|
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".
|