From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Wed Sep 13 00:35:13 2000
Return-Path: <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>
Received: (qmail 26470 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2000 07:35:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Sep 2000 07:35:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO hp.egroups.com) (10.1.2.220) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Sep 2000 07:35:11 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de
Received: from [10.1.2.56] by hp.egroups.com with NNFMP; 13 Sep 2000 07:35:11 -0000
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 07:35:03 -0000
To: lojban@egroups.com
Subject: Re: Eating glass, events, and rape
Message-ID: <8pnan7+oj8g@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <20000912211446.26240.qmail@pi.meson.org>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 2107
X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster
X-Originating-IP: 193.149.49.79
From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._Tueting_(T=FCting)?=" <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 4308

--- In lojban@egroups.com, "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@k...> wrote:

> Moving on abruptly to rape.  For no satisfactory reason, I was
puttering
> with translating "rape" into Lojban, and generally non-consent.  
> 
> OK.  So I'm wandering through my gi'uste in a boring class.  Let's
say I
> want to stick with {gletu} as the tertau: some sort of forced,
> non-consensual copulation (as opposed to other possible
interpretations of
> "rape").  Well, generally, finding a word for "non-consensual"
isn't easy!
> {zifre} is glossed as "willingly," but its definition doesn't mean
that; I
> can't take {tolzifre} to mean "unwillingly" but "required." 
Similar, the
> simpler {bapli} implies that it was forced... but not that it was
> unwilling.  I can force you to do something you want, too.  We need
the
> (futile) *resistance* to such force in this case (and similar more
common
> and less extreme situations too, of course).  {tugni} isn't the
right kind
> of "consent"; nor {sarxe}.  Hmm... Now that I've stated it as
dependent on
> resistance, what do you think of {se fapro gletu}, "opposed."  That
could
> work.  Other choices include {vlile}--which could just mean violent
but
> consensual, or {zekri}, which could mean incest or statutory rape,
not
> non-consensual.  Something like {palci} is a value judgement, and
makes a
> statement rather than describes... maybe it could be understood,
but it
> isn't the point, at least not the one I was looking at.

>From my (German) legal view, I'd tend to /se fapro gletu/ (after a
first glance, at least). "unwillingly" is essential, yet not 
sufficient, "forced" doesn't hit the point, because being not precise
enough. There has to be an *opponent will*, *expressed* (and *
understood* by the referent/agent of the verb) and *broken* (or at
least extinguished) by some means specified (force/
threatening). This seems to be expressed adequately in /se fapro/ 
x1 opposes/balances/contends against opponent(s) x2 (person/force
ind./mass) about x3 (abstract)
copulation of sort having to do with a person/a force being opposed
by x2

.aulun.