From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sun Dec 10 10:37:39 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:37:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GtTYR-0004c3-8H for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:37:39 -0800 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.187]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GtTYN-0004bw-EB for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:37:39 -0800 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c31so3067728nfb for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:37:34 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=VYcfJ/kerBEd+G/GXaDMasMLdidr+rWj4VQnrjdKiZrckybBjwu7x6VJGWXX1uFXaOreyxu02UN1QcTQWbpKTjgeDcBFLlVzGlEVd6VhIlLv90kshN9hX1snB42z9GkMmURmS5OhTvP8vV+o2foMKnA0LHfjl7sb6AsbhsyKXmw= Received: by 10.82.167.5 with SMTP id p5mr845941bue.1165775853652; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:37:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.82.115.20 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:37:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560612101037p663ce657q7b22f62675d2ae7@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 15:37:33 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Does this mean what I think it means? In-Reply-To: <189107.14551.qm@web56405.mail.re3.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <457B3AC4.5070906@mindspring.com> <189107.14551.qm@web56405.mail.re3.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 3832 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On 12/9/06, Nathaniel Krause wrote: > > Ronald Guida wrote: > > I read the following short conversation on the main Lojban list: > > > > (Person A) lo lijda prenu cu je'a carmi mabla [...] > > (Person A) Religious people are indeed extremely derogatory! [...] > Yeah, basically. Person A presumably meant to say {se mabla} rather than > {mabla}, which makes the first statement more sensible. Replacing {mabla} > with {se mabla}: > > Person A: "(I) do indeed intensely deride religion people." The gi'uste definition of {mabla} is hoplessly confused: mabla [ mal ] derogative x1 is a derogative connotation/sense of x2 used by x3; x3 derogates/'curses at' x2 in form x1 [bloody (British sense), fucking, shit]; {mabla} is thus defined in three inconsistent ways. According to the first definition, it is a relationship between a meaning and an expression, like {smuni}. Obviously neither x1 nor x2 of that first definition makes sense for {lo lijda prenu} because people are not expressions nor connotations/senses of expressions. The second definition (which is inconsistent with the first) would allow {lo lijda prenu} in the x2, it is possible to curse at people. But I doubt that's what the original poster had in mind. He wasn't informing us that he is in the habit of insulting religious people, or that he insulted them, or that he will insult them, nor even that he was in the process of insulting them. Even if all that is true, he did not give the impression to me that that is what he was trying to tell us. He was using the third definition of {mabla} (inconsistent with the two previous ones) to insult religious people (not to tell us that he was insulting them). He basically meant to say something like "religious people are shit". Even though this third definition of {mabla} is the least explicit one in the gi'uste, only appearing in brackets and with no explicit place structure, I do believe it is the correct one. {mabla} was meant and has mostly been used _as_ a derogatory word, _as_ a curse word, not as a word that _means_ "x1 is derogatory sense of (word/expression) x2", nor as a word that means "x3 curses at (person/object) x2". So even though I don't approve of the content of what the poster said, I have to admit that he used the word in the way I consider should be used to say what he meant. Here's how I think {mabla} ought to be defined: (BTW, is it true that there is a $264 reward for guessing who the poster was?) mu'o mi'e xorxes