Re: rights

[Robin Turner <robin@bilkent.edu.tr>]

la lindjy,min. cusku di'e

>
> > brivla like that.  "Inalienable" means that it can't be taken away, so
> > maybe {selylebnalka'e}.
>
> Ya.. My dictionary also says so. But from the source of the word, I think
> it would be more likely to be explaint as "it can't be transformed".

Well, a bit of both, really - there are elements of both {selylebnalka'e} and
{selga'inalka'e}. I'm not sure how to put logical connectives into lujvo -
would {selga'ijalebnalka'e} work?  Fortunately in practice such monster lujvo
would probably be unnecessary, since an inalienable something always pertains
to someone, and therefore use of {po'e} would render it superfluous in most
contexts.

Thus {le selzi'e po loi brito tcaxa'u} would be the rights accorded to British
citizens, which may be amended or abolished entirely (e.g. by a coup or
invasion), while {le selzi'e po'e loi remna} would be the inalienable rights of
human beings, or what we commonly regard as "human rights" - {remna selzi'e} is
briefer but less specific, as it could also mean rights currently enjoyed by
humans, or even rights accorded by humans to some other species.

However, this does raise questions about {po} and {po'e}.  It's fairly clear
that (quoting the refgram from memory) {le birka po'e la djan.} is appropriate
even if John loses his arm (because it would still be John's arm, not someone
else's) and the same applies to {la .apasionatas. po'e la bethovn.} since it is
still Beethoven's Apassionata even though he's dead.  It's a little less clear,
though, how such abstract and debatable notions as "rights" and "freedoms" fit
in.

co'o mi'e robin.