From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Sep 30 16:54:26 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 30 Sep 2002 23:54:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 17273 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2002 23:54:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Sep 2002 23:54:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Sep 2002 23:54:25 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17wAPl-0003HF-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:57:25 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17wAP6-0003Gw-00; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:56:44 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:56:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.intrex.net ([209.42.192.250] helo=intrex.net) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17wAP2-0003Gn-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:56:41 -0700 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.29] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A4034369017C; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 19:53:39 -0400 To: Subject: [lojban] Re: LOI PRENU GO PA MEI GI KA'E NAI TE JINGA? Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 19:53:38 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <20020930190226.W82502-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> Importance: Normal X-Declude-Sender: raganok@intrex.net [209.42.200.29] X-archive-position: 1777 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: raganok@intrex.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: raganok@intrex.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out >> > I don't know about {cecmu}. In Spanish, "el pueblo" has very strong >> > connotations. (I guess "the people" in English does too, but not >> > necessarily the same ones.) There probably can't be one best >> > translation, each will get better a different aspect. >> >> Of course. "The people" in English is exclusively a political term, >> for one thing. >It's a code work for the peasants + working class. The bourgeoisie are >never part of "the people", though their college age students are >eligible. na'ebo lei vlipa prenu There are three cases where the bourgeoisie or other non-peasants might be part of The People. Those bourgeoisie who put their resources to helping The People rather than to acting bourgeoisish may identify themselves with The People without being contradicted. They're probably worng, but nobody will argue with them. Those bourgeoisie who are living under feudalism and are as oppressed as the proletariat are certainly part of The People, until the revolution, when they become enemies of The People, which comes to mean only the proletariat. When the bourgeois revolution comes, the proletariat benefits in the short term. The soldiers are part of the lower class, and thus of The People, but are certainly not peasants and do not work. In many cases, the peasants and the soldiers have not gotten along - hence the need for the line, "Proletariat of the world, unite!" as a communist rallying point. --la kreig.daniyl. 'No more deluded by reaction, On tyrants only we'll make war. The soldiers, too, will take strike action They'll break ranks and fight no more. And if those cannibals keep trying To sacrifice us to their pride, They soon shall hear the bullets flying - We'll shoot the generals on our own side.' -The Internationale pygypy gubmau ckiku nacycme: 0x22C68020