From jorge@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx Mon Jan 18 00:30:26 1999 X-Digest-Num: 49 Message-ID: <44114.49.183.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 05:30:26 -0300 From: "=?US-ASCII?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" > > brivla like that. "Inalienable" means that it can't be taken away, so >> > maybe {selylebnalka'e}. >> >> Ya.. My dictionary also says so. But from the source of the word, I think >> it would be more likely to be explaint as "it can't be transformed". > >Well, a bit of both, really - there are elements of both {selylebnalka'e} and >{selga'inalka'e}. Whatever the origin of the word, in this context I think it is used with the modern sense. If the intent had been to say that the rights could not be modified they probably would have talked about "immutable rights". >I'm not sure how to put logical connectives into lujvo - >would {selga'ijalebnalka'e} work? {jav} is the rafsi for {ja}, so it would be {selga'ijavlebnalka'e}. I have no idea whether {ja} or {se} binds closer, so maybe we need another {sel} there. > Fortunately in practice such monster lujvo >would probably be unnecessary, since an inalienable something always pertains >to someone, and therefore use of {po'e} would render it superfluous in most >contexts. I still wouldn't mix variableness with inalienability. As for {po'e}, I prefer not to use it. Hopefully, if the language ever gets simplified, it is one of the words that will go away, along with so many other superfluous cmavo and selma'o. I still haven't found an occasion where {po} or {po'e} give more precision than just using {pe}. And if there is such a need, it is very strange that there are no corresponding words for {ne}. Using {po'e} instead of {pe} for me is like using tense when there is no need for it. It may not be wrong, but it doesn't add anything. In this particular case, as you say below, it is not even clear that it makes sense to associate someone's rights with {po'e}. >Thus {le selzi'e po loi brito tcaxa'u} would be the rights accorded to British >citizens, which may be amended or abolished entirely (e.g. by a coup or >invasion), Yes, or they might be the rights conceded by the British citizens, too. Neither {pe} nor {po} nor {po'e} by themselves indicate that it's about rights enjoyed by the possessor. The clearest way to indicate that is {le selzi'e be lei brito}. >while {le selzi'e po'e loi remna} would be the inalienable rights of >human beings, or what we commonly regard as "human rights" >{remna selzi'e} is >briefer but less specific, as it could also mean rights currently enjoyed by >humans, or even rights accorded by humans to some other species. This might be taken as a convention, and it probably makes sense, but I think it is a waste to have a cmavo for a distinction so easily made in other ways. I will stick to {le selzi'e be lei remna}, and if need be, {le selylebnalka'e selzi'e be lei remna} for "the inalienable rights of humans". co'o mi'e xorxes