gusnikantu wrote:
> Wuzzy wrote:
> > > The meaning of ku'a is the same as kruca.
> > I can’t see how “ku'a” means the same (!) as “kruca”. I read
> > both definitions. Yes, they are kinda similar, but they are certainly
> not
> > the same.
> >
>
>
> See the definition of ku'a in Lojban:
> nalylogji jonma'o .i te jorne le li'erla'i le se li'erla'i ja'e lo
> terkruca
>
> This definition implies that ku'a has exactly the same meaning as
> kruca. The conjunction ku'a brings "lo terkruca".
>
>
> > > Moreover, the rafsi "kuz" of ku'a cannot be put at the end of lujvo.
> > Correct. But who says that “kuz” must be put at the end of the
> lujvo?
> >
> > > "-kruca" as rafsi at the end is therefore indispensable.
> > This does not follow.
> >
> > > The English words
> > > "cross/traverse" in the definition of kruca should mean a special
case
> > > of "intersect" that the sets are lines on a 2-dimensional surface.
> > This analogy is flawed. Come up with a better one.
> >
> > When two lines on a 2D surface intersect, they do so on a single
point.
> > Now if we view both lines as sets and the points of these lines as
> members
> > of the set, this would mean an “intersection of sets” can only
have
> > member at maximum: the point where both lines intersect. But this is
not
> > how the intersection of sets actually works!
> >
>
>
> The point where both lines intersect belongs to both lines. This point
is
> naturally a member of the intersection of two sets that are lines.
Plural
> number of points may be the intersection of two lines on 2D surface
> depending on the form of surface and lines.
>
>
> > Oh, and the x3 of “kruca” reads “at locus”. There is no such
> thing
> > as a “locus” in an intersection of sets.
>
>
> "lo te kruca" is simply the intersection itself (see again the
definition
> of ku'a in Lojban). In the special case that sets are lines on a 2D
> surface, the intersection is called "locus".


Indeed, I concur that ku'a is derived from kruca, and both mean an
intersection. Which is why I suggested a possible meaning of gugykruca
might be a territory owned by more than one country. But I guess the real
issue I have with this word is the English. I don't believe that
"international" means an "intersection of countries", but in fact, the
"UNION of countries" (jorne/jo'e/jo'u) or better, simply so'i gugde. The
Olympics is an international sporting events, it belongs to (well,
involves) many countries. It is "nu jmaji fi lo so'i gugde", or a
sorgu'e jmaji. That's why I think sorgu'e would be better for
international.

That being said, I can understand your POV, guskant.

Comment #9: Re: The derivation is very malglico

Wuzzy (Sun Nov 17 03:59:42 2013)

Well, I basicly just have to agree with the last post. I also accept now that “ku'a” and “kruca” are (more or less) interchangable. But now you have touched the real issue behind “gugykruca”. Yes, it’s true, “international” is not about two sets of countries which you intersect. Your suggestion now makes much more sense to me.

