From iad@MATH.BAS.BG Fri Sep 15 23:17:39 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21286 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2000 06:17:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Sep 2000 06:17:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lnd.internet-bg.net) (212.124.64.2) by mta2 with SMTP; 16 Sep 2000 06:17:37 -0000 Received: from math.bas.bg (ppp107.internet-bg.net [212.124.66.107]) by lnd.internet-bg.net (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id JAA13115 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:35:35 +0300 Message-ID: <39C30FD9.3878A59@math.bas.bg> Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:14:49 +0300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: RE:rape, etc. References: <8ptr13+1n92@eGroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Ivan A Derzhanski X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 4343 "Alfred W. Tueting (Tüting)" wrote: > --- In lojban@egroups.com, pycyn@a... wrote: > > Interestingly, it is not always the consent of the raped that is > > needed (statuatory again -- if the guardian consents -- provided > > the guardian is not also the raper -- it is not rape, regardless > > of the wishes of the minor. There have been some contrary cases > > lately, happily.) [...] > Please do not base your tanru creation on AMERICAN law (which > very, very often is weird enough [...]) - this doesn't seem > to be lojbanic philosophy either. Confusing US law with law in general is of course unlojbanic. But then the lojbanic thing is to say what one wants to say, is it not? If it is true that different legal systems have different definition of some concept, and if it is also true that they name it by words that have meanings outside those legal systems (I have used the word _rape_ and its counterparts in Bulgarian, Russian and perhaps other languages without ever having read its definition in any state's law), then why hunt for a single Lojban tanru or lujvo? > I now see that there can't be kind of legal definition - we have > to be fuzzy and just call it "criminal copulation" /zekri gletu/ > (zergletu) and leave it to the user what he/she (i.e. his/her > state's law) defines as criminal sexual intercourse. With all respect to your honour's trade, I'm having a problem with the `i.e.'. A speaker's idea of rape (or what have you) need not be the same as what the state's law defines as such. (In fact, when people do use some such word in its technical legal sense, they usually make a point of highlighting that, so unusual it is in non-technical discourse.) --Ivan