X-Digest-Num: 49 Message-ID: <44114.49.175.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 17:33:37 +0200 From: Robin Turner Subject: Re: rights X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 175 Content-Length: 1643 Lines: 37 la lindjy,min. cusku di'e > > > 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}. I'm not sure how to put logical connectives into lujvo - would {selga'ijalebnalka'e} work? 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. 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), 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. However, this does raise questions about {po} and {po'e}. It's fairly clear that (quoting the refgram from memory) {le birka po'e la djan.} is appropriate even if John loses his arm (because it would still be John's arm, not someone else's) and the same applies to {la .apasionatas. po'e la bethovn.} since it is still Beethoven's Apassionata even though he's dead. It's a little less clear, though, how such abstract and debatable notions as "rights" and "freedoms" fit in. co'o mi'e robin.