[lojban-beginners] Re: se gugde?

[ANDREW PIEKARSKI <totus@rogers.com>]

----- Original Message ----
From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:23:38 PM
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: se gugde?


On 6/10/07, ANDREW PIEKARSKI <totus@rogers.com> wrote:
> > {x1 is the country of peoples x2 with land/territory
> > x3; (people/territory relationship)}
>
> uh, doesn't it say "of peoples x2"?
> peoples has a very specific meaning in english and must not be confused
> with people or person, right?
>
> Agreed!  To me, 'peoples' means 'ethnic groups' - which would make
> [se gugde] even less appropriate for 'citizen'.

And it would make {gugde} quite inappropriate for the general meaning
of "country", because many countries are not the country of some
specific ethnic group or ethnic groups.

I think it's just a bad wording of the definition. x1 is the country, x2 is
for the people of that country (basically any citizen, whether they belong
to the main ethnic group of the country or not, and whether they live in
the country or not), and x3 for the territory. The only question is whether
it can refer to any single citizen of the country, or whether it must only
refer to the groups of all citizens. (I prefer the former, since it makes
things easier, just like {se bangu} can refer to a single person.)

For ethnic group there is {natmi}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

So to avoid confusion, wouldn't your other suggestion be better - {flalu xabju}?  Only, this for me would still mean 'legal resident' (as opposed to, for example, an illegal immigrant).  A citizen has more privileges than a legal resident.  In particular, he has the right to own a passport.  So couldn't citizen be {jaspu xabju}?  The complication here is that the citizen who has the right to a passport doesn't necessarily have a passport, and I imagine replacing {jaspu} with the right to have a {jaspu} would be impractical.

mu'o mi'e .andrus.