>It's the term agreed on by both American and Czech institutions (perhaps in
I don't think it's as common in Britain. What do others think?
>In fact, I find the word "monument" perhaps the only thing flexible
enough, with only a little streaching, to cover most all the various tems of
historical, architectural, or cultural heritage dealt with by
preservationists: <snip>, village greens...
Only a little stretching? No matter *how* much I stretch my mind, I can't
get it to think of a village green as a monument! To describe
ancient/impressive buildings as monuments isn't such a leap, and natural
features of a landscape that are in some way "monumental" (e.g. Monument
Valley) I can also cope with (just). But a village green? I'd go with
Melvyn's "national heritage site" for that one. Perhaps this is partly a
cultural difference between Britain and the US: what do you think? (But
anyway, is a village green not an exclusively British phenomenon?)
>pr'irodni pamatka - nature monument (don't like this "monument" word at all
but you do see it a lot at tourist spots here)
I really don't like it in this context either, and I'm reluctant to go with
it even if it is becoming established in tourist spots. But I can't think
of a good term for a natural feature worthy of note - except "natural
feature", which perhaps doesn't say enough. (?)
But I like the rest of Melvyn's suggestions. One more suggestion might be
the British "area of outstanding natural beauty" for a larger area - or is
that too British?
> Nothing against them, but do not forget about other possible expressions:
for an example:
(but rather for historical places, not natural)
It's a good alternative for many things I'd describe as monuments (eg
Edinburgh has the Scott Monument, which is also a memorial [to Walter
Scott], and London has the Albert Memorial, which is also a monument). But
surely memorial has to be restricted to man-made structures "in memory" of
Hope you all had fun at Cornucopia!