Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 07:52:41 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802251252.HAA09542@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: kissing (was: Re: Summary so far on DJUNO X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-UIDL: a120765932db55cd5f8b7bc89db55969 X-Mozilla-Status: 8003 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Feb 25 09:25:51 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - John: > > 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 - > > Okay, ya got me. "Suaviational"?? I survived "gynecolaly" all right, > but this one could be from "suave" or "sua via" (or are they > one and the same somehow?). > > Cough up, please. Alright, guv: it's a fair cop - I make words up. BUT: I just checked now & found _suaviation_ in OED 1st ed, which we have in our office (my colleague salvaged it when the library was THROWING IT AWAY!!). = "kissing". > > And kissing necessarily involves oral apparatus. > > Or does {cinba} cover caresses, as in > > > > the pink just kissed the black > > > > (said by snooker commentators)? > > Mathematicians, too. Circles and spheres are said to kiss when they > intersect at a single point only. I see no reason why, if people > can "sarji" a language, circles cannot "cinba". If you're imaginative enough, I'm sure circles can sneeze too. Or perform conjouring tricks or whatever. But is this not *metaphor*? I wonder this about the thread initiated recently by Jorge, about localist construal of properties - of properties construed as possessions and possession construed as location. I'm no opponent of unmarked metaphor, but when establishing word-meaning we do need to distinguish between core/literal meaning and peripheral/meaphorical meaning. --And.