WikiDiscuss

Somehow, the comments I received in an email from xorxes do not appear here. But I'll comment anyway.

A brief aside onto the separate topic of usage. In this case, usage be damned. This is not like the "la" rule for cmene, which nobody can manage to remember even though we know it. This is usable. We just clarify the English definition of {mabla} so it's less confusing, teach inexperienced newbies if they're using it wrong, and have done. English teachers can tell a user when they're using wrong English. If Lojban- of all the languages in the world-- would rather vandalize its own canon to conform to inexperienced Lojban newbies than tell them that they're using {mabla} wrong, what next? Cats and dogs will get married, the sun will not come up in the morning, and the earth's crust will be rent in twain, that's what.

But I don't believe that's at issue. If your argument is not the usage problems of newbies, but rather that the definition confuses those who look at it with a very fine-toothed comb, you can't employ the usage argument anyway.

xorxes said:

---

{xamgu} basically means "beneficial", and {xlali} basically means
"prejudicial". That's not quite the same as a derogatory or a laudatory
word. I could say something like:

ju'o pei lo vi mabla cu xamgu mi
"Are you sure this shit is good for me?"

---

Forgive me if I'm not following you, but how does that differ from {ju'o pei lo vi xlali cu xamgu mi}?

In an email to the beginner's list, Robin said:

---

In the first case, x1 is text and x2 is text or a concept; {zoi zoi fuck zoi cu mabla lo si'o gletu}. In the second case, x1 is text and x2 is a recipient of that text; {zoi zoi fuck zoi cu mabla do mi}.

You've also dropped one of the cases, which is that mabla claims to be "bloody (British sense), fucking, shit, goddamn;". This can't be reconciled with the above in any way that I can detect; mabla is a relationship involving swearing, it is not the swear words themselves.

---

I agree case three can't be reconciled. We need to tidy it up. We do not need to take the metalinguistic concept of 'derogative connotation' out of mabla and reduce it to just a stronger {xlali}.

I did not drop case three; that's why I mentioned we already have a perfectly serviceable word for "curse" ({dapma}), therefore we don't need case three. "Derogatory English" meaning the set of actual words in English which are swear words is {dapma glico}, not {mabla glico}.

{malglico} means "inappropriately English-like, in whatever ways or contexts Englishyness could ever be inappropriate." {.i le do patxu cu xlali patxu} means "Your pot is a bad tray." {.i le do patxu cu mabla palne} means "your pot is a tray-- in the bad sense." By making "tray" take a derogatory connotation, it is be used to tell a potter that his attempt at a pot possesses inappropriate traits of a tray, even though ordinarily there is nothing inherently wrong with tray-ness.

The most important words in the definitions of {mabla} and {zabna} that distinguish them from all other gismu are "sense" and "connotation". That makes them metalinguistic, modifying the connotation of other words negatively or positively. Find a way to keep that feature in the language-- whether it be by finding the correct predicate relationships, or by inventing new cmavo-- and your proposal will have my vote.

I suggest the clarification read as follows: "mabla: Example x1 possesses derogatory traits of/inappropriately resembles x2, inappropriate to context/use/purpose/opinion holder x3." x2 isn't necessarily text, by default it's the thing the text stands for, but there's no reason for the user not to indicate text in both x1 and x2; text can be considered as a thing after all.

It remains a way to insult and cast aspersions on things by negatively reflecting on their similarity to someone/something else. It preserves past expert usage. It stays different enough from xlali to be worth having, which I believe suggests that this respects the intent of the gismu list creators.

Oops, instead of {.i le do patxu cu xlali patxu} I meant {.i le do patxu cu xlali palne}. That was a typo.

(Responding to a post from Eppcott to lojban-beginners)

> Without declaring premature opposition to your proposal, I'm not convinced yet.
>
> As with any gismu, the definition of {mabla} covers a spread of
> closely-related meanings. Each gismu can be thought of a category with
> central canonical examples whose memberships are unquestioned, and
> some fringe cases whose membership is questionable but understandable.
> Certain traits carry more weight than others in determining whether a
> thing is within a category.

I have no problem with that, but that's not exactly the problem here.
The three definitions of {mabla} (two explicit ones and one implicit) are
incompatible with one another.

> In that case, the multiple tightly-bound, slightly-varied meanings of
> {mabla} are not a problem. It would be a problem if the meanings were
> unrelated or only loosely related. In fact, they are as tightly
> connected as can be reasonably expected of a set of units loose enough
> to blanket semantic space rather than perfectly tile it with no
> overlap. Restrict its meaning in this way, and another gismu will be
> next, and you'll find by this standard that there will be no end to
> it.

