From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:53:41 2010
Return-Path: <LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Received: (qmail 15959 invoked from network); 25 Sep 1997 15:50:41 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6)
  by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 25 Sep 1997 15:50:41 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <12.FA85EC95@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 17:50:30 +0100
Date:         Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:48:35 -0600
Reply-To:     mark.vines@wholefoods.com
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         Mark Vines <vinesm@WHOLEFOODS.COM>
Subject:      {na'e} & oral sex
X-To:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>,
              LOJBAN@CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET> "Re: RV: na'e
              entails na?" (Sep 25,  3:52am)
Content-Length: 1692
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <goqUqH4PKXE.A.1h.110kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

la lojbab. spuda la .and. di'e

> Not having kept up, I would require an example of what
> might be equivalent to na'e that should not entail na
> in order to tackle this.

mi spuda la lojbab. di'e

Good grief!  You asked for examples earlier, so we've
been giving you examples for days.  Now you tell us you
haven't been reading our examples - & yet you "require"
more?!  How annoying!

Even so, I suppose one _more_ example won't hurt.

{le jvoste} gives {molgle}, from {moklu gletu}, as a word
for "oral sex".  That's fine so long as oral sex involves
{gletu}, meaning copulation or coitus.  But some forms of
oral sex (ranging from "rimming" to cunnilingus) don't
necessarily involve copulation or coitus.  They might, but
they don't _have_ to.

If we let {na'e} have the "weaker" meaning, which does
_not_ entail {na}, then we can compose a tanru or lujvo
that denotes _all_ varieties of oral sex.  For instance,
{moklu nalgle}, where {nalgle} comes from {na'e gletu}.
We could use {moklu datygle} for this, where {datygle}
comes from {drata gletu}, but {drata} is a gismu.  Surely
it would be useful to have the same sort of scalar
negation (expressing "other than" or "not necessarily")
in cmavo form.

And what about {pu'o gletu sepi'o le moklu}, which is not
quite {moklu datygle} & not yet {molgle}?

If we give {na'e} the "stronger" meaning, entailing {na},
then we might have trouble composing a single tanru or
lujvo of reasonable brevity that denotes _all_ forms of
oral sex that involve actions "other than" or "not
necessarily" copulation or coitus.  The best I can do is
{molkemcinpecyzukyjuvgle}.  Maybe it's just me but,
somehow, {molnalgle} seems easier.

co'omi'e markl.