Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:28:46 +0200
From: mublin <mublin@dealloc.org>
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: angry conversations
Message-ID: <20080416232846.GP9672@grendel.dealloc.org>
References: <702226df0804152051h2170775bq87c5e53cdbd70872@mail.gmail.com> <1208384370.48067b72ae640@webmail.mail.rice.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1208384370.48067b72ae640@webmail.mail.rice.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Content-Length: 994

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.