FWIW you see a lot more "prenu" than "remna". "remna" is used specifically to denote humans. There is no specific requirement for "prenu" to be human or sentient. If you're one of those who say "cats are people too" then you could use "prenu" for a cat.
Suppose you wanted to use legal language. Almost all systems of law have a definition of "person" which is someone that can own property, or has the capacity to sue or be sued. Such "legal person" can be any human, but also a corporation. To construct a lujvo for this, I think we would use "prenu" rather than "remna" - humanity in the biological sense does not matter. flapre?? On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Christopher Doty <suomich...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hrm... Okay, I guess this is the same issue I was having with > person--namely, it's not clear what definition of the English word the > gismu has. > > Is it best to assume, then, that gismu are essentially free of any > connotations about desirability or undesirability (unless the gismu is > actually about such a thing, of course)? So any of the connotations > about the desirability or lack thereof would best be accomplished with > attitudinals as I did before (+ cu)? > > Chris > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 14:13, Alan Post <alanp...@sunflowerriver.org> > wrote: > > Irritating could be a description of the effect that spicy food has > > in your mouth, which could rightly be described as irritating, even > > when the endorphins generated make that something you desire. > > > > Something being an irritant, in a chemical sense, doesn't imply a > > value judgement about desirability. > > > > -Alan > > > >
