From lojbab@lojban.org Wed Oct 09 02:47:58 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_0); 9 Oct 2002 09:47:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 82070 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2002 09:47:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Oct 2002 09:47:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao03.cox.net) (68.1.17.242) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Oct 2002 09:47:57 -0000 Received: from lojban.lojban.org ([68.100.206.153]) by lakemtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20021009094756.LUZE16428.lakemtao03.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 05:47:56 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021009052943.0313cc10@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: rlechevalier@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 05:38:47 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Why linguists might be interested in Lojban (was: RE: Re: a new kind of fundamentalism In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: Robert LeChevalier X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab 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