Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 13:07:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802241807.NAA26189@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: Summary so far on DJUNO X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-UIDL: 7ff81f5b7ae5d920a14da2ddd8ceafe3 X-Mozilla-Status: 8013 X-From-Space-Date: Tue Feb 24 13:04:29 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - John: > > A better comparison would be with {viska}, which necessarily involves > > the eyes or other visual organs, but has no syntactic sumti place for > > the eyes. > > Well, not quite. Some organism x1 might be able to see without > actually having a visual organ; it might have fully distributed visual > reception. (I think this is actually true of some single-celled > creatures.) Okay, okay, cleverclogs. How about cinba (x1 kisses x2 at locus x3)? When I was in my early teens, a very important parameter was whether tongues were used (i.e. whether the kiss was - in suaviational rather than national terms - french). Come to think of it, it still is an important parameter. And kissing necessarily involves oral apparatus. Or does {cinba} cover caresses, as in the pink just kissed the black (said by snooker commentators)?