I disagree. The three definitions are not related in the way that "bottle"
and "urn" might be related, for example. They are related in the way that
"fish" and "to fish" might be related. We don't want the same word for
"x1 is a fish of species x2" and "x1 fishes fish x2" even though the two
are related.

Similarly using the same word for "x1 is a derogatory sense of word x2",
"x1 is an insult directed at x2", and "x1 is bloody fucking shit (in aspect
x2?)" makes absolutely no sense.

> Under the proposal, how would this new {mabla} be sufficiently
> different from {xlali}, or the new {zabna} be sufficiently different
> from {xamgu}, to merit separate root words? The change in x2 does not
> seem sufficiently important to merit the redundancy, and I would
> rather see an x4 for "in property" added to xamgu and xlali if you
> really want it.

{xamgu} basically means "beneficial", and {xlali} basically means
"prejudicial". That's not quite the same as a derogatory or a laudatory
word. I could say something like:

ju'o pei lo vi mabla cu xamgu mi
"Are you sure this shit is good for me?"

> --------------------------
> old mabla: x1 is a derogative connotation/sense of x2 used by x3; x3
> derogates/'curses at' x2 in form x1
>
> new mabla: x1 is
> execrable/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
>
> xlali: x1 is bad for x2 by standard x3; x1 is poor/unacceptable to x2
> --------------------------
> old zabna: x1 is a favorable connotation/sense/way-of-looking-at x2 used by x3
>
> new zabna: x1 is favorable/great/superb/fabulous/
> dandy/outstanding/swell/ admirable/nice/ commendable/
> delightful/desirable/enjoyable/ laudable/likable/lovable/
> wonderful/praiseworthy/high-quality/cool in property x2 by standard
> x3; x1 rocks in aspect x2 according to x3
>
> xamgu: good x1 is good/beneficial/nice/acceptable for x2 by standard x3
> --------------------------
> Also, we already have a perfectly servicable {dapma}: x1
> curses/damns/condemns x2 to fate (event) x3
>
> So I don't think {mabla} should be used to mean that. Its purpose is
> to change the semantics of another word. It is commenting on the
> _word_. A component of a lujvo is in this case being used to make a
> comment on the lujvo it forms.
>
> No, I'm sorry, it is. "Derogatory type of English" being the canonical case.
>
> That's why this was one of the first things I ever learned about
> Lojban from Lojbanists in actaul conversation: "{mabla} added to
> {glico} means English in the negative sense." There is nothing wrong
> with the English language, but adding {mabla} makes {malglico} mean
> "English in whatever way is a bad way to be English." If there is a
> bad way to be X, you make the lujvo "malX" and you are excluding all
> the good ways to be X. It's metalinguistic, sure, but so what? It can
> still be expressed as "broda type of brode" just like any other.

The lujvo makes more sense with the "new" mabla.

"derogatory type of English" would be English words such as "shit",
"fucking", etc, but that's not what malglico means.

> To summarize:
> {mabla} is uniquely useful, you have not yet shown the harm of
> metalinguistic gismu, and I don't want its utility taken away to
> establish a clone of {xlali}.

No utility is taken away, as far as I can see. It's just a matter of bringing
the definition in line with usage. {mabla} is used as a swear word, not as
a word that means "x1 is a swear word".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 09:25:39PM -0800, Eppcott wrote:
> A brief aside onto the separate topic of usage. In this case,
> usage be damned.

I couldn't disagree more, I don't think.

When everyone uses a word a particular way, that *is* its meaning.
That's what the meaning of a word *is*.

> This is not like the "la" rule for cmene, which nobody can manage
> to remember even though we know it. This is usable. We just
> clarify the English definition of {mabla} so it's less confusing,

How about so that it actually has some usefulness?

> But I don't believe that's at issue. If your argument is not the
> usage problems of newbies,

Not newbies, *everyone*, myself included. "malglico", if the first
definition of mabla is to be believed, means "x1 is a negative
connotation of English word x2". This is (1) totally useless and
(2) not how it's used.

> In the first case, x1 is text and x2 is text or a concept; {zoi
> zoi fuck zoi cu mabla lo si'o gletu}. In the second case, x1 is
> text and x2 is a recipient of that text; {zoi zoi fuck zoi cu
> mabla do mi}.
>
> You've also dropped one of the cases, which is that mabla claims
> to be "bloody (British sense), fucking, shit, goddamn;". This
> can't be reconciled with the above in any way that I can detect;
> mabla is a relationship involving swearing, it is not the swear
> words themselves.
> ---
> I agree case three can't be reconciled. We need to tidy it up.
> __We do not need to take the metalinguistic concept of 'derogative
> connotation' out of mabla and reduce it to just a stronger
> {xlali}.__

No one's suggesting that.

