Message-Id: <199512081144.NAA06560@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Fri, 8 Dec 1995 06:41:43 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: TECH: situation types
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1008
Lines: 20

One brief note.

> Duration
>(achiev v. the rest) is not that important.

I don't see duration as being that much a focus of achievements/point events.
It is rather more aspectual - how you look at the event.  If you think of it as
a "point" between a before and after thant are non-points, then it is a
point event.  In many theories, the K/T boundary wherein the dinosaurs
died out had a duratiion of at least many human lifetimes, but it is still
seen as a point event because we don't concern ourselves with ANY substructure.
As an event, we don't think of it beginning and ending - it just "happens".
That same K/T "achievement" though may come to be looked at under some
theories as having a substructure - say a meteor strike, followed by a
"nuclear winter" phenomena, in which the event is looked at more as a "process".
It is this ability to look at the same event in more than one way that >I<
came to see as being its most valuable feature to the language.  (In spite of
the tomato joke).

lojbab