From dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:45:19 2010
Date:         Sun, 21 May 1995 15:56:06 -0400
From: "Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: {prenu} vs. {remna}
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
X-From-Space-Date: Sun May 21 15:56:34 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Message-ID: <jb-H8NrAPUG.A.a7E._t0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

jorge@phyast.pitt.edu writes:
 > ...
 > {sinxa} is ok, now that I know what you meant. My comment about {lu}
 > was only that your {go'i} doesn't repeat my sentence inside the lu-li'u.
 >
 > I don't believe in using lu-li'u instead of the usual ">" for this
 > type of dialogue. ...
 > By convention,
 > something that appears with ">" is something someone else said, and
 > appears in your post only as background, just like other people's
 > words are a background to what you say when talking. You can use
 > {go'i} etc. to refer to that background, but not to refer to things
 > inside {lu} quotes.

Interesting point here.  I'm not sure how editing of quotes fits in,
though.

 > >  > > .i lu le te sinxa li'u dunli lu le zgana li'u le
 > >  > > smuni .i xu do tugni .i mi nu'o pu pilno zo simlu
 > >  >
 > >  > i mi se cizra le nu ro da poi co'a cinfo cu se sinxa da'u
 > >
 > > What would a "new infant" be other than "a just created person"?
 >
 > Maybe a "new lion"? I thought you were being metaphorical.  :)
 > cinfo = lion; cifnu = infant

.i .oisa'e .i ku'i lo cifnu cu cinfo .i lu remna cifnu li'u basti zo
cinfo

 > >  > i cy zbasu lei danlu fa'u lei remna ca le re djedi
 > >
 > > According to the gismu list:
 > >    danlu dal     da'u animal
 > >    x1 is an animal/creature of species x2; x1 is biologically animate
 > > Surely this includes humans?
 >
 > No doubt. But the Bible still says that animals were created in a
 > different day than Man. The question is how do you translate that
 > "Man"? I'd say {remna}, not {prenu}.

I thought I agreed with you:  yes, {remna}, not {prenu} is appropriate.
(Excellent point, since the authors of the Declaration would be
referring back to the Bible.)

{mabru} seems to have a wider meaning than just 'mammal', so maybe it
could be used instead of {danlu}; either that or a lujvo:  {nalsajydal},
perhaps?

 > >  > > .i ju'ocu'i lei cmugau patfu krice ledu'u le nu la cev. zbasu na'e
 mulfau
 > >  >                               ^cu krici
 > >
 > > .i ji'a zo tipyfau basti zo mulfau
 >
 > i ue xu tikpa fasnu

.i .oicaisa'e .i zo jipfau basti zo tipyfau

 > >  > i pe'i py krici le du'u ro remna cu se zbasu la cev  i ji'a lei ca remna
 > >
 > > .i .uanai .i le nu zbasu piroloi remna ja'abo lo'e remna cu na'e tipyfau
 >
 > i ie i zo'o le nu catke le bolci sepi'o le jamfu cu tipfau

.i zo'o ji'a le nu co'a se pinfu la rodneis. king. pu tipfau

 > > .i mu'o mi'e. dilyn. .uanai
 >
 > co'o mi'e xorxes uanaisai

mu'o mi'e. dilyn. .oisai