Re: RE:rape, etc.

["Alfred W. Tueting (Tüting)" <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>]

--- In lojban@egroups.com, Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@M...> wrote:

> 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?

Meanwhile I 've learned that the initial topic was meant to be
_non-consensual_ and *not* _rape_, yet now it is.
I agree that there is no need (and no way!) to create a universal
*legal* expression for it in Lojban. But, finding a *common*
expression for 
it, is nontheless useful (and even necessary).

> > 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.)

Essentially, it has to be! The idea! Not the legal definition itself!
 And people do! Otherwise, it would be deeply unfair getting
sentenced for 
murder, theft, rape etc.
 
By mentioning "fuzzy" /zergletu/ etc. I didn't want to make a
proposal but just point to a direction.

So, creating a Lojban word for _rape_ (don't like this expression,
_violation_ seems to be less idiomatic), one has to try giving the 
referent's common semantic idea. In order to not just give the idea
*one*  has in mind (as an American, German etc. citizen), it is
necessary 
to get hold of the common essence by comparing the expression
respective in other peoples' natlangs. I did so with regard to some
natlangs 
I've access to:
(1) In English, French, Italian etc. it's _violation_ (to force to),
(2) In German, it's expressed by _Vergewaltigung_ (Gewalt=force,
power, strength etc., here in the sense of _zwingen_ i.e.
_forcieren_),
(3) In Hungarian, it's _er?szakoskod?s_ (er?szakol=to
force by force etc.), legal: _er?szakos nemi k
?z?s?l?s_,
(4) In Romanian, it's (a) _violare_ (a viola=to violate) and (b)
_siluire_ (a silui=to force to, from: _sila_ sentiment de
aversiune/dezgust/
neplacere!!! - this doesn't at all comprise wanted painful violation
in the sense of masochism,
(5) Even in Chinese it is expressed as _qiangjian_ (±j¦l),
again: *forced* intercourse. (qiang2=strong, violent; _qiang2zhi4_
(±j¨î) 
coercion, compulsion. (again: *not* in the sense of vis haud
ingrata!) Chinese thinking usually is very often quite different from
Western 
views - here it is the same! You can already see this difference in
the second part of the above compound: _jian1_ (¦l inter. with
«Á) usually 
has the meaning of crafty, villainous, false, disloyal, corrupt,
dishonest, treacherous, deceitful, wicket, act as a traitor,
adultery, 
fornication, obscene, to ravish - etymological deriving from it's 2nd
character showing 'three women'. Here it's used for (illicit)
intercourse. 
It can be expressed even more precisely as _qingjian_ or _shunjian_
(±¡«Á or ¶¶«Á) what is "illicit intercourse with the consent of
the 
woman", _tongjian_ (³q«Á) what is "criminal intercourse" and
_jijian_ (Âû«Á) what is "sodomy" (ji1=chicken).

So, let's find a *common* Lojban expression for that stuff within
this area of globally shared idea!

BTW, the characters are in BIG5 encoding.

.aulun.