From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Sat Sep 16 05:18:54 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29169 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2000 12:18:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Sep 2000 12:18:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mr.egroups.com) (10.1.1.37) by mta2 with SMTP; 16 Sep 2000 12:18:54 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.2.208] by mr.egroups.com with NNFMP; 16 Sep 2000 12:18:54 -0000 Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:18:48 -0000 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: RE:rape, etc. Message-ID: <8pvof8+bgeq@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <39C30FD9.3878A59@math.bas.bg> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Length: 3989 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 193.149.49.79 From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._Tueting_(T=FCting)?=" --- In lojban@egroups.com, Ivan A Derzhanski 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=20 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. >=20 > 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=20 murder, theft, rape etc. =20 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=20 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=20 to get hold of the common essence by comparing the expression respective in other peoples' natlangs. I did so with regard to some natlangs=20 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=3Dforce, power, strength etc., here in the sense of _zwingen_ i.e. _forcieren_), (3) In Hungarian, it's _er=9Aszakoskod=87s_ (er=9Aszakol=3Dto force by force etc.), legal: _er=9Aszakos nemi k =9Az=9As=9Fl=8Es_, (4) In Romanian, it's (a) _violare_ (a viola=3Dto violate) and (b) _siluire_ (a silui=3Dto 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_ (=B1j=A6l), again: *forced* intercourse. (qiang2=3Dstrong, violent; _qiang2zhi4_ (=B1j=A8=EE)=20 coercion, compulsion. (again: *not* in the sense of vis haud ingrata!) Chinese thinking usually is very often quite different from Western=20 views - here it is the same! You can already see this difference in the second part of the above compound: _jian1_ (=A6l inter. with =AB=C1) usually=20 has the meaning of crafty, villainous, false, disloyal, corrupt, dishonest, treacherous, deceitful, wicket, act as a traitor, adultery,=20 fornication, obscene, to ravish - etymological deriving from it's 2nd character showing 'three women'. Here it's used for (illicit) intercourse.=20 It can be expressed even more precisely as _qingjian_ or _shunjian_ (=B1=A1=AB=C1 or =B6=B6=AB=C1) what is "illicit intercourse with the consen= t of the=20 woman", _tongjian_ (=B3q=AB=C1) what is "criminal intercourse" and _jijian_ (=C2=FB=AB=C1) what is "sodomy" (ji1=3Dchicken). 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.