TECH: input on gismu place structures wanted - sumti raising?

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

3 new posers on the gismu place structures:

sarcu - JCB's 1975 equivalent appears to have a du'u (neither nu nor
object) defined for x1 (though he had no real way to express a du'u).
It appears in any case that x1 is a sumti raising, but should the type
of abstraction be limited to a du'u?  (I am coming to think of a du'u
abstract as a second order abstract:  ledu'u broda = lenu lenu broda cu
fatci - with the implication that any other abstract is a sumti raising
from a du'u place)

His wording: x1 is a factually necessary condition for event/process x2

Current Lojban:

sarcu sa'u necessary x1 is necessary/required for continuing
state/process x2 under conditions x3 (cf. cmavo list sau, nitcu)

===================
sidbo currently has an x3 "thinker"

sidbo sib si'o idea x1 (idea abstract) is an idea/concept/thought about
x2 (object/abstract) by thinker x3 (cf. ciksi, jijnu, mucti, jinvi,
nabmi, pensi)

Is a thinker necessary to an idea (and/or is this a philosophical, i.e.
world-view question that we want to avoid)?  It is likely that for
ideas, my concept of a broda (or a nu broda or a ka broda) will be
different from yours or anyone else's - hence the specifics/identity of
an idea in x1 of sidbo is indeed constrained by a speaker.  But we also
have a thinker-independent usage of "concept" (I think %^) in such a
sentence as "a concept of beauty is necessary for Civilization" (which
also is a good test sentence for sarcu, BTW - what is the du'u if it
must be a du'u in x1).  For this sentence, a concept of beauty that is
specific to a single thinker is clearly NOT what is necessary for
civilization, but rather some shared concept is what is implied - some
thinker-independent concept.

I don't think zi'o deletion is the answer to this, and we can add the
thinker in using pensi.  But something seems flawed about this argument
to both me and Nora - that there is indeed a necessary x3 thinker in
order to have a sidbo.  What do others think:  what is le sidbo be zo
sidbo bei do.

===========

cedra - This one may also be a sumti raising of a more obscure sort.

cedra era x1 is an era/epoch/age characterized by x2
(event/property/interval) (cf. ranji, temci, citsi)

Most often, we would want to put a thing or an event in x2, and the
thing would be a sumti-raising - it is that thing's existence, or
predominance, or popularity, that is the characteristic.  But an
interval is a non-abstract as well.  Is it a sumti-raising to express an
interval in x2?  Nora thinks not; I'm not sure.  If an interval were
ALWAYS the starting and ending points of the era, there would be
something at least abstraction independent about such an interval.  But
"the modern era" is generally characterized by containing some interval
within it, but is not limited to it.  The "Revolutionary Era" in the USA
is not limited to the exact years of the Revolutionary War, though the
latter is a plausible "interval" that one might put in x2, given the
wording.  Would merely a clarification of the wording (interval from
start to end) be sufficient?

have fun.

(Anyone wanna make some more eaton lujvo yet???)

lojbab