Re: [lojban] Re: Why linguists might be interested in Lojban (was: RE: Re: a new kind of fundamentalism

[Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>]

At 10:26 PM 10/8/02 +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
>la robin.tr cusku di'e
> >The two Lojbanisms that really caught on amongst the players
> >were "mabla" (correct usage) and "le do mamta cu gerku" (incorrect, in
> >canonical Lojban).
>
>What do you call "correct usage" for {mabla}?
>
>I assume it was used as a swear word, which I agree should
>be correct usage.
>
>But the official definition says it is used to describe a swear
>word, not that it is one. ({zoi gy shit gy mabla}, but not {mabla}
>for "shit!") So it would not constitute correct usage for
>fundamentalists.

I disagree.  "mabla" alone is an observative of something derogatively 
interpreted

1. Many situations that are "mabla broda" are also "broda mabla", in which 
case "mabla" alone applies.
2. If "zoi gy shit gy mabla" then "lu'e (la'e zoi gy shit gy) 
mabla".  Metonymy is completely legit in observatives because of 
la'e/lu'e.  So is sumti-raising because of tu'a.

lojbab

-- 
lojbab                                             lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                    703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 http://www.lojban.org



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Plan to Sell a Home?
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/