From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Oct 09 12:54:11 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_0); 9 Oct 2002 19:54:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 57331 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2002 19:54:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Oct 2002 19:54:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.66) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Oct 2002 19:54:11 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 12:54:11 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 09 Oct 2002 19:54:10 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Why linguists might be interested in Lojban (was: RE: Re: a new kind of fundamentalism Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 19:54:10 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Oct 2002 19:54:11.0275 (UTC) FILETIME=[A2F529B0:01C26FCD] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la lojbab cusku di'e > >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 Can you derogatively interpret, say, a person? Can you say for example: la djan mabla la djan >1. Many situations that are "mabla broda" are also "broda mabla", in which >case "mabla" alone applies. That is certainly the case with my understanding of mabla. See: http://66.111.43.200/~jkominek/nuzban/wiki/index.php?mabla But I'm not sure how it works if we go by the gi'uste definition. Can I say: le do creka cu mabla le ka skari with the official definition? If not, how would one say it? >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. So you point to a dog and say {valsi}, since {lu'e le gerku cu valsi} is true? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com