[jbovlaste] Re: natural and human rights

["A. PIEKARSKI" <totus@rogers.com>]

> 
> I think all "under conditions" places should be dropped from gismu
> that have them, since there doesn't seem to be any reason why some
> relations should be conditioned and others not, but given the place,
> this is how I would use "zifre", for example:
> 
>   do zifre lo nu pilno ti kei lo nu do sitna mi
>   "You are free to use this as long as you cite me as a source."
> 
> The right is "lo nu pilno ti". "lo nu do sitna mi" is the condition
> for the right, it is not the right. A condition is not a right.


Yes, I agree with your last statement.

Xorxes, it seems to me that 'right' is used in two slightly different ways, 
each of which can have an entry in jbovlaste..
Sometimes we say 'Her rights were taken away' which means that her 
freedom to do something was taken away.  That is the meaning of 
'right' in your example above.  The right and the freedom are the same 
and are both {selzi'e}.

But we can also say 'Her freedom to an education was taken away despite her 
right to an education'.  Here 'right' and 'freedom' are distinctly different.

I think Aviv is right to introduce (javni) into this definition, although I 
don't 

agree with how he does it.  It does allow the distinction between 'right' and 
'freedom'.

For this second distinct meaning of 'right', I would now have {zi'ezva} as in:

j1 zi'ejva z1 z2 z3 j3
j1 is the right for z1 to do z2 (event/state) 
 
from:
j1 javni lonu z1 zifre z2 z3 kei j3

If we are talking about an inalienable right, one that comes from the very 
nature of the cosmos and is not conferred by any person or institution, 
then {rarzi'ejva} should do it.

totus