Comment #10: Re: The derivation is very malglico guskant (Fri Nov 29 06:56:34 2013) gejyspa wrote: > Indeed, I concur that ku'a is derived from kruca, and both mean an > intersection. Which is why I suggested a possible meaning of gugykruca > might be a territory owned by more than one country. But I guess the real > issue I have with this word is the English. I don't believe that > "international" means an "intersection of countries", but in fact, the > "UNION of countries" (jorne/jo'e/jo'u) or better, simply so'i gugde. The > Olympics is an international sporting events, it belongs to (well, > involves) many countries. It is "nu jmaji fi lo so'i gugde", or a > sorgu'e jmaji. That's why I think sorgu'e would be better for > international. > > That being said, I can understand your POV, guskant. Wuzzy wrote: > Well, I basicly just have to agree with the last post. > I also accept now that “ku'a” and “kruca” are (more or less) > interchangable. > > But now you have touched the real issue behind “gugykruca”. > Yes, it’s true, “international” is not about two sets > of countries which you intersect. > > Your suggestion now makes much more sense to me. We arrived at an agreement that the point is not on the lujvo but on the English word "international". Still I opine that the word "international" is not a "UNION of countries". The latter is rather associated with something like the United Nations to which each contry belongs. Something like the UN can be called "loi gugde" in Lojban. On the other hand, the participants of olympic games are only "so'o se gugde", not the whole gugde; the event of "olympic games" belongs to each contry, but not the whole contry concerns it; each contry does not belong to the olympic games. This proposition can be illustrated as an "intersection" that is "lo te kruca", not a "union". Consequently, "lo vi bajra cu gugykruca la'o gy Olympics gy" should be a valid text. If the English definition needs some modification, the foregoing difference between "union" and "intersection" should be mentioned. I suggest the following text for the English definition: x1=g2=k1 is international in aspect x2=k3; x2=k3 is an intersection of nations with participant x1=g2=k1. note: For union of nations, loi gugde. For cross-country, tumgre. Example: lo vi bajra cu gugykruca la'o gy Olympics gy Comment #11: Perhaps let’s just start all over. xD Wuzzy (Sun Dec 1 00:43:23 2013) Oh boy, now things are becoming complicated. I find the following defininition very confusing: “x1=g2=k1 is international in aspect x2=k3; x2=k3 is an intersection of nations with participant x1=g2=k1.” First of all: Why are there two alternations? Those two sentences seem to be a bit far from each other. The x2 could be an aspect or an intersection. “intersection” is a no-brainer but why “aspect”? kruca does not say anything about aspects. x1 could be <whatever?> or a participant. That’s already confusing to me. I am not happy with this. If I understood set theory correctly, “intersection” is only possible between two sets. What the heck does an intersection between two /countries/ even _mean_? Unless you meant two _sets of countries_ which you want to want to intersect, the idea of “intersection of countries” is not meaningful to me. Perhaps we should really work out what we /actually/ want to say when we say the Lojban word for “international”. It does not make much sense to me to first discuss the details if nobody knows what we’re actually talking about. ;-) The first step would obviously to obtain the possible meanings of the word “international”. In English, the word “international” can mean many things: 1) First, it can actually mean something which directly involves some nations. Like “international affairs”, “international law”, “international treaty” etc. 2) Then there is a more vague interpretation where the word just describes something which has /something/ do with multiple nations, but does not involve any nation directly. Like in “international berbeque”. The connections to nations is very vague, it just means there a visitors FROM multiple nations. 3) Then there is the horribly derived word “internationalization”, shortened to “I18N”, from software development. It actually means that a certain software is made translatable for different _languages_. This doesn’t have anything to do with nations. 4) There may be other meanings as well in the wild. Annoyingly, the word “international” is often used interchangibly for nations (natmi) AND countries (gugde) alike. Yet there’s no word like “intercountrial”. ;-) (Or is there? Whatever …) We should be careful to not fall into the same trap. Anyways, none of 1) to 3) does involve some sort of intersection IMO. But also no real union (as in set theory). Unless you can present me ANY interpretation now which involves intersections and countries SOMEHOW, the word “gugykruca” stays just meaningless to me. We should of course NOT try to shoehorn meanings 1-3 and possibly even more into one lujvo. In the current definition, well, it just seems like that already happened. Instead, we should look at concepts 1 to 3 and possibly others, look which of them are actually meaningful and well-understood (and not some wish-washy bullshit). 