> I did not drop case three; that's why I mentioned we already have
> a perfectly serviceable word for "curse" ({dapma}),

Ummm.

{dapma} is *NOT* "fuck" or "shit" or "bloody" or "goddamit".
{dapma} is a ritual/magical expression about someone's future. The
two have nothing in common.

> therefore we don't need case three.

Yes, we really do, because that's how mabla is *actually used*.

> "Derogatory English" meaning the set of actual words in English
> which are swear words is {dapma glico}, not {mabla glico}.

Ummm.

Have you actually *read* the definitions? ""Derogatory English"
meaning the set of actual words in English which are swear words" is

• exactly* the first definition of {mabla}, and doesn't relate to

{dapma} in any way whatsoever.

> {malglico} means "inappropriately English-like, in whatever ways
> or contexts Englishyness could ever be inappropriate."

Yes, it does, but the first two definitions of mabla to *not* mean
that, and that is the problem.

> The most important words in the definitions of {mabla} and {zabna}
> that distinguish them from all other gismu are "sense" and
> "connotation". That makes them metalinguistic, modifying the
> connotation of other words negatively or positively. Find a way to
> keep that feature in the language-- whether it be by finding the
> correct predicate relationships, or by inventing new cmavo-- and
> your proposal will have my vote.

That is *exactly what we're trying to do*.

I really don't understand why you're arguing *against* xorxes when
he's trying to do exactly what your paragraph describes?

> I suggest the clarification read as follows: "mabla: Example x1
> possesses derogatory traits of/inappropriately resembles x2,
> inappropriate to context/use/purpose/opinion holder x3."

I have no idea what that means, sorry. Can you fill in the places,
please?

> x2 isn't necessarily text, by default it's the thing the text
> stands for,

What?

> but there's no reason for the user not to indicate text in both x1
> and x2; text can be considered as a thing after all.

Umm.

No, text really, really can't be considered as a thing; text is
text, and things are things, and ne'er the twain shall meet. If you
want a language that makes that line fuzzy, you know where to find
English.

zo mlatu != la'e zo mlatu; one is text, the other is a thing.

-Robin

Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> Not newbies, *everyone*, myself included. "malglico", if the first
> definition of mabla is to be believed, means "x1 is a negative
> connotation of English word x2". This is (1) totally useless and
> (2) not how it's used.

I don't see that, even under jvajvo. But of course "malglico" was
coined before jvojva were devised, and need not abide by the rules.
mabla is the modifier of the lujvo, and exactly how the tanru
modification works has some flexibility.

x1 is a form derogatively of English/English-speaking culture in aspect
x2, derogated by/in the judgment of x3

is a place structure that I think at least somewhat respects jvojva.

The x2 of mabla would be some sort of English concept that has been
misused in Lojban, and would be embedded in the x2 aspect. The
fundamental root that determines the place structure of the lujvo is
glico, not mabla.

>>In the first case, x1 is text and x2 is text or a concept; {zoi
>>zoi fuck zoi cu mabla lo si'o gletu}.

zoi gy fuck gy cu mabla le xlali be le bacru le bacru

zo gletu cu malglico fi mi fe le ka bau la lojban lo bacru ba'e na pilno
co smuni la'e lo si'o gletu

zo malglico cu mabla le nu srera bacru zo gletu tebaunai le se smuni
po'u zoi gy sexual copulation gy

Except in such an explanation I only use mabla as an observative which
probably should be expressed as an attitudinal of strong disapproval or
complaint, or as a modifier in a tanru (in which case the meaning is
applied similarly to malglico).

>>therefore we don't need case three.
>
> Yes, we really do, because that's how mabla is *actually used*.
>
>>"Derogatory English" meaning the set of actual words in English
>>which are swear words is {dapma glico}, not {mabla glico}.

I'm not sure that is correct. I would say that swearing is a form of
English attitudinal and thus is lo nu nalgleki ja tsali cinmo cusku
depending on the usage

> Ummm.
>
> Have you actually *read* the definitions? ""Derogatory English"
> meaning the set of actual words in English which are swear words" is
> *exactly* the first definition of {mabla}, and doesn't relate to
> {dapma} in any way whatsoever.

They are derogated as an aspect of formal English and thus another
possible sense of mabla glico that is not represented by malglico

>>{malglico} means "inappropriately English-like, in whatever ways
>>or contexts Englishyness could ever be inappropriate."
>
> Yes, it does, but the first two definitions of mabla to *not* mean
> that, and that is the problem.

Since malglico is a lujvo, it need not exactly reflect all the places of
the source gismu, but in this case it can partially be so, as shown above.

