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

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

mi'e .djan. kau,n.
.i la nitcion. cusku di'e

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

I think that an "era" which is specified by an interval is not a {cedra} at
all, but a {temci}; the whole purpose of {cedra} is to specify stretches of
time that are defined only vaguely.  Nevertheless, a {se cedra} could be
a {temci}, when we extend the significance of a time-period beyond its
strict limits.

--
John Cowan              sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now