temci1 is ambiguous. An interval in time is [a, b] (or something like it; produced by GAhO). The elapsed time associated therewith is the (Lebesgue) measure of that interval. "Period" can refer to either - it is inherently ambiguous; this is similar to how "radius" is ambiguous (is it the line segment or the length of the line segment?). The options for interpretation are mutually exclusive if we are to avoid ambiguity.
This issue should be resolved. I propose that the interval interpretation be accepted as the proper one. It is beneficial to be able to discuss the time (interval) separating two events. That is how we can check the order of events, learn what events occurred during the intervening time, etc. The elapsed time interpretation is given by words such as "snidu", which inherently must measure a time interval. Retaining the elapsed time interpretation would lose functionality (see before; interval interpretation) and would provide only redundant features (those of "snidu"). Moreover, snidu1 accepts only an interval as its argument, so we need to be able to express that somehow. All measurements of elapsed time are inherently dimensionful, so there should never be a case of needing a word which measures the elapse between two events but does so without units - "snidu" or something like it would always be needed. So, not only does that mean that we do not need a word which measures elapse without units, but the "elapse" definition of "temci" is never sufficient or sustainable on its own - it will always need "snidu" or something like it in temci1. We might as well cut the fat and eliminate the extra layer - make "temci" mean only the interval. (Notice, btw, that snidu1 must take an interval, such as lo temci; in that case, the "elapse" interpretation leads to a circular bridi structure; the fact that "lo temci be by bei cy cu snidu" has multiple layers is reflective of the fundamental nature of the relationship/meaning of "snidu").
If, for some reason, we do want a generic (dimensionless) measure function for a temci interval, then we can easily introduce a new word for that. It would just be a generic Lebesgue measure bridi. But I fear that it would be poorly or improperly designed or applied for temci intervals, the measures of which necessarily and inherently have units.
|