>>x2 isn't necessarily text, by default it's the thing the text
>>stands for,
>
> What?

The x2 is an aspect - an abstraction that explains why the usage is
being derogated

>>but there's no reason for the user not to indicate text in both x1
>>and x2; text can be considered as a thing after all.
>
> Umm.
>
> No, text really, really can't be considered as a thing; text is
> text, and things are things, and ne'er the twain shall meet. If you
> want a language that makes that line fuzzy, you know where to find
> English.

I agree x2 of mabla is an abstraction - a si'o seems good to me
x2 of malglico is an aspect (for which I usually use ka) of English
usage that has been inappropriately expressed in the form of x1

lojbab

On 12/13/06, Eppcott <wikidiscuss@lojban.org> wrote:
> Re: BPFK gismu Proposal: mabla and zabna
> Somehow, the comments I received in an email from xorxes do not
> appear here. But I'll comment anyway.

Yes, it appears that the only posts that show are those posted directly
on the wiki. I don't know where those sent with "reply" get stored.

> ju'o pei lo vi mabla cu xamgu mi
> "Are you sure this shit is good for me?"
> ---
> Forgive me if I'm not following you, but how does that differ from
> {ju'o pei lo vi xlali cu xamgu mi}?

{lo vi xlali} is "this harmful thing". {mabla} does not mean "harmful", it
means "shitty/despicable".

> {malglico} means "inappropriately English-like, in whatever ways
> or contexts Englishyness could ever be inappropriate."

Stronger than "inappropriate", but basically yes. {nalmapti} would
work for the blander "inappropriate".

> {.i le do patxu cu mabla palne} means "your pot is a tray-- in the bad
> sense." By making "tray" take a derogatory connotation, it is be used
> to tell a potter that his attempt at a pot possesses inappropriate traits
> of a tray, even though ordinarily there is nothing inherently wrong with
> tray-ness.

I would say it means "your pot is a fucking tray". Of course it does not
say there is anything inherently wrong with trayness. We don't seem to
disagree at all on the effect of {mabla} as a modifier. But to get that effect
{mabla} has to _be_ a derogatory word, not mean "is a derogatory word".

> The most important words in the definitions of {mabla} and {zabna}
> that distinguish them from all other gismu are "sense" and "connotation".

{smuni} is the relationship between the sense/connotation and the sense
carrier.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 05:36:24AM -0500, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> >Not newbies, *everyone*, myself included. "malglico", if the
> >first definition of mabla is to be believed, means "x1 is a
> >negative connotation of English word x2". This is (1) totally
> >useless and (2) not how it's used.
>
> I don't see that, even under jvajvo. But of course "malglico" was
> coined before jvojva were devised, and need not abide by the
> rules.

Of course; I was using it as an example.

> mabla is the modifier of the lujvo, and exactly how the tanru
> modification works has some flexibility.
>
> x1 is a form derogatively of English/English-speaking culture in
> aspect x2, derogated by/in the judgment of x3
>
> is a place structure that I think at least somewhat respects
> jvojva.

That makes almost no sense to me. Can you fill in all the places?

> The x2 of mabla would be some sort of English concept that has
> been misused in Lojban, and would be embedded in the x2 aspect.
> The fundamental root that determines the place structure of the
> lujvo is glico, not mabla.

• nod*

> >>In the first case, x1 is text and x2 is text or a concept; {zoi
> >>zoi fuck zoi cu mabla lo si'o gletu}.
>
> zoi gy fuck gy cu mabla le xlali be le bacru le bacru

Which of the three contradictory definitions of mabla are you using
here? In fact, this makes sense in no definition of mabla I've ever
understood.

In the first version (x1 is a derogative connotation/sense of x2
used by x3):

"Fuck" is a derogative sense of the bad-to-the-speaker thing,
according to the speaker.

which is non-sensical to me; what is the bad thing that "fuck" is
the derogative sense of, exactly?

In the second version (x3 derogates/'curses at' x2 in form x1):

"Fuck" is a curse directed at the bad-to-the-speaker thing, by the
speaker.

which may or may not be sensible depending on what le xlali is.

In the third version (bloody (British sense), fucking, shit,
goddamn), we have no idea what the place structure is.

> zo malglico cu mabla le nu srera bacru zo gletu tebaunai le se
> smuni po'u zoi gy sexual copulation gy

What the *hell* does "te bau nai" mean?? Now you're just making
shit up! Hell, I barely even know what "te bau" means by itself.

I'm going to pretend that "te bau nai" means "te bau na'e bo",
because that's the best I can do with that.

In the first version (x1 is a derogative connotation/sense of x2
used by x3):

"malglico" is a derogative connotation of the event of ...

