From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Mar 16 07:07:29 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 16 Mar 2009 07:07:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LjDTU-0006E7-7k for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 07:07:29 -0700 Received: from mx-8.zoominternet.net ([24.154.1.27] helo=cm-2.zoominternet.net) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LjDTL-0006Dn-4k for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 07:07:25 -0700 X-SpamGroup: 2000 X-CM-Cat: Undefined:Undefined X-CNFS-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=ZRGG-5vai6sA:10 a=yKjaTpgYz4QA:10 a=yL5XVgb8E2+fLTqkepJTkw==:17 a=KW1uuCLlD8OS75fPtIAA:9 a=OiO3ISczetlweckYNoENQfv8O2IA:4 a=WuK_CZDBSqoA:10 X-CM-Score: 0 X-Scanned-by: Cloudmark Authority Engine Received: from [24.154.1.47] ([24.154.1.47:39649] helo=pop-4.zoominternet.net) by mx-8.zoominternet.net (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.30 r(24168)) with ESMTP id E2/A2-09974-90D5EB94; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:07:05 -0400 Received: (qmail 25666 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2009 14:07:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.1.100]) ([24.154.82.11]) (envelope-sender ) by pop-4.zoominternet.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 16 Mar 2009 14:07:08 -0000 Message-Id: <0E9969FD-E780-4369-B93C-FD7A2561B753@zoominternet.net> From: Robert Baruch To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <925d17560903160649y5a5efa2fg82b213d74deeeb81@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Q about general statements Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:07:17 -0400 References: <66941D44-2E0E-4A9B-8882-27FE28D2C0F4@zoominternet.net> <96f789a60903151944p381f842v388624e85ecf1f28@mail.gmail.com> <4643bbcd0903160609y36b6699dw78cf01afc17032cf@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560903160649y5a5efa2fg82b213d74deeeb81@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: -9 X-Spam-Bar: - X-archive-position: 1420 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: autophile@zoominternet.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On Mar 16, 2009, at 9:49 AM, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > And conversely, some cities might be in more than one country, > although such border-cities usually have different names on each side > (Mexicali-Calexico is one with an interesting name). Berlin went from > being in one country to being in two and then being in one country > again. > Are you sure? I always understood Mexicali and Calexico to have separate governance. Sure, they probably cooperate very closely, but I can't imagine Calexico (in the U.S.) wanting to have anything to do with being the capital of Baja California (which Mexicali is). As for Berlin, I thought that was split into East and West Berlin, and of course they had completely separate inimical governance. But I'm still willing to admit the possibility that a city does not have to belong to one and only one state by definition. The Merriam- Webster definition of "city" seems to imply that a city is just a large inhabited place, and makes no mention of whose jurisdiction that city falls under. So the heck with it: lo'e tcadu ku cmima lo gugde.