Is «seaq» symmetrical?

[acotis]

Is «seaq» symmetrical in meaning? If so, how would one translate the asymmetrical "fuck" from English?

[acotis]

And if not, how would the symmetrical meaning be achieved?

[xorxes]

I would say seaq is symmetrical, and you would use toi seaq or seaqtoi for the agent-patient one.

[acotis]

I don't think toi can do that. I interpret the word as meaning tao tỉaoȷēo ___, ___, ___, which simply implies that the x1 participant is willingly participating in the seaq.

[xorxes]

Why just willingly participating? The definition of toi says toi1 does it to toi2. So toi1 is the agent and toi2 the patient. A generic agent-patient relation is deffinitely worth having, so if toi is not it then there should be one.

[acotis]

The thing is, I'm not sure toi has the power to remove agency from the toi2. If seaq is symmetrical then presumably both slots are agentive, and I think tỏı sẻaq A B has to imply sẻaq A B, which implies that B is an agent as well.

Maybe a better route to take would be to say that seaq isn't symmetrical and means ___ fucks ___ and then the symmetrical meaning could be phrased as chẻo sẻaq. I'm not entirely sure how different the symmetrical and asymmetrical meanings should be, and if I'm being honest, I'm not all that qualified to figure it out!

[solpahi]

The definition of toi says toi1 does it to toi2. So toi1 is the agent and toi2 the patient. A generic agent-patient relation is deffinitely worth having, so if toi is not it then there should be one.

That's exactly what toı is.

[acotis]

That's exactly what toı is.

Does it have the ability to remove agency from the x2?

[solpahi]

I was just answering the question implicit in xorxes' comment ("is toi the generic agent-patient relation?". This is also answered in the notes field of the word (https://github.com/toaq/dictionary/blob/master/dictionary.json).

Does it have the ability to remove agency from the x2?

seaq is currently defined such that seaq(x,y) == x & y are the maximal participants in an event of seaq or so. Assuming that toi3 is the agent-patient relation itself, rather than any old relation on which an agent-patient relationship is imposed, the above definition of seaq just doesn't fit in toi3 (because it does not relate an agent to a patient).

But of course seaqtōı, the compound, can be asymmetric even if toi sẻaq is wrong. For toı sẻaq to be correct, lî sẻaq would have to be an acceptable answer to the question Tỏı hó súq hı rảı moq.

[acotis]

I was just answering the question implicit in xorxes' comment

Fair.

seaq is currently defined such that seaq(x,y) == x & y are the maximal participants in an event of seaq or so.

Wait, really? I think that makes it impossible to describe three people having sex with one another, since chẻo sẻaq sáq would say that each pair of them is a maximal seaq-haver.

Assuming that toi3 is the agent-patient relation itself, rather than any old relation on which an agent-patient relationship is imposed, the above definition of seaq just doesn't fit in toi3 (because it does not relate an agent to a patient).

This makes sense. I do like seaqtōı as a compound.

[solpahi]

Wait, really? I think that makes it impossible to describe three people having sex with one another, since chẻo sẻaq sáq would say that each pair of them is a maximal seaq-haver.

sẻaq shí gú -> chẻo sẻaq shí roı gú (= sáq). All the definition is meant to say is that seaq(x,y) excludes things that are neither among x nor among y. The number of referents in x roı y is not limited to any number.

[acotis]

chẻo sẻaq sáq = sẻaq A B na, ru sẻaq B C na, ru sẻaq C A. This isn't the same as sẻaq A, (B roı C) if it really is supposed to be maximal. (In fact, the former would mean something very strange if it is indeed meant to be maximal.)

[solpahi]

But sẻaq A B roı C means the same as chẻo sẻaq A roı B roı C

[acotis]

If that's to be the case, seaq can't assert maximality. Because if it did, then the latter would mean that (A + B) and (B + C) and (C + A) are each maximal participants in some instance of seaq, but that's nonsense unless you want to dream up a scenario where A and B are having one instance of sex, B and C are having another, and C and A are having yet a third.

[solpahi]

I don't follow.