That just makes no sense at all. Events don't have connotations.
Full stop.

In the second version (x3 derogates/'curses at' x2 in form x1):

"malglico" is a curse directed at the event of mistakenly uttering
"gletu" langually-expressing other-than the meaning of "sexual
copulation".

I have no idea if it makes sense to direct swearing at an event;
seems pretty marginal to me, but I'll let that go.

So, it seems to me that in both cases you are using the second
definition and utterly ignoring the first one, which supports our
point (that mabla is broken) greatly.

xorxes: What's wrong with the second definition as Bob is using it?
It seems useful enough, no?

> >>therefore we don't need case three.
> >
> >Yes, we really do, because that's how mabla is *actually used*.
> >
> >>"Derogatory English" meaning the set of actual words in English
> >>which are swear words is {dapma glico}, not {mabla glico}.
>
> I'm not sure that is correct. I would say that swearing is a form
> of English attitudinal and thus is lo nu nalgleki ja tsali cinmo
> cusku depending on the usage

Regardless, people try to do it in Lojban, myself included, and
we've been using mabla for that because we were told to, but the
first definition of mabla (at least) doesn't support that, even
though the paranthetical examples say it does.

-Robin

On 12/13/06, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 05:36:24AM -0500, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> >
> > zoi gy fuck gy cu mabla le xlali be le bacru le bacru
>
> "Fuck" is a curse directed at the bad-to-the-speaker thing, by the
> speaker.
...
> > zo malglico cu mabla le nu srera bacru zo gletu tebaunai le se
> > smuni po'u zoi gy sexual copulation gy
>
> "malglico" is a curse directed at the event of mistakenly uttering
> "gletu" langually-expressing other-than the meaning of "sexual
> copulation".
...
> So, it seems to me that in both cases you are using the second
> definition and utterly ignoring the first one, which supports our
> point (that mabla is broken) greatly.

Yes, lojbab is defending DEF2, and Eppcott was defending DEF1,
but neither of them addressed the issue that DEF1 and DEF2 are
incompatible with one another.

DEF1: x1 is a derogatory sense/connotation of (expression) x2 by std x3
DEF2: x1 (expression) is a curse directed at (person/object/event) x2 by x3
DEF3: x1 is bloody/fucking/shit/damned in aspect x2 by standard x3

DEF1 follows the place structure of {smuni}:
x1 is a meaning/interpretation of x2 recognized/seen/accepted by x3

DEF2 follows the place structure of {cmene}:
x1 is a/the name/title/tag of x2 to/used-by namer/name-user x3

DEF3 follows the place structure of {ruble} (among many others):
x1 is weak/feeble/frail in property/quality/aspect x2 (ka) by standard x3

Before even addressing which one of DEF1, DEF2 or DEF3 is the
real {mabla}, I think we need to agree that DEF1, DEF2 and DEF3
are incompatible with one another. Without this basic agreement,
discussing which one is better seems pointless.

> xorxes: What's wrong with the second definition as Bob is using it?
> It seems useful enough, no?

There is nothing wrong with it in itself. The problem is that it turns
{mabla} into nothing like a swear word. How many times have people
asked how to swear in Lojban and been told that {mabla} is the way
to do it? Why do we want to remove *the* swear word from the
language?

Besides, the meaning of DEF2 is easily obtained as a lujvo from DEF3
for example as {malcme} (or {malski} or {malsku} for other variations).
Similarly the meaning of DEF1 is easily obtained as {malsmu}. But how
do we get a swear word from DEF1 or DEF2 if we remove the swear-word
content from {mabla}?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>>mabla is the modifier of the lujvo, and exactly how the tanru
>>modification works has some flexibility.
>>
>>x1 is a form derogatively of English/English-speaking culture in
>>aspect x2, derogated by/in the judgment of x3
>>
>>is a place structure that I think at least somewhat respects
>>jvojva.
>
> That makes almost no sense to me. Can you fill in all the places?

I did.

zo gletu cu malglico fi mi fe le ka bau la lojban lo bacru ba'e na pilno
co smuni la'e lo si'o gletu

>>The x2 of mabla would be some sort of English concept that has
>>been misused in Lojban, and would be embedded in the x2 aspect.
>>The fundamental root that determines the place structure of the
>>lujvo is glico, not mabla.
>
> *nod*
>
>
>>>>In the first case, x1 is text and x2 is text or a concept; {zoi
>>>>zoi fuck zoi cu mabla lo si'o gletu}.
>>
>>zoi gy fuck gy cu mabla le xlali be le bacru le bacru
>
> Which of the three contradictory definitions of mabla are you using
> here? In fact, this makes sense in no definition of mabla I've ever
> understood.
>
> In the first version (x1 is a derogative connotation/sense of x2
> used by x3):
>
> "Fuck" is a derogative sense of the bad-to-the-speaker thing,
> according to the speaker.
>
> which is non-sensical to me; what is the bad thing that "fuck" is
> the derogative sense of, exactly?

