Possibly figure out cultural gismu.

src/2-saske/cultures.md

@@ -20,9 +20,25 @@ There should be a class for kulnu1:
     culture1: events
     culture2: observations
 
+    natmi1: nations
+    natmi2: kulnu2
+
     rutni1: artifacts
     rutni2: kulnu2
 
+    turni1: people
+    turni2: people
+
+    tutra1: territories
+    tutra2: turni1
+
+    jecta1: governments
+    jecta2: tutra1
+
+    gugde1: countries
+    gugde2: kulnu2
+    gugde3: tutra1
+
 This defines a template for all of the cultural gismu, as well as {rutni}.
 
 TODO: this implies xamgu1 are events! A longstanding puzzle solved!
@@ -31,29 +47,38 @@ It should include the cultural gismu. It should also be in the upcoming
 "multiverse" feature, using a multiverse, because the baseline definitions
 should be culturally neutral.
 
-There could further be a class for tutra1:
+What's the difference between {jecta} and {se tutra}? {jecta} doesn't imply
+{turni}; a government is a sort of organized group of people (a {stura}
+perhaps?) which claim to be {turni}, but turni1 are the violence-monopolists
+who physically occupy and oppress their subjects.
 
-    tutra1: territories
-    tutra2: ???
+However, {kulnu}'s definition requires kulnu2 to be plural masses. The English
+says, "culture is what is shared among people and is not an individual trait,"
+but this is a misunderstanding of relational logic. Logically, {kulnu} relates
+a set of people -- a subset of all kulnu2 -- to individual cultures in a
+many-to-many relationship. So, we're going to politely say that the baseline
+definition is misleading, and allow both rutni2 and kulnu2 to be individuals.
 
-    natmi1: nations
-    natmi2: kulnu2
+This class also implies that cultures, e.g. {merko}, should be conjugated
+instead of filled directly by individual people. Instead of {mi merko},
+perhaps we should say {mi jai merko} for short. Putting the above classes to
+work, we might formally say:
 
-    jecta1: governments
-    jecta2: tutra1
-
-    gugde1: countries
-    gugde2: kulnu2
-    gugde3: tutra1
+    mi se kulnu pa ka merko
 
 ## Axioms
 
-Perhaps kulnu2 => cecmu2?
+We should be able to define {turni} with something like:
+
+    da turni de <=> su'o gy ty zo'u: ty tutra da gi'e te gugde de gy
 
-What's the difference between {jecta} and {se tutra}?
+Why is {rutni} here? Its definition specifies that rutni2 are kulnu2, from
+which we may claim the following axiom:
+
+    da rutni de => su'o di kulnu de
+
+Perhaps kulnu2 => cecmu2?
 
 ## Related words
 
 * {cecmu}
-* {natmi}
-* {gugde}