From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:46:30 2010 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list Date: Fri Dec 8 06:56:10 1995 From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: TECH: situation types X-To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Fri Dec 8 06:56:10 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Message-ID: <3wasGQbiZhK.A.CPG.Gv0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org> 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