Re: closet conlanging

On Wed, 23 Dec 1998, Daniel J. O'Neil wrote:

> I'd like to thank everyone for their responses to my post. In the short
> time I've subscribed to this list, I've been impressed with both the
> intellectual felicity and probity of the contributors.
>
> I'm delighted that some of you seem to have created worlds in which
> differing sexual orientations are welcomed and cherished. I'd be
> delighted to learn more about them if their creators would like to
> contact me with further information (such as a URL). Jim, how can I find
> out more about Drun?
In my conlang "Hatas-oa" (most of which, unfortunately, is dead, dead,
dead, since I accidently threw away my notes) there were actually
completely different verbs for different orientations' sexual
activities.  For instance, "huvor" meant homosexual sex, (or the act of
performing homosexual sex, if a verb), while "shema" meant heterosexual
sex.  Therefore, the sentence

"ea poa huvor sho nehasa"
I  will homosex man good

could only be spoken by a man, while

ea poa shema sho nehasa

could only reasonably be spoken by a woman.

To say "ea huvor entea" (uh, "bugger you!" coloquially, I guess) was no
insult, just an expression of either hte bald fact, or expression of a
desire, although if the expression of a desire, "poa" most commonly would
be used.  To say, however, "ea shema entea" to a man, however, *is* an
insult, if said by another man.

--Patrick