Re: rights (2)

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

la xod. cusku di'e

> > {se'o} seems like a good rendering of "self-evident" - it has a kind of
> > Kantian ring to it. However, I'm not sure how some of the American
> > revolutionaries would have reacted to the idea that these rights were issued
> > by God. If I remember rightly (there ought to be an attitudinal for that!),
> > the phrase "Nature's God" was thrown in as a kind of Deist compromise
> > between the atheists and the Christians. In fact, if you wanted to express
> > the idea that rights came from God, {ju'o} would be more appropriate, the
> > root being {djuno} with religion filling the epistomology place {ta'o
> > .e'ocaizo'o la'edi'u na'e mukti lenu lenu malmi'o zo djuno darlu kei ba
> > rapli}
>
> coi
>
> mi no'e jimpe la'e di'u .i do zukte le nu cusku lu lenu lenu li'u ku ma .i
> xu do cusku le to'e djica le nu rapli damba fi le cevni zasti

mi pu cusku di'e

ta'o .e'ocaizo'o
incidentally I-request-strongly-humourously

la'edi'u na'e mukti
the-referent-of-the-last-sentence not motivate/cause

lenu lenu malmi'o zo djuno darlu kei ba rapli
[the-event {(the-event notorious "know" argument) will repeat}]

I wasn't referring to conflict about the existence of God, but to an incredibly
long thread on this list (about a year ago) concerning the meaning of {djuno} and
related gismu. Almost as frustrating as the {le / lo} argument!

co'o mi'e robin.