From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jun 23 01:38:30 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:38:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MJ1WP-0004cv-RI for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:38:30 -0700 Received: from eastrmmtao102.cox.net ([68.230.240.8]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MJ1WL-0004cc-1R for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:38:29 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo03.cox.net ([68.1.16.126]) by eastrmmtao102.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20090623083820.FHQI14603.eastrmmtao102.cox.net@eastrmimpo03.cox.net> for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:38:20 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([70.187.235.94]) by eastrmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id 7LeJ1c00822sj6m02LeJRB; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:38:18 -0400 X-VR-Score: -200.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=_FX67IaAu3UA:10 a=ox8jXKrOiz0kqM9N79QA:9 a=1fTt70IfVgL57TPzT6UA:7 a=bAENZmeixmqfGDxlwBnKosWsva8A:4 a=F2Lc7d0QQaNe7EV7:21 a=XCaEzNjARhrAtL8x:21 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4A409511.40504@lojban.org> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:40:49 -0400 From: Robert LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lojban List Subject: [lojban] Re: Regarding the gismu {vlagi}. References: <479039.23077.qm@web50403.mail.re2.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <479039.23077.qm@web50403.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 15687 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Lindar Greenwood wrote: > Hello there. I'm sending this to the mailing list (of which I do not believe I am a member, but I think I'll subscribe) and to Lojban general inquiries. > > Please follow me for a moment. > > {pinji} is either a clitoris or penis, as both are homologous. > {ganti} is either the testes or ovaries, as both are homologous. The definition for the latter is not so human-centric. We didn't include English words for non-human analogues for pinji because I don't know any. The same caveat applies to the words following - there is more than simple male-human/female-human homology intended. The intent was to cover as much of biological and sexual terminology word-space as possible with as few words as possible, but necessarily limited to the knowledge of educated English speakers with a selection of foreign language dictionaries at hand. > {vibna} is the vagina, for which there isn't a male equivalent. not in humans. The definition should probably have been written to explicit include non-human analogues, but again I don't know any words for same, and it probably depends on how one forms the analogy, exactly what should be included. I recall that we debated adding a separate word for cervix as well, but I think we decided that a tanru could satisfy the need - I'm not all that sure myself of the biological distinction. > {plibu} is the external genitalia (which is 'vulva' in English for the female parts, and for which there is no male-equivalent). The vulva is only part of the female external genitalia. Pudenda is the closer English language term for the human external genitalia, and can be used for both genders, but usually is used only for the female parts. > {vlagi} is the female external genitalia. It is *part* of the human female external genitalia, and possibly with analogues in other species - again something I pretend no expertise in. Whether there is a male analogue, I will leave for someone else to decide. Perhaps the foreskin could be expressed as nakvlagi. So far as I know, no Lojbanist has coined another word for it. We considered expressing vlagi as a tanru using ctebi. But we were too unsure that this wasn't a malglico metaphor. > To specify male vs. female of these (excepting vibna unless we're making a joke), we append {nak-} for male and {fet-} for female. That sort of thing was indeed the intent. At the time, the more versatile the potential metaphorical usage, the better. > So, isn't {vlagi} just taking up space when we could just as easily use {fetplibu} and use {vlagi} for something else? > The use seems extremely redundant, and I would love to know the opinions of the Lojban community (and officials) on this matter. The goal was to make sure that we had sufficient gismu to cover the commonly referred to words for body parts, for which of course only the sexual organs are differentiated between males and females, though other body parts have species analogues. I deferred considerably to my wife for perspective on which body parts rated gismu, and in this arena erred on the side of too many rather than too few, because sex-talk is rather too taboo in English (and probably in other languages) for someone not explicitly studying the subject linguistically to give an unbiased opinion. lojbab To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.