1) Okay, I have no problem with that one. 2) I am not sure wheather we should include that interpretation into Lojban. It is still to vague to me. 3) Although the word is awful, the concept behind is clearly defined and clearly deserves a Lojban word. Your own comments are welcome. Based on the three concepts, I try to make new definitions: 1) - gugysi'u: “s1 (set of countries) do mutually s2.” - natsi'u: “n1 (set of nations) do mutually s2.” (… perhaps be part of an international treaty, etc.; very general concept) - gugycu'u: “c1 is an organized activity involving countries n1 (ind./mass).” - natcu'u: “c1 is an organized activity involving nations n1 (ind./mass).” (One could call this an “international affair” but I’d be careful.) 2) Don’t know for sure, but it clearly should involve ckaji. 3) Since this concept does not involve nations, it is quite out of scope here. This still doesn’t catch _all_ meaning of “international” but it’s a start. On the other hand, as I said it may by foolish to try to catch all meaning of “international” at once. Comment #12: Re: Perhaps let’s just start all over. xD guskant (Sun Dec 1 19:19:38 2013) Wuzzy wrote: > Oh boy, now things are becoming complicated. > > I find the following defininition very confusing: > “x1=g2=k1 is international in aspect x2=k3; x2=k3 is an intersection of > nations with participant x1=g2=k1.” > First of all: Why are there two alternations? Those two sentences seem to > be a bit far from each other. > The x2 could be an aspect or an intersection. “intersection” is a > no-brainer but why “aspect”? kruca does not say anything about > aspects. x1 could be <whatever?> or a participant. That’s already > confusing to me. > An intersection of a plural number of sets can be regarded as an aspect. In the case of Olympics, some of "lo se gugde" belong to a set of participants of Olympics organized by a plural number of "lo gugde". Then, a participant of Olympics belongs to "lo'i se gugde be ro lo gugde" in the aspect of Olympics, though not in the aspect of family register. If you don't understand yet, recall the definition of gugde: x1 ciste lo nu turni kei lu'i x2 noi prenu ra'a x3 noi tutra lu'u lo ka co'e as well as the definition of turni which can be vaguely interpreted: "governs/rules/is ruler/governor/sovereign/reigns over" On the basis of these definitions, a set of all participants of Olympics is an intersection of the countries organizing Olympics iff the intersection is formed on the basis of the aspect of Olympics. > I am not happy with this. If I understood set theory correctly, > “intersection” is only possible between two sets. > What the heck does an intersection between two /countries/ even _mean_? > Unless you meant two _sets of countries_ which you want to want to > intersect, the idea of “intersection of countries” is not meaningful > to me. > An "intersection" can be a binary operator, but not always used in this way. It takes more terms, even an infinite number of terms, just like a "product" Π can take many terms. Moreover, the idea of gugykruca is not "intersection of countries" but "intersection of su'o re lo'i se gugde". > Perhaps we should really work out what we /actually/ want to say when we > say the Lojban word for “international”. It does not make much sense > to me to first discuss the details if nobody knows what we’re actually > talking about. ;-) > > The first step would obviously to obtain the possible meanings of the word > “international”. > No. I don't need lujvo(s) that signify the same things as "international"; I need rather a better English definition for gugykruca that conforms to the Lojbanic definition. The English definition for gugykruca needs some limitation to be a narrower sense than "international". > In English, the word “international” can mean many things: > 1) First, it can actually mean something which directly involves some > nations. Like “international affairs”, “international law”, > “international treaty” etc. > 2) Then there is a more vague interpretation where the word just describes > something which has /something/ do with multiple nations, but does not > involve any nation directly. Like in “international berbeque”. The > connections to nations is very vague, it just means there a visitors FROM > multiple nations. > 3) Then there is the horribly derived word “internationalization”, > shortened to “I18N”, from software development. It actually means that > a certain software is made translatable for