Print

BPFK gismu Proposal: mabla and zabna

See xorxes' definitions at
mabla(external link)
and
zabna(external link) for the actual
definiton proposals.

We should distinguish the way mabla is used from the way it is
officially defined. mabla cannot mean "this selbri is used in a
derogatory fashion", because components of lujvo are not used to
make comments on the lujvo they form, much less on its use. The
actual usage definition of mabla is something like

"x1 is
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"

The official definition is something that could be used to talk
about language, but it is not what corresponds to the actual
usage of the word. mabla, in usage if not officially, is a
derogatory word, it doesn't mean "is a derogatory word".

The same applies to zabna.

From lojban-beginners:

> > 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.


Created by rlpowell. Last Modification: Tuesday 12 of December, 2006 00:05:24 GMT by rlpowell.