Re: literalism [was: Re: [lojban] Re: looking at arjlujv.txt

[Invent Yourself <xod@sixgirls.org>]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote:

> >Lujvo are not as commonly needed as is commonly thought. There should be a
> >lujvo for toothbrush, but do we need one for rapist?
> 
> If we want to talk about someone who commits the crime of rape, we need a 
> word for the crime and the perpetrator.  Certainly a tanru will get 
> bothersome if repeated multiple times in the discussion.
> 


It can be tagged with an "it", or be referred to hence as "crime".



> >"Rapist", recalling
> >the long discussions held recently, fought by about 5 equally valid and
> >conflicting positions, is a word that cries out for a specific tanru when
> >it is introduced into a discussion.
> 
> So probably we need (at least) 5 lujvo for rapist, each with its own valid 
> place structure and emphasizing some aspect that the speaker is trying to 
> access.  There probably is no short lujvo that will capture all uses of the 
> English word "rape".



Since these tanru are all similar, we may have a problem with lujvo
collision. In this case it would be far from obvious which lujvo maps to
which tanru (and which reasonable tanru got shut out).

Also, if there are 5 words for rape, and each one gets used 1/5 of the
time, then the usage for each word might fall below a reasonable threshold
of demand, with respect to requiring a lujvo.


> 
> Probably "force-sex-crime" will work in most but leave loopholes - places 
> we would use English "rape" that don't fit, and maybe a few situations 
> where the word would fit that are not expressed with English "rape".


I recall the debates ending up in a more confused state than that.




-----
"...widespread, systematic and gross violations of human rights 
perpetrated by the Israeli occupying power, in particular mass 
killings...measures which constitute...crimes against humanity.''
UN Commission on Human Rights, 19 Oct 2000