From cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG Sat Mar 6 22:45:14 2010 Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 13:41:04 -0400 From: John Cowan Subject: Re: {prenu} vs. {remna} To: Bob LeChevalier X-From-Space-Date: Mon May 15 18:54:59 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Message-ID: la dilyn. cusku di'e > Reading further in the Martin Luther King speech (which is going much > more easily now), I came across > > ro remna cu jikydunli co'a lenu ri se zbasu > > (as a translation of part of the U.S. Declaration of independence: "All > men are created equal".) Now, from the gismu list, it seems to me that > the distinction between {prenu} and {remna} is like the English > distinction between person and human animal. Since the above bridi is > specifically about the social aspects of humans rather than the physical, > it seems to me that {prenu} would be more appropriate. I agree, and think "ro prenu" would have been better too. > Indeed, there are > certain {lo remna} that don't qualify as {lo prenu} in this sense; for a > less explosive example than the slaves the framers probably intended, > consider young children, the psychotically insane, or the severely > retarded. I dispute your first example, but I would add (knowing that others will not agree} human fetuses. > I'm not sure if this analysis of the difference between {prenu} and > {remna} really holds up, though. Anyone who has a pet will tell you that > animals can have personalities and thus might qualify as {lo prenu}. One of the thing Lojban teaches you is to beware of universal quantifications, for in Lojban they are really universal. So perhaps "remnyprenu" would work here. > And > if {remna} is meant to be the human animal, why doesn't it have a place > for "species/breed" (i.e., genetic background, one of the senses of > English "race") like all other animals? Other opinions? For one thing, human beings are remarkably uniform genetically, skin-deep (literally) differences notwithstanding. The other living-being gismu have much broader ranges: among the animals, I think only "turkey" is restricted to a single species. > co'o mi'e. dilyn. ZRstan. > > (I'm not sure how best to transliterate my last name. The second vowel, > which is close to the vowel in "John", seems to normally be > transliterated {a} rather than {o}, though it's not really either. And > Lojban doesn't have a (unvoiced) dental affricate, English "th" > (sometimes); earlier, I used {t} to preserve the dental quality, but > perhaps it's better to keep it an affricate with {z}, as in the > stereotypical French pronunciation of "the". Opinions?) This is entirely a matter of taste. Most people have used "t", but that need not constrain you. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.