When a speaker says "fuck" as an English cussword/attitudinal, which is
what I am assuming you were talking about, he is not attributing
copulatory function. He is cussing at something that he considers bad.
What that bad thing is, is something that the speaker wants to cuss
at/about, whatever it may be.

> In the second version (x3 derogates/'curses at' x2 in form x1):
>
> "Fuck" is a curse directed at the bad-to-the-speaker thing, by the
> speaker.
>
> which may or may not be sensible depending on what le xlali is.

My sentence fits that place structure in precisely the same way.

> In the third version (bloody (British sense), fucking, shit,
> goddamn), we have no idea what the place structure is.

That isn't a place structure, as should be obvious by the lack of x1, x2
etc. That is a possible keyword translation for mabla, most likely used
as a modifier in a tanru. Most of the stuff beyond column 160 are
alternative keyword translations, or explanations, or thesaurus entries,
or things someone might use in a text search of the gismu list, etc.

>>zo malglico cu mabla le nu srera bacru zo gletu tebaunai le se
>>smuni po'u zoi gy sexual copulation gy
>
> What the *hell* does "te bau nai" mean??

pg 206-207 of CLL

nai on a BAI is contradictory negation.

This is nothing new, but was an expansion of JCB's use of nai with the
mu'i/ki'u family of BAI modals, and dates from the beginning of Lojban.

> Now you're just making
> shit up! Hell, I barely even know what "te bau" means by itself.

It's something expressed in a language - the x3 of bangu

> I'm going to pretend that "te bau nai" means "te bau na'e bo",
> because that's the best I can do with that.

CLL in the above cited pages tells how to do both contradictory and
scalar negation of sumti tcita

> In the first version (x1 is a derogative connotation/sense of x2
> used by x3):
>
> "malglico" is a derogative connotation of the event of ...
>
> That just makes no sense at all. Events don't have connotations.
> Full stop.

Of course they do. Events have meanings, and connotation is a form of
meaning.

The Pearl Harbor attack had the meaning of a declaration of war to most
Americans.

Furthermore Lojban events refer merely to instances or states wherein a
selbri holds.

> In the second version (x3 derogates/'curses at' x2 in form x1):
>
> "malglico" is a curse directed at the event of mistakenly uttering
> "gletu" langually-expressing other-than the meaning of "sexual
> copulation".
>
> I have no idea if it makes sense to direct swearing at an event;
> seems pretty marginal to me, but I'll let that go.

Events are what most people swear at, by my observation. They may swear
at things or people, but usually in reaction to some event involving
that thing or person.

The way I intended my sentence to be understood which I think fits both
versions of the place structure, is

"malglico" derogates the erroneous utterance of "gletu" not to express
the meaning "sexual copulation"

i.e. if someone used the word gletu in Lojban the same way that people
use "fuck" or "fucking" in English.

> So, it seems to me that in both cases you are using the second
> definition and utterly ignoring the first one, which supports our
> point (that mabla is broken) greatly.

The two are intended to be paraphrases of each other, one a more
descriptive (adjectival) sense and the other a more active verbal sense,
because mabla is a word that is not primarily used as the central selbri
of a sentence.

>>>>"Derogatory English" meaning the set of actual words in English
>>>>which are swear words is {dapma glico}, not {mabla glico}.
>>
>>I'm not sure that is correct. I would say that swearing is a form
>>of English attitudinal and thus is lo nu nalgleki ja tsali cinmo
>>cusku depending on the usage
>
> Regardless, people try to do it in Lojban, myself included, and
> we've been using mabla for that because we were told to, but the
> first definition of mabla (at least) doesn't support that, even
> though the paranthetical examples say it does.

It is intended to support that. Like in other cases, the abbreviated
wording used to compress the place structures to fit within LogFlash
sometimes led to unclearness.

Remember that the place structures were NOT written to serve as baseline
definitions - that was a long-after-the-fact decision because people
were tired of my not getting the dictionary done, and justifiably
concerned that I might modify a place structure wording so as to
significantly change the meaning of a word which they felt was contrary
to the concept of baselining the gismu list (which baselining originally
meant only the words themselves and the keywords).

lojbab

On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 03:34:37PM -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> On 12/13/06, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> >xorxes: What's wrong with the second definition as Bob is using it?
> >It seems useful enough, no?

