Re: my proposals for a philosophical language
| From: | Steg Belsky <draqonfayir@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Thursday, January 23, 2003, 5:04 |
|---|
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 04:41:05 -0000 "Bryan Maloney <slimehoo@...>"
<slimehoo@...> writes:
> --- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Steg Belsky <draqonfayir@J...>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 02:12:40 +0100 Andrew Nowicki <andrew@M...>
> > writes:
> > > circumcision = ynacici = "noun religious sexual manipulation"
> > Uh... that doesn't sound like 'circumcision' to me... sounds more
> like
> > the 'temple prostitute' phenomenon they had in a few ancient
> Middle
> > Eastern polytheistic religions. Maybe if it was specified as
> "*male*
> > sexual *organ*" it would work a bit better...
> Then what is female circumcision?
-
Not circumcision ;-) . Or at least, not the same kind of procedure as
male circumcision. In male circumcision, a part (the foreskin) is
amputated from the penis. In female circumcision (at least what i've
heard of it), not only is a piece of the clitoris amputated, but the
opening of the vagina is also sewn mostly shut. One is a 'chop off'
procedure, the other is an 'extract and close' procedure. And to get
back to why we're talking about this, a philolang or auxlang which is
trying to distinguish between things should (at least in my opinion) have
distinct words for male and female circumcision. Perhaps something like
"noun male non-medical sexual organ procedure" and "noun female
non-medical sexual organ procedure"; or the procedures' respective verbs
could be used in the compounds.
-Stephen (Steg)
"Dievas dave dantis; Dievas duos duonos."
Reply