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

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 19:54:10 +0000

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