Re: rights

[Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx]

la xorxes. cuske di'e

> >An attitudinal is called for, but
> >I'm not sure that "pe'i" is the right one here.
>
> Yes, pe'i seems to make it too subjective. The function of the word
> is just as an itemizer of preliminary considerations. How about {zu'u}?
>

Or maybe {ju'a} or even {ju'o}? We could do with an agreed attitudinal for
premises, which is what the opening of the UNDHR is all about.

>
> >(c) "galfinai" is an extremely clumsy attempt to render "inalienable"
>
> {galFInai} would be a fu'ivla, you can't use attitudinals to modify
> brivla like that. "Inalienable" means that it can't be taken away, so
> maybe {selylebnalka'e}.
>

Extremely clumsy was the right phrase. What I was after was something like
{nalselgalfi}. I still get mixed up with negators.

>
> You had {le ka se sinma} and {le ka selzi'e} both in the x3 of tugni,
> but they are different types of things "the property of being respected",
> (i.e. dignity) and "the property of being a right". I changed to {le
> kamselsi'a}
> and simply {le selzi'e}.

Sorry, the second {ka} stayed in from an earlier version - {le ka zifre} if I
remember rightly.

> A separate question is whether you can have
> those things in the x3 of tugni instead of a whole proposition. Does
> {tugni fi le kamselsi'a} mean "recognizes that there is dignity", or is it
> sumti raising and means nothing?

Probably meaningless sumti-raising (one of my vices). Actually, if Lojban ever
becomes widespread, we can expect to see lots of this kind of error. I can just
imagine pupils having to stay behind after school and write out "I must not
raise sumti" 100 times!

> Also, you had the rights and dignity of the human family, whereas
> the original talks of the rights and dignity of each member
> of the family. The difference is subtle, but I think important, since we
> are talking of the rights of the individuals, not the rights of the race.
>

I thought "lepiro" covered that. Perhaps {ro le} might be better. I think the
rights of the race would be simply {le}. The problem is that we're trying to
translate a metaphor which means, in effect, "members of the set of humans, a
set which can be likened to a family". My initial attempts to tanru-ise "member
of the human family" got hopelessly muddled, and I nearly ended up according
rights only to those humans who were members of families!

> I used {vu'ope} instead of {pe} because the relative applies to all of
> the joined sumti, not just the last one.
>

Thanks - this was the cmavo I was looking for!

co'o mi'e robin.