On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 11:05 PM, Daniel Swanson
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> dafmuhm - arrow
>> Let us replace this with "vmanduhk", bow-spear.
> How about dafmuhm is the kind of arrow that points at something?

Bee is pleased with this proposal.

>>> cimuht - equal
>> Does this refer only to the sort of equality humans have, or also to
>> mathematical equalities, or to the approximate equalities of
>> quantities in the physical world?
> How about this is equivalence of character (or however you'd rather say it)
> and something else is mathematically equality?

Having the same essential qualities?  Good.

>> This needs a LOT of work, as Alex suggested.  Bee tentatively proposes
>> that we express rights in terms of their inverse duties.  E.g., where
>> English would describe a right to life, Sajem Tan would describe a
>> duty not to kill people.  If the rest of the tribe doesn't like that

> I support the inverse duties proposal.

Shall we repurpose "fmolthyt" to mean "duty, responsibility, a thing
one ought to do"?

>> Spider is not sure that the comitative is the right case for linking
>> freedom and  equality to zluhznyk ke fmolthyt.  He also thinks that
>> "kafmym" is an overly literal translation for the preposition "in in
>> dignity and rights".

> So you're saying that the "with" in English would have to be rendered as
> possession (possibly a postposition given the original comments about their
> weirdness) and "in" as something denoting "with regards to" distinct from
> the spatial "inside"?

We could expand the meaning of the comitative to include possession
(of qualities like freedom and equality).  Or we could use a

cehk tuhn thom "have a quality/property"

zluhznyk tuhn zanfeh Thefnolm.
Bear is honorable.

jekelm thekfeh zluhznyk tuhn Thethat.
Honorable Wind writes a book.

Thnoln tuhn zanum xyt femekso mahn thethnymumsun du.
All mind-having-ones are having freedom when they are conceived/born.

We can expand that with "and equal in dignity and rights" when we
settle more about the semantics of "equal" and

> Are there restrictions on where case-marked nouns go relative to the verb?

Spider thinks not, though the pre-object position is the unmarked one
and putting them after the verb, or after the subject, would have some
additional nuance (to be decided).

> What about "tanum dehah jikinvah."? (we speak with a wiki)

Or "it is with a wiki that we speak".

> kygykumsun golm kixikolmah.

How are we distinguishing between "sin" and "golm"?  Bee has added
cross-references between them, but is not sure how to clarify their
definitions for clearer distinction.

Jim Henry