Re: {prenu} vs. {remna}

[John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>]

la dilyn. cusku di'e
> Reading further in the Martin Luther King speech (which is going much
> more easily now), I came across
>
>         ro remna cu jikydunli co'a lenu ri se zbasu
>
> (as a translation of part of the U.S. Declaration of independence: "All
> men are created equal".)  Now, from the gismu list, it seems to me that
> the distinction between {prenu} and {remna} is like the English
> distinction between person and human animal.  Since the above bridi is
> specifically about the social aspects of humans rather than the physical,
> it seems to me that {prenu} would be more appropriate.

I agree, and think "ro prenu" would have been better too.

> Indeed, there are
> certain {lo remna} that don't qualify as {lo prenu} in this sense; for a
> less explosive example than the slaves the framers probably intended,
> consider young children, the psychotically insane, or the severely
> retarded.

I dispute your first example, but I would add (knowing that others will not
agree} human fetuses.

> I'm not sure if this analysis of the difference between {prenu} and
> {remna} really holds up, though.  Anyone who has a pet will tell you that
> animals can have personalities and thus might qualify as {lo prenu}.

One of the thing Lojban teaches you is to beware of universal
quantifications, for in Lojban they are really universal.  So perhaps
"remnyprenu" would work here.

> And
> if {remna} is meant to be the human animal, why doesn't it have a place
> for "species/breed" (i.e., genetic background, one of the senses of
> English "race") like all other animals?  Other opinions?

For one thing, human beings are remarkably uniform genetically,
skin-deep (literally) differences notwithstanding.  The other
living-being gismu have much broader ranges:  among the animals, I think
only "turkey" is restricted to a single species.

> co'o mi'e. dilyn. ZRstan.
>
> (I'm not sure how best to transliterate my last name.  The second vowel,
> which is close to the vowel in "John", seems to normally be
> transliterated {a} rather than {o}, though it's not really either.  And
> Lojban doesn't have a (unvoiced) dental affricate, English "th"
> (sometimes); earlier, I used {t} to preserve the dental quality, but
> perhaps it's better to keep it an affricate with {z}, as in the
> stereotypical French pronunciation of "the".  Opinions?)

This is entirely a matter of taste.  Most people have used "t", but that
need not constrain you.

--
John Cowan                                              cowan@ccil.org
                        e'osai ko sarji la lojban.