
ikopuku
- (n.) something one is allowed to do
- (n.) right
- (n.) a wave of one’s hand
Au emimu uila emi takemi u iema poe takoiki oi pou ikopuku.
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”
Notes: Okay! The first sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is in the books. Huzzah!
Today’s word derives from kopuku (“to wave at” or “to allow”), which, in turn, derives from kopu (“hand”). As you can see, the word ikopuku doesn’t really mean “right” in the same way as English “right”. Rather, it’s seen as a kind of allowance. It doesn’t seem to me that the notion of “right” as it exists in the Western world really makes sense in Kamakawi. Certainly, one’s parents disallow one from doing certain things when one is young, but that’s because one is a child. There are a people that haven’t known slavery, or even oppression, and what one does and doesn’t do is governed by one’s ability, and social morae, not law. And while no group of people ever live in harmony, without true disenfranchisement, it seems like the idea of a “right” would never come to exist—or, at least, not with the same meaning as it has today.
Now that I’ve presented all the vocabulary found in the first sentence, let’s examine it. Here’s the sentence with an interlinear and a more literal translation:
Au emimu uila emi takemi u iema poe takoiki oi pou ikopuku.
/n.s.pl. person-inch. all person carefree s.s.pl. even by-def.sg. vanity and by-def.pl. allowance/
“All people come into being carefree and they are even with respect to vanity and allowances.”
For those trying to figure out the syntax, it’s important to note that takemi there is acting as an adverb. Hopefully that should make everything make sense.
The idea, then, is that all people come into this world without worries (take that original sin!), and that, all things being equal, they’re equally vain, and are allowed to do the same things. Naturally, this is not true, at least as it’s written. If one is born male, one will never carry a child in one’s womb (Hollywood fantasies notwithstanding). But understood on a universal level, it holds.
This doesn’t seem to me like something that the Kamakawi would come up with independently. The real sticking point is that word ikopuku. I think that’s what one has to translate “rights” as, but “rights” implies external—and opposing—forces. I’m not sure if the Kamakawi would phrase it that way. Rather, I think the Kamakawi would use the word itou: a modified version of tou, “ability” (dang. I haven’t done either of those words yet…). This focuses not on what one is not (or cannot be) prevented from doing (and, really, that is the focus of the word “right”, as well as ikopuku), but on what one can do (and no external force is implied). That, it seems to me, makes more sense in Kamakawi.
Okay! Tomorrow, we embark on a new journey: The second sentence! Lots of fun in that one… Just wait and see! 