xu do sisku lo lojbo tcana
  [Home] [Manage]

Posting mode: Reply

Painter: Width: Height: Source:

Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Subject (encouraged)
Password (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.


Has anybody translated it into Lojban?

>> No.543  

Omiglot has Article 1 of it. (http://www.omniglot.com/writing/lojban.htm)

ro remna cu se jinzi co zifre je simdu'i be le ry. nilselsi'a .e lei ry. selcru .i ry. se menli gi'e se sezmarde .i .ei jeseki'ubo ry. simyzu'e ta'i le tunba

>> No.544  

We ought to have an edit function.

>> No.550  


I think that it should be "[prenu]" rather than "[remna]".

>> No.552  


Do you mean that the translation of "human being" should be "prenu", or that the declaration should have covered non-human persons as well?

The original talks about human beings, so "remna" seems like the correct translation.

>> No.555  


Well, the translation of "human being" obviously should be "[remna]". However, bbeing a big science fiction fan, I think that these rights should be extended to all sentient beings. Although the English document actually does use "human", the English connotation is just vague enough to imply "not just Homo sapiens sapiens". The Lojbanic translation should go with the meaning of the document, or at least its possible future meaning, and use "[prenu]".

>> No.556  


A "remna" is a biological/taxonomical entity, from which a "prenu" ontologically extends if not differs. "remna" is about the body, "prenu" the mind/consciousness. The declaration appeals more to our mental capability than to our physical functionality. If linguistic fidelity to the English matters, "remna" should be the one to be used. But if the philosophical design and implication of the message are more important, I would take liberty to use "prenu".

Delete Post []