From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Apr 16 20:24:39 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:24:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JmKjn-0005Rf-U2 for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:24:39 -0700 Received: from web56413.mail.re3.yahoo.com ([216.252.111.92]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JmKji-0005R1-Eg for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:24:39 -0700 Received: (qmail 5124 invoked by uid 60001); 17 Apr 2008 03:24:27 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=RqizDkPPxIA+RQgaQWPfZFvkPsF08MrjsydTyB2SNGbkEepgriWjp95sCbgLp6TihBQ0ssUKTfpU5MRtuk5tZUVtaUmlSVcc0M8FgnbqOMywdAtpimB30sqWnDzJwpfieKt1VVFB/LOpBpBEuQmSrHMI21gwLD/J5YkAhqIOVug=; X-YMail-OSG: 4HyIf10VM1nKxtgmX6Ioqvo3hfHQNwrL8Z9EGuje8yjN0vGhRaNObW8gSh1sQ1yDxHCfNITsIctJZWzZllZacgr2OzOFYBc- Received: from [71.239.170.88] by web56413.mail.re3.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:24:27 PDT Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:24:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Nathaniel Krause Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: angry conversations To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <20080416232846.GP9672@grendel.dealloc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1781819249-1208402667=:4670" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <738174.4670.qm@web56413.mail.re3.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 494 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: nathanielkrause@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners --0-1781819249-1208402667=:4670 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit mublin wrote: On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 05:19:30PM -0500, mls1@rice.edu wrote: > Supposing someone were rather irritated at someone else, and wanted > to say something along the lines of {ko cliva gi'e gletu ko > le'o}. If they were more irritated, they may want something a little > faster to say. Would {ko livgle ko} carry a similar effect? What > else might be stronger? If {gletu} had some meaning as an insult, then {livgle} would seem a perfectly valid lujvo to me. I have two objections to the use of {livgle} as "fuck off". Firstly, the gismu definitions seem to be quite restrictive as to which metaphors are culturally neutral and therefore permissible. While lujvo are inherently metaphors, {livgle} is based on the use of the gismu {gletu} itself as a metaphor, which does not seem culturally neutral. Secondly, it does not seem in the spirit of the gismu corpus to attach a negative or derogatory meaning to either {gletu} or anything else involved in {lo zu'o gletu}. -- mu'o mi'e mublin. I agree, mublin. If you made a short list of the conventional English-language metaphors which we particularly do not want to see inflitrate Lojban, the casual conflation of sex and violence which is implied by "fuck" would be on it. If you do want to express the badness of the act, such as in the case of an angry conversation, I don't see a problem with using "malgle", as in "ko malgle ko" mu'o mi'e sen --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. --0-1781819249-1208402667=:4670 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit mublin <mublin@dealloc.org> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 05:19:30PM -0500, mls1@rice.edu wrote:
> Supposing someone were rather irritated at someone else, and wanted
> to say something along the lines of {ko cliva gi'e gletu ko
> le'o}. If they were more irritated, they may want something a little
> faster to say. Would {ko livgle ko} carry a similar effect? What
> else might be stronger?

If {gletu} had some meaning as an insult, then {livgle} would seem a
perfectly valid lujvo to me. I have two objections to the use of
{livgle} as "fuck off".

Firstly, the gismu definitions seem to be quite restrictive as to
which metaphors are culturally neutral and therefore
permissible. While lujvo are inherently metaphors, {livgle} is based
on the use of the gismu {gletu} itself as a metaphor, which does not
seem culturally neutral.

Secondly, it does not seem in the spirit of the gismu corpus to attach
a negative or derogatory meaning to either {gletu} or anything else
involved in {lo zu'o gletu}.

--
mu'o mi'e mublin.
I agree, mublin. If you made a short list of the conventional English-language metaphors which we particularly do not want to see inflitrate Lojban, the casual conflation of sex and violence which is implied by "fuck" would be on it.

If you do want to express the badness of the act, such as in the case of an angry conversation, I don't see a problem with using "malgle", as in "ko malgle ko"

mu'o mi'e sen

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. --0-1781819249-1208402667=:4670--