Maximality is asserted of A roı B roı C. This means they make up all the participants, i.e., there are no other entities involved the seaq-event that are not among A roı B roı C. The combined referents of the two seaq-arguments make up the maximal seaq-havers (and how you split them up in the two places is irrelevant: sẻaq, A, (B roı C) == sẻaq, (A roı B), C)

[acotis]

If maximality is assert on the arguments of seaq, then it can't be used with cheo for groups of more than two people, because cheo makes N*(N-1)/2 separate claims. If you try to say chẻo sẻaq A roı B roı C then you are saying that:

• A and B (and no one else) are having sex
• B and C (and no one else) are having sex
• C and A (and no one else) are having sex

Which is impossible.

(I know "and no one else" isn't quite right, but you know what I'm getting at.)

[solpahi]

The "(and no on else)" adds no meaning in the individual pairings. Each sub-relation you listed is between two parties. "A and B are having sex" means the same as "A and B (and no one else) are having sex", but it is very poorly worded, because it sounds like it is denying the existence of other seaq events. However, we are talking about a particular event (or events, since there are three people involved in the example case), and each event has their own maximal parties. However, assuming that certain kinds of threesomes can't be broken down into individual pairings, then cheo would be inappropriate in those instances (under the strict each>each definition of cheo; less strict versions have also been proposed)

[acotis]

I see. In that case, we are now on the same page about what seaq currently means and how cheo interplays with that.

As a different sub-topic, I find it odd that seaq does in fact mean this. If the first and second slots are just going to be pooled anyway, maybe it would be better to have seaq have only one slot? Then it would be used as in sẻaq ȷí roı hó da.

[acotis]

Oh wait. I guess that would make it inconvenient to use with kuai. Maybe it's best as it is.

Oh, and the dictionary entries needs to be update to "n n".

[xorxes]

seaq can still be used as a unary predicate for " have sexual intercourse", right? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that that's how words like " is a sibling of " worked as well, with unsry " are siblings", but I can't find where.

As for toi, I was assuming it was like tao. I don't see anything in the definition of seaq that indicates that seaq1 or seaq2 have to be agent or patient (or can't be either or both).

Is tao juq not correct for " takes/assumes property ", even if juq1 need not be an agent?

Is toi fuo not correct for " touches "?

[acotis]

You might be thinking of this part of toaq.org, which sort of talks about this (but it concludes the opposite):

As for toi, I was assuming it was like tao. I don't see anything in the definition of seaq that indicates that seaq1 or seaq2 have to be agent or patient (or can't be either or both).

Oh I see. This whole time, when I talked about a symmetrical reading of seaq, I was thinking of both slots being agentive, instead of neither one being agentive.

I share your questions about tao ȷủq and toı fủo. Previously I would have said they are both correct, but now Hoemai has suggested (not declared to be official, just suggested) an interpretation where toi requires an agent-patient relationship, rather than imposing one on an arbitrary relation. That makes me unsure.

[xorxes]

I don't think I was thinking of that, no. Clearly "arguing with each other" is not something a single person can do.

I thought I had read somewhere, but maybe it wasn't about Toaq, that you could say for instance liqpia hó for "they are sisters", i.e. that the unary version of liqpia is pretty much the same as cheo liqpia. I am also almost sure that the example was "sisters". Unfortunately I am not sure if this was about Toaq or about something else.

Not sure what the difference between requiring and imposing would be. The way I understood it was that in satisfying relationship toi3, toi1 plays the role of agent and toi2 plays the role of patient. It shouldn't really matter how detailed the description of toi3 is.

[acotis]

It was probably about something else, since I'm pretty sure Toaq doesn't have that.

The difference between requiring and imposing is that "imposing" means toı actually grants agency to the first slot of the relationship (like you're thinking) and "requiring" means toı simply states "the first slot of this relationship is an agentive one", and if that's false, then toı doesn't apply. This would be useful in forming questions, because Tỏı súq hó hı moq? would then mean "What do you do to them?" rather than just "What relationship is there between you and them?"

[xorxes]

The question wouls still be "what do you do to them?" or "What relationship is there between you and them in which you play agent and they play patient?"

[acotis]

Hm, you might be right. Unless toi is incapable of stripping slots of their agency (despite being capable of imbuing slots with agency that wasn't there before). In that case, the question would also allow answers where both roles are agentive.