> arj wrote:
> > totus wrote:
> > > arj wrote:
> > > > totus wrote:
> > > > > For that and other more general cases, I suggest we
> > > > > change the NORALUJV jecpau to 'p1 is a second-level
> > > > > division of polity p2=j1. I will do it, unless you do first.
> > > >
> > > > We can't just change a Noralujv entry just because we need a word
> > a
> > > > new meaning.
> > >
> > > The NORALUJV entry doesn't mean anything in English anyway. No
> > > what, it needs to be changed. I'm suggesting it is changed (or more
> > > precisley 'clarified') to communicate what probably it was meant to
> > in
> > > the first place. What would you change it to?
> > Probably something very close to gugypau. See the keyword, and
> > usage.
> Right! And isn't 'p1 is a second-level administrative
> > > > division of polity p2=j1' very close to the definition of gugypau?
> The only difference is that instead of 'country' we have 'polity', so
> we can say 'la LIVinston. jecpau la misuris.'
I look forward to your response to my latest comment (above) on jejcpau.
But in the meantime, I see we have a more serious problem. I'm afraid I
was a little hasty in saying that your changes to gugypau looked OK.
Here are the problems:
1) I don't know how we missed this but our levels are mixed up.
'Second-level administrative division' should be 'First-level
administrative division'. Likewise for gugypausle, 'Third-level
administrative division' should be 'Second-level administrative division'.
2) Gloss for 'Province' should be qualified by 'First-level administrative
division'. Why? Because provinces can also be second-level as in Italy
and Chile. So for these two countries, and possibly others gugupaysle
would be the one to use.
3) Gloss for 'State'. As above. Even a sixth-level village is a 'part'
of a country.
4) Add third gloss word 'Region; First-level administrative division'.
Without that, we have nothing for Italy, Belgium, Chile and many others.
5) In gugypaysle we have the same issues with the use of 'part' in the