Subject: Re: [lojban] udhr

From: Edward Cherlin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 11:37:24 -0700

At 1:43 PM +0200 5/22/01, Björn Gohla wrote:
>On Sunday 20 May 2001 19:16, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> > The declaration seems to be a statement about how things are,
>> not how they should be, so I wouldn't use {ei} there. Also,
>> the "born" part is missing. Maybe:
>i thought about that, but one can not deny that the declaration has a
>normative aspect, it does not concede any choice whether this proposition is
>valid. how could this be expressed?

How about an imperative with e'osai? "Make it so..."

This sentence is not a proposition with a truth value, but a 
requirement. In English, we can use "let" with the subjunctive, as in 
"... let no man put [it] asunder." Perhaps the Declaration should 
have said "Let no one be denied these rights, which are theirs from 
birth" or "Let everyone be accorded these rights...".

Alternatively you could use the modal in English, "No government may 
deny these rights to anyone, or allow them to be denied."

The U.S. Constitution uses "shall" to express requirements. "The 
President shall have the power..." "Congress shall make no law..."

In peripherally related matters...

Pierre is working on "y'hee or" "Let there be light". Perhaps he 
would care to weigh in.

At some point I intend to tackle Euclid. He uses the word, 
"epezeuchthosan" "Let it have been placed" in the past passive 
imperative. An imaginary forced march. :-)
-- 

co'o mi'e ed.
.i e'osai la lojban pluka ko
<http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/>