> 2) Develop a new, much smaller set of gismu to cover things that were
> previously included in the cultural gismu, such as reflecting
> language/cultural/nationality in some respect.
We have "bangu", "kulnu", "natmi", and "gugde". What more do we need?
I'm not sure I follow this; can you give an example of how you'd use gugde to get to reflecting a certain nationality? If no new gismu would be needed, awesome; I just don't know how this would work.
I think that fu'ivla for languages should be usually based on the autonym of
the language. This will result in collisions (e.g. in one country there are
three languages called Pong), which have to be resolved somehow (e.g.
slovako/slovino). Also the place structure for a type-4 fu'ivla is "x1
reflects Almonian language/culture in aspect x2"; for the language
specifically, use a type-3 based on "bangu".
The ISO codes are based on the autonym, so it amounts to the same thing; Croatian is, for example, hrv, reflecting "hrvatski."
Re: the place structure--the idea that language and culture are inherently linked is what we are trying to get away from... Or what I would like to see Lojban get away from, anyway. And, since the idea seemed to be to use cmene for cultural traits, the type-4 definition could simply be(come) "x1 reflects English language in aspect x2", no? Or am I missing something here, too.