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

[Nick Nicholas <nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU>]

To Logical Language Group respond I thus:

#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)

I doin't see why x1 should be just a {du'u}; I also think your thinking
on the second order abstract is correct.

#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.

It doesn't seem to me to be thinker-independent here, so much as generalised
or abstracted from a lot of individuals. A Pakistani concept of beauty can
still be distinct from an Albanian concept; a human concept of beauty,
different from a canine one. This is fast encroaching on a philosophical
debate, of course, but I think it unnecessary and over-drastic to eliminate
the thinker-place, especially when thoughts and ideas don't have much of
an existence unless thought, whether by individuals, or masses.

#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?

It is not *necessarily* a sumti-raising to use an interval. The era 1900-1905
has no abstraction to it: it's just 1900-1905, not plus or minus a couple
of extra years. I don't think the Revolutionary War is even an interval,
but an event, with sumti-raising. Our problem is there are two definitions
competing here: "characterised by" strongly implies raising, and that
the era is not limited to the duration of x2, but merely characterised by
it. But saying 1900-1905 isn't characterising the ear, but delimiting it.
So you may want to tighten the wording, or at least make the alternatives
explicit.

##############################################################################
# Der Mensch liegt in groesster Noth,      You are reading another .sig from
# Der Mensch liegt in groesster Pein;     the NICK NICHOLAS .sig Factory. Mail
# Je lieber moecht ich im Himmel sein.     [nsn@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au] for your
#    -- Des Knaben Wunderhorn, _Urlicht_   .sig suggestions. [Padding Space]