From robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx Thu Feb 4 02:25:20 1999 X-Digest-Num: 51 Message-ID: <44114.51.198.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 12:25:20 +0200 From: Robin Turner i don't think it's a very good idea to try to calque the UN statement > w/out unpacking some of the hidden ideological baggage (or what use is > lojban?)... it seems to be that the first portion is really about the x3 > of BILGA, & the rest of it x2; thusly, 'All of us are in the > frame-of-reference whereby we are obligated to allow every human to > do/be the following...' --alot of these words are connotational & > designed to evoke the atmosphere of the Enlightenment-- add such > attitudinals as designate the feeling itself, rather than treat > "inalienable", "family", "freedom" et al as derivable from gismu, for > they are not used in natural language in the same way as "part (of a > mechanism)", "genetic-sibling", "absence-of-specific-constraint..." > > having turned this into good lojban, one is "free" to declare it false, > or to question the parameters of the frame-of-reference itself, or to > argue (ugh!) that various humans differ in the amount that they are > subject to this obligation. (otherwise, to mess with the feelings alone, > clepes you a veritable nazi.) > > (i owe this thought to Simone Weil) An interesting point. It depends on how faithful you want to be to the original, and how much you want to interpret it. While the latter is one of the great strengths of Lojban, it is essentially an exercise in deconstruction, and depends on the translator's interpretation of the text. It would be a good exercise for different people to come up with translations along the lines Michael suggests. co'o mi'e robin.