different _languages_. This > doesn’t have anything to do with nations. > 4) There may be other meanings as well in the wild. > Annoyingly, the word “international” is often used interchangibly for > nations (natmi) AND countries (gugde) alike. Yet there’s no word > like “intercountrial”. ;-) (Or is there? Whatever …) > We should be careful to not fall into the same trap. > Anyways, none of 1) to 3) does involve some sort of intersection IMO. But > also no real union (as in set theory). > Unless you can present me ANY interpretation now which involves > intersections and countries SOMEHOW, the word “gugykruca” stays just > meaningless to me. > I have already explained it above. However, it would be meaningful to add some interpretation to your examples. 1) gugykruca is applied as long as "affaires", "law", "treaty" etc. are gugykruca_2 and participants of them are gugykruca_1. If talking about those of union of contries, "cuntu be loi su'o re gugde" "flalu be fi lo su'o re gugde bei fu loi su'o re gugde" "gugbinselnu'e" are applied respectively. 2) If the visitors are from different "lo gugde", gugykruca is applied, and the event of barbeque is gugykruca_2. If the visitors are from different races from the same contry, gugykruca is not applicable. Possibly "natkruca" is not applicable either, because a Lojbanic definition of natmi would not include anything associated with turni; without turni, a participant cannot easily belong to every natmi. In this case, "me lo su'o re natmi" would be one of the possible translations of "international". 3) gugykruca is not applied. For internationalization of language, "vanbi gi'e gunma lo so'i bangu" would be a basis of construction of lujvo. As I wrote in the Comment #4 (Thu Nov 14 22:06:16 2013), there are two words in Japanese that distinguish "international" and "intercountrial". The lack of the word is fault in English, and it does not imply that Lojban should have an interchangeable word between natmi and gugde, though it is possible with "nairjavgu'e". > We should of course NOT try to shoehorn meanings 1-3 and possibly even > more into one lujvo. In the current definition, well, it just seems like > that already happened. > Instead, we should look at concepts 1 to 3 and possibly others, look which > of them are actually meaningful and well-understood (and not some > wish-washy bullshit). > > 1) Okay, I have no problem with that one. > 2) I am not sure wheather we should include that interpretation into > Lojban. It is still to vague to me. > 3) Although the word is awful, the concept behind is clearly defined and > clearly deserves a Lojban word. > Your own comments are welcome. > > Based on the three concepts, I try to make new definitions: > 1) > - gugysi'u: “s1 (set of countries) do mutually s2.” > - natsi'u: “n1 (set of nations) do mutually s2.” > (… perhaps be part of an international treaty, etc.; very general > concept) > - gugycu'u: “c1 is an organized activity involving countries n1 > (ind./mass).” > - natcu'u: “c1 is an organized activity involving nations n1 > (ind./mass).” > (One could call this an “international affair” but I’d be careful.) > 2) Don’t know for sure, but it clearly should involve ckaji. > 3) Since this concept does not involve nations, it is quite out of scope > here. > > This still doesn’t catch _all_ meaning of “international” but it’s > a start. On the other hand, as I said it may by foolish to try to catch > all meaning of “international” at once. 1) "-si'u" as tertau is not very easy to use according to the current definition, because simxu_1 should be a set (though I hope the definition will be changed to a mass some day, because actual use of simxu_1 as a mass is frequently seen in Lojban corpus). "gugycu'u" and "natcu'u" are not associated with plurality; too far from "international". 2) I don't understand why it should involve ckaji. 3) Agree, and all of 1) 2) 4) are out of scope for me. I only argue the validity of lujvo gugykruca, and I am not interested in creating full lujvo for English word "international". Comment #13: Re: Perhaps let’s just start all over. xD Wuzzy (Tue Dec 3 20:42:03 2013) I’m out of this discussion. It is becoming way too complicated for me. Comment #14: Re: Perhaps let’s just start all over. xD guskant (Wed Dec 4 14:45:38 2013) Wuzzy wrote: > I’m out of this discussion. > It is becoming way too complicated for me. I modified again the English definition. Definition: A citizen x1=g2=k1 is international in aspect/participates in an international event x2=k3. Note: x2=k3 may be Olympics, working/studying abroad, foreign trade, international crime syndicate etc. See gugde, kruca; for union of countries, me loi su'o re gugde; for union of races, me loi su'o re natmi; for treaty, gugbinselnu'e; for internationalization of language, vanbi gi'e gunma lo so'i bangu; for cross-country, tumgre.