Since I snipped it:

DEF2: x1 (expression) is a curse directed at (person/object/event)
x2 by x3

> There is nothing wrong with it in itself. The problem is that it
> turns {mabla} into nothing like a swear word.

It does? le mabla at that point is a swear word, in fact.

> How many times have people asked how to swear in Lojban and been
> told that {mabla} is the way to do it? Why do we want to remove
> *the* swear word from the language?

It is true that you can't use DEF2 mabla to swear at someone, but
no-one does this anyways, that I've noticed; they do things like "do
mabla tolmencre", which is fine with DEF2, isn't it?

> Besides, the meaning of DEF2 is easily obtained as a lujvo from
> DEF3 for example as {malcme} (or {malski} or {malsku} for other
> variations). Similarly the meaning of DEF1 is easily obtained as
> {malsmu}. But how do we get a swear word from DEF1 or DEF2 if we
> remove the swear-word content from {mabla}?

By "swear word" you mean something like "x1 is shitty / fucking /
damned / bloody", yes? Is that not {se mabla} in DEF2?

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/

On 12/13/06, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 03:34:37PM -0300, Jorge Llambas wrote:
>
> DEF2: x1 (expression) is a curse directed at (person/object/event)
> x2 by x3
>
> > There is nothing wrong with it in itself. The problem is that it
> > turns {mabla} into nothing like a swear word.
>
> It does? le mabla at that point is a swear word, in fact.

Yes, but zo mabla isn't.

You don't swear by saying "swear word!", you swear by saying "crap!"
or some such.

> It is true that you can't use DEF2 mabla to swear at someone, but
> no-one does this anyways, that I've noticed; they do things like "do
> mabla tolmencre", which is fine with DEF2, isn't it?

No, I don't think anyone interprets that as "you are a swear-word idiot".

> By "swear word" you mean something like "x1 is shitty / fucking /
> damned / bloody", yes? Is that not {se mabla} in DEF2?

No, in DEF2, se mabla is "x1 is called nasty word x2 by x3".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Jorge Llambas wrote:
>> So, it seems to me that in both cases you are using the second
>> definition and utterly ignoring the first one, which supports our
>> point (that mabla is broken) greatly.
>
> Yes, lojbab is defending DEF2,

I was defending all three, which I see as being different expressions of
the same concept as the word mabla might be used in different roles of a
sentence.

> and Eppcott was defending DEF1,
> but neither of them addressed the issue that DEF1 and DEF2 are
> incompatible with one another.
>
> DEF1: x1 is a derogatory sense/connotation of (expression) x2 by std x3

There is no "expression" in the definition. I tend to associate x1 with
an expression.

However it does seem like my wording of DEF1 might lead some people to
think that a si'o abstraction belongs in x1. That is sloppiness in
wording, I agree, because the gismu list was baselined before we had
started clearly distinguishing expressions from the things that they
expressed in actual usage. (We had the capability to so distinguish,
using la'e, but I suspect that people can find more than a few places in
the gismu list where the two were confused.) This was when we were
still using le du'u for le sedu'u as well.

> DEF2: x1 (expression) is a curse directed at (person/object/event) x2 by x3
> DEF3: x1 is bloody/fucking/shit/damned in aspect x2 by standard x3

That "definition" is not in the gismu list at all. Those words beyond
column 160 are translations for mabla used as the modifier in a tanru,
and are not intended to imply any sort of distinct place structure, or I
would have included explicit places.

> DEF1 follows the place structure of {smuni}:
> x1 is a meaning/interpretation of x2 recognized/seen/accepted by x3
>
> DEF2 follows the place structure of {cmene}:
> x1 is a/the name/title/tag of x2 to/used-by namer/name-user x3
>
> DEF3 follows the place structure of {ruble} (among many others):
> x1 is weak/feeble/frail in property/quality/aspect x2 (ka) by standard x3
>
> Before even addressing which one of DEF1, DEF2 or DEF3 is the
> real {mabla}, I think we need to agree that DEF1, DEF2 and DEF3
> are incompatible with one another. Without this basic agreement,
> discussing which one is better seems pointless.

I don't agree. The definitions are intended to be the same, serving
different purposes - as I said, corresponding more or less to a nounal,
a verbal, and an adjectival sense. I will accept that if someone were
to interpret my wording in DEF1 as requiring an abstraction in x1, even
though I normally made that explicit when it was required, that the two
would be incompatible. But I intended an expression for x1 - perhaps
changing "is" to "has" would be a minimal change to make that clearer.

>> xorxes: What's wrong with the second definition as Bob is using it?
>> It seems useful enough, no?
>
> There is nothing wrong with it in itself. The problem is that it turns
> {mabla} into nothing like a swear word. How many times have people
> asked how to swear in Lojban and been told that {mabla} is the way
> to do it? Why do we want to remove *the* swear word from the
> language?

