From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Dec 12 14:06:19 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:06:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GuFlT-0001QP-4P for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:06:19 -0800 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.232]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GuFlK-0001QB-Ah for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:06:18 -0800 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i11so943431wra for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:06:09 -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=R62svB5KOprRLySOMbeY+H0AG+la9Atw7a0W1ANWkBMHDHaUZ4K9Z81pKK8QR7/Wo6tEC4P8k6hG2WRy+XWo5Bx2ACucFBEY63eAy9sVnxKyRqNGgGVR3LWsybd9Vfd7EgbiYO2IMs8knGMGuz7odVilwjH7rtfPpscEce/fV/Y= Received: by 10.78.205.7 with SMTP id c7mr20167hug.1165961167356; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:06:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.144.4 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:06:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:06:06 -0500 From: "Matt Arnold" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Does this mean what I think it means? In-Reply-To: <925d17560612101037p663ce657q7b22f62675d2ae7@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <457B3AC4.5070906@mindspring.com> <189107.14551.qm@web56405.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <925d17560612101037p663ce657q7b22f62675d2ae7@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 3837 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: matt.mattarn@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners Without declaring premature opposition to your proposal, I'm not convinced yet. As with any gismu, the definition of {mabla} covers a spread of closely-related meanings. Each gismu can be thought of a category with central canonical examples whose memberships are unquestioned, and some fringe cases whose membership is questionable but understandable. Certain traits carry more weight than others in determining whether a thing is within a category. In that case, the multiple tightly-bound, slightly-varied meanings of {mabla} are not a problem. It would be a problem if the meanings were unrelated or only loosely related. In fact, they are as tightly connected as can be reasonably expected of a set of units loose enough to blanket semantic space rather than perfectly tile it with no overlap. Restrict its meaning in this way, and another gismu will be next, and you'll find by this standard that there will be no end to it. Under the proposal, how would this new {mabla} be sufficiently different from {xlali}, or the new {zabna} be sufficiently different from {xamgu}, to merit separate root words? The change in x2 does not seem sufficiently important to merit the redundancy, and I would rather see an x4 for "in property" added to xamgu and xlali if you really want it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ old mabla: x1 is a derogative connotation/sense of x2 used by x3; x3 derogates/'curses at' x2 in form x1 new mabla: x1 is execrable/deplorable/wretched/shitty/awful/rotten/miserable/contemptible/crappy/inferior/low-quality in property x2 by standard x3; x1 stinks/sucks in aspect x2 according to x3 xlali: x1 is bad for x2 by standard x3; x1 is poor/unacceptable to x2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ old zabna: x1 is a favorable connotation/sense/way-of-looking-at x2 used by x3 new zabna: x1 is favorable/great/superb/fabulous/ dandy/outstanding/swell/ admirable/nice/ commendable/ delightful/desirable/enjoyable/ laudable/likable/lovable/ wonderful/praiseworthy/high-quality/cool in property x2 by standard x3; x1 rocks in aspect x2 according to x3 xamgu: good x1 is good/beneficial/nice/[acceptable] for x2 by standard x3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Also, we already have a perfectly servicable {dapma}: x1 curses/damns/condemns x2 to fate (event) x3 So I don't think {mabla} should be used to mean that. Its purpose is to change the semantics of another word. It is commenting on the _word_. A component of a lujvo is in this case being used to make a comment on the lujvo it forms. No, I'm sorry, it is. "Derogatory type of English" being the canonical case. That's why this was one of the first things I ever learned about Lojban from Lojbanists in actaul conversation: "{mabla} added to {glico} means English in the negative sense." There is nothing wrong with the English language, but adding {mabla} makes {malglico} mean "English in whatever way is a bad way to be English." If there is a bad way to be X, you make the lujvo "malX" and you are excluding all the good ways to be X. It's metalinguistic, sure, but so what? It can still be expressed as "broda type of brode" just like any other. To summarize: {mabla} is uniquely useful, you have not yet shown the harm of metalinguistic gismu, and I don't want its utility taken away to establish a clone of {xlali}. -Eppcott On 12/10/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > 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 > > > >