation?

coo, mie and