Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:22:03 -0000
To: lojban@egroups.com
Subject: Re: le/lei/la/lai ... Brutus & the rest
Message-ID: <8i68lr+rflb@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <394646E6.C198AB06@reutershealth.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._Tueting_(T=FCting)?=" <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>
Content-Length: 2603
Lines: 68


> > I'm wondering if there is a (concise?) Lojban way to be precise
with
> > regard to legal purposes (I'm thinking here of criminal law):
> > E.g. Brutus and the rest killed Caesar. Using /le/la/ implies that
> > the one or all I have in mind (i.e. each single one) committed the
> > crime of stabbing a person named C. (from context here: the same
> > person in one event). That's okay here, because each one was
> > using his own dagger ;)
> 
> But even if not, it wouldn't have mattered legally: aiding and
abetting
> is just as criminal, in both (English) common law and (Roman) civil
law, as
> actually stabbing.

With regard to German criminal law (don't know nothing about American
law except from pretty weird TVs and some 'famous' 
cases) you're right and wrong: right with regard to abetting, wrong
with aiding what's punished less severe. (Just being a member 
of the 'group' but never having 'carried the piano' nor touched it,
or even having known it was carried by other group members...)
But you didn't consider the much wider range of my example covering
several degrees from guilty to not-guilty (it's not too 
thorough, just wanted to give a faint idea of the problem).
So: la tsezar. se catra ma .i la .iesus. se catra ma
The answer given by: le latmo prenu... surely is wrong (although
Brutus/Pontius Pilatus being a member of the Roman people), 
because /le/ is pointing to *all* Romans. But it's wrong too saying: 
lei latmo prenu ... because it's pointing to the *set* of Romans 
(which is not the culprit!) and leaving out Brutus/Pilatus (which -
assuming here for this example - *are* the culprits).

So, again: isn't there a gap in Lojban - or are there other ways to
express which I still do not know?

.aulun.


> > Using /lei/lai/ instead implies that there was a party that
committed
> > the murder (yet not stating whether or not each member of
> > the group really stabbed him, actively or only mentally supported
the
> > action in some way/degree - or (involved in the plan or not)
> > just stood aside on the forum or did not even go there.
> 
> "lei" is a red flag that specific deductions cannot be made.  To say
> that the Romans (lei latmo prenu) killed Jesus, for example, does
not
> imply that Numerius Negidius of Londinium killed Jesus.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
> Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http:
//www.reutershealth.com
> Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http:
//www.ccil.org/~cowan
> Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr.
Politzer)