[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[lojban-beginners] Re: Does this mean what I think it means?

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 <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/9/06, Nathaniel Krause <nathanielkrause@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Ronald Guida <ronguida@mindspring.com> 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:
<http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=mabla>

(BTW, is it true that there is a $264 reward for guessing who the
poster was?)

mu'o mi'e xorxes