From robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx Mon Feb 1 08:09:07 1999 X-Digest-Num: 49 Message-ID: <44114.49.177.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 18:09:07 +0200 From: Robin Turner >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.