On 8 December 2010 15:12, A. PIEKARSKI
In my opinion, a right is not so much a possessed thing as a condition for doing something.
What do people usually mean by "I have the right to ..."? It's a claim that they are conditioned with a freedom to do/be a certain thing. "have" is an idiomatic _expression_. So, how about "terzi'e" (te zifre)?
"tercru" (te curmi) might work in some cases, but with the implication that the right is granted by some agent, which contrasts with an agent-less natural right.
For (1), I would use "rar" (rarna) instead of "muj". "munje" does not necessarily encompass the entire cosmos independent of any arbitrary framework; it can be of a specific domain (x2) and defined by a specific rule (x3), which again contrasts with a pan-domain pan-rule natural right.
As for (2): Does "human" in a "human right" mean a physically defined biological object (remna)? Does it not have a more metaphysical ground, such as "person-hood" (prenu)? Article 1 of UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) says:
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They
are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one
another in a spirit of brotherhood."
Would this exclude non-homo-sapiens beings with reason and conscience, if they existed? I think the use of the word "human" is a misnomer that doesn't accurately represent the actual ontology of the entity which the principles are meant to recognise. In fact, UDHR is hardly specific about any physical definition of "human"; there is little element that limits the endowed entity to "homo sapiens".
I therefore suggest "prenu", which can potentially embrace all kinds of beings with the qualities that UDHR's thirty articles identify.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Human_rights_set_out_in_the_Declaration