I agree that such a distinction between "empires" and "unions" should be made.
*Maybe* {sorgugnai} (a nation extending several countires) could fit for "empire".
Furthermore, I think that if the ruler of japan chooses to call himself an Emperor, that doesnt mean that he has to be an emporer in the lojban sense of the word (ruler of an empire).
Is "King of th Hill" a king? Is "Dr. Evil" a doctor? No. But they can still choose to use those titles, devoid of their meaning. We shouldn't have to "bend" the lojban word for emperor to fit Japan.
And BTW, isn't {noltrunau} and {noltruni'u} the preveiling words for king/queen? (as used in Alice in Wonderland)
On a side note, I always have thought that finding lojban words for all the different titles of rulers and governments would be a tough task. But pe'i it *can* be done, if we ignore the exceptions and treat the word as a rigid concept, built around the roots of its meaning.
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 6:03 AM, A. PIEKARSKI
<totus@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> On Thursday 30 December 2010 10:25:14 Remo Dentato wrote:
> > I've no particular attachment to {sorg'etru} but I feel that {balnoltru} is
> > too restrictive, a "big kingdom" is not an empire since an empire is made
> > by more nations (that might have different languages and cultures and even
> > have a king that is subject to the emperor).
>
> Both words are good. The Japanese Emperor cu balnoltru jenai sorgu'etru; the
> government of the EU cu sorgu'etru jenai balnoltru. An emperor in one of the
> ancient empires could be both.
>
I think we should make a distinction between an empire (one dominant state
ruling a number of lesser states acquired by conquest, marriage or whatever)
and a union of the EU type (several 'equal' states voluntarily bound together
and governed by a mutually agreed body). For me the latter would be
{sorgugje'a} but not the former.
totus