Return-path: X-Spam-Personal-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on chain.digitalkingdom.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on chain.digitalkingdom.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Delivery-date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:37:50 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MRGqs-00057H-Nt; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:37:45 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list jbovlaste); Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:37:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MRGqD-000574-P1 for jbovlaste-real@lojban.org; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:37:01 -0700 Received: from web88007.mail.re2.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.194]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MRGqA-00056d-6u for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:37:01 -0700 Received: (qmail 11303 invoked by uid 60001); 16 Jul 2009 02:36:51 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rogers.com; s=s1024; t=1247711811; bh=dht8Q0ibFx8IICsdnXlJ3X9TsX6a/yv/b3hFURWU7vg=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=WA1F8Bn0spInK+bVVfo5plf45ApBeVT+z5AUbAgao5KsvDZ1BfOWHkEcW+XwPvZpX97o1zzDk3VwW4CMh1UtXq3R285l7TxF6NeneJBOPXQwVN+N/lyCebWPEDez6UMyJlV/wQ0wUvpnnAzVLN2NvbaJ8OEwSAb+6kPJ41w6u9U= DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=rogers.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=c6bpOVaqHRf+kLbPCU50zXXfocc0sBTxFc2iRPpNgF0oFfTuWi6qHIK2YY5Rkcxh+A5La3FJf4w3QjHsfNZin92QP3pVQJRyYopw/eaVQj3ZD6jrhfUT4UKwNN1/ktt5vSynMtP0kW00qYE5hqKR6pkYZZ546rVllkNaiHFy7Jg=; Message-ID: <758186.90053.qm@web88007.mail.re2.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: xrUI_QoVM1lkQXZcXqkVrOxsQn5hD4O7q7.XLwTSAu34BTGSv1pPsiMDiG1pj98Fb7PnYgiOC6KZEFjgQNGSc1_LwD7DdzyRs0yyKeHQgcgtdGoIST1yt0cLtU1HK.rucPTQ.6baFLpVkC8cpNrSkcbGMcXjXYcioLXeg9hKsG_4JuHB3Dq2RdzSwEsAmBoTJ1ML9M5wMARji0DtBLB98tmdtsfomf_Wo5k7fSTHMKa9HmH6G0pjuIKf67L0egL_uwOXBhBzKIHZJCEfRxNotSY_UpzzjrHg48YwYAnMh3S1WMg4wJPBIlsulNsCiUE9ruilOqS.EA-- Received: from [99.229.170.85] by web88007.mail.re2.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:36:51 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1357.22 YahooMailWebService/0.7.289.10 References: <12d58c160907020926q110af50ct2305b84a6266d886@mail.gmail.com> <834309.95244.qm@web88004.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4de8c3930907140645k58af0dc8id0cc979d1142a278@mail.gmail.com> <200907141023.23288.phma@phma.optus.nu> <20090715214006.GD27069@mercury.ccil.org> <12d58c160907151456p55a0375aqa60915ed37d4e3e5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:36:51 -0700 (PDT) From: "A. PIEKARSKI" Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: jbovlaste new entries To: jbovlaste@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <12d58c160907151456p55a0375aqa60915ed37d4e3e5@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-817509235-1247711811=:90053" X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: totus@rogers.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-list: jbovlaste Content-Length: 5028 Lines: 75 --0-817509235-1247711811=:90053 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0A=0A=0A>=0A>From: "komfo,amonan" =0A>To: jbovlaste= @lojban.org=0A>Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:56:09 PM=0A>Subject: [jbovl= aste] Re: jbovlaste new entries=0A>=0A>=0A>On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 5:40 PM,= John Cowan wrote:=0A>=0A>Pierre Abbat scripsit:=0A>>=0A>>= =0A>>> Then there's "natmi". Is there any difference between gugde and natm= i,=0A>>> besides that a gugde has a land?=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>A gugde is a sovere= ign state.=A0 [...]=0A>>=A0=0A>>=A0=0A>>The problem is that there are degre= es of sovereignity, and futhermore whether a state considers itself=A0 'sov= ereign' or not is subjective and largely an emotional issue=A0. No state is= completely sovereign (except perhaps North Korea) because even by joining = the UN,=A0it surrenders some of=A0its sovereignity by agreeing to certain i= nternational=A0laws and conventions.=A0 To some Welsh people, Wales may be = a gugde, but in reality it probably has less sovereignity than the average = Canadian province whic=0A>>h=A0does not consider itself sovereign at all.= =A0 In Switzerland, four cantons consider themselves to be sovereign althou= gh in reality they are no more sovereign than the remaining ones.=A0 So whi= le the world may lojbanically consider them to be vipygu'e, they may consid= er themselves gugde.=A0 But that is a problem for political scientists, and= not for lojban.=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>=A0=0A>=0A>Wait. Then what is the difference= between a {jecta} & a {gugde}? FWIW In my thinking, Wales, FWIW, qualifies= as a {gugde} but not a {jecta} (& did so even before the Welsh Assembly). = =0A>=0A>As I understand it, jecta is the political organization of a gugde,= or any of its components.=0A>=0A>=0A>mu'o mi'e andrus=0A> --0-817509235-1247711811=:90053 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=0A
=0A

=0A
From: "k= omfo,amonan" <komfoamonan@gmail.com>
To: jbovlaste@lojban.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:56:09 PM
Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: jbovlaste ne= w entries

=0A
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at= 5:40 PM, John Cowan <cowan@ccil= .org> wrote:
=0A
Pierre Abbat scripsit:
=0A

> Then there= 's "natmi". Is there any difference between gugde and natmi,
> beside= s that a gugde has a land?

=0A

A gugde is a sovereign state.=   [...]

=0A

 

=0A

 

=0A
The problem is that= there are degrees of sovereignity, and futhermore whether a state consider= s itself  'sovereign' or not is subjective and largely an emotional is= sue . No state is completely sovereign (except perhaps North Korea) be= cause even by joining the UN, it surrenders some of its sovereign= ity by agreeing to certain international laws and conventions.  T= o some Welsh people, Wales may be a gugde, but in reality it probably has l= ess sovereignity than the average Canadian province whic
h does not= consider itself sovereign at all.  In Switzerland, four cantons consi= der themselves to be sovereign although in reality they are no more soverei= gn than the remaining ones.  So while the world may lojbanically consi= der them to be vipygu'e, they may consider themselves gugde.  But that= is a problem for political scientists, and not for lojban.
=0A
&n= bsp;
=0A
 
=0A

 

=0A

Wait= . Then what is the difference between a {jecta} & a {gugde}? FWIW In my= thinking, Wales, FWIW, qualifies as a {gugde} but not a {jecta} (& did= so even before the Welsh Assembly).
=0A
 
=0A
As I= understand it, jecta is the political organization of a gugde, or any of i= ts components.
=0A
 
=0A
 
=0A
mu'o mi= 'e andrus
--0-817509235-1247711811=:90053--