I can see where teaching "mabla as the Lojban swear word" is misleading.

It can be used in lieu of a swear word. But a real "swear word" would
be an attitudinal.

mabla by itself is an observative. And perhaps "se mabla" would be a
better observative use to "swear" - you are observing something that you
wish to derogate. standalone mabla itself should, by what I said above,
be an observative of an expression of derogation, and it works for those
of us who are still thinking in English, as an observative of the
expression which we want to say in a swearing reaction to an event.

I think, however, that "mabla as a swear word" is a reference to the
beyond-column-160 keywords. It can be used as a tanru modifier with the
resulting tanru being a form of cussing.

lojbab

On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 02:36:36PM -0500, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>
> >>mabla is the modifier of the lujvo, and exactly how the tanru
> >>modification works has some flexibility.
> >>
> >>x1 is a form derogatively of English/English-speaking culture in
> >>aspect x2, derogated by/in the judgment of x3
> >>
> >>is a place structure that I think at least somewhat respects
> >>jvojva.
> >
> >That makes almost no sense to me. Can you fill in all the
> >places?
>
> I did.
>
> zo gletu cu malglico fi mi fe le ka bau la lojban lo bacru ba'e na
> pilno co smuni la'e lo si'o gletu

Umm, no. "zo gletu" is a Lojban word; it isn't any kind of English,
let alone a derogative kind. If you had "lu ko gletu ko li'u" in
there, that would make some sense, although it doesn't look much to
me like the definition above; more like:

x1 is corrupted by English culture/language in aspect x2 according
to x3

which is nothing like mabla, and hence somewhat irrelevant to the
discussion. If it *is* like mabla, though, it's xorxes' mabla to a
T.

> >>>>In the first case, x1 is text and x2 is text or a concept;
> >>>>{zoi zoi fuck zoi cu mabla lo si'o gletu}.
> >>
> >>zoi gy fuck gy cu mabla le xlali be le bacru le bacru
> >
> >Which of the three contradictory definitions of mabla are you
> >using here? In fact, this makes sense in no definition of mabla
> >I've ever understood.
> >
> >In the first version (x1 is a derogative connotation/sense of x2
> >used by x3):
> >
> >"Fuck" is a derogative sense of the bad-to-the-speaker thing,
> >according to the speaker.
> >
> >which is non-sensical to me; what is the bad thing that "fuck" is
> >the derogative sense of, exactly?
>
> When a speaker says "fuck" as an English cussword/attitudinal,
> which is what I am assuming you were talking about, he is not
> attributing copulatory function. He is cussing at something that
> he considers bad. What that bad thing is, is something that the
> speaker wants to cuss at/about, whatever it may be.

That's the second definition, then: "x3 derogates/'curses at' x2 in
form x1". At no point, then, did you use the first definition. Good
to know.

> >In the second version (x3 derogates/'curses at' x2 in form x1):
> >
> >"Fuck" is a curse directed at the bad-to-the-speaker thing, by
> >the speaker.
> >
> >which may or may not be sensible depending on what le xlali is.
>
> My sentence fits that place structure in precisely the same way.

Which means it contradicts the first place struture in the
definition, which is my point here.

> >In the third version (bloody (British sense), fucking, shit,
> >goddamn), we have no idea what the place structure is.
>
> That isn't a place structure, as should be obvious by the lack of
> x1, x2 etc.

I'm pretty sure I just said that.

> That is a possible keyword translation for mabla, most likely used
> as a modifier in a tanru.

Except that that keyword translation doesn't match the first
definition, and may or may not match the second.

> Most of the stuff beyond column 160 are alternative keyword
> translations, or explanations, or thesaurus entries, or things
> someone might use in a text search of the gismu list, etc.

Yes, I'm well aware.

> >>zo malglico cu mabla le nu srera bacru zo gletu tebaunai le se
> >>smuni po'u zoi gy sexual copulation gy
> >
> >What the *hell* does "te bau nai" mean??
>
> pg 206-207 of CLL

I don't have mine here; what chapter and section?

> nai on a BAI is contradictory negation.

Contradictory negation of *what*, exactly? The only BAI+NAI I've
ever seen is with causals.

> >In the first version (x1 is a derogative connotation/sense of x2
> >used by x3):
> >
> >"malglico" is a derogative connotation of the event of ...
> >
> >That just makes no sense at all. Events don't have connotations.
> >Full stop.
>
> Of course they do. Events have meanings, and connotation is a
> form of meaning.
>
> The Pearl Harbor attack had the meaning of a declaration of war to
> most Americans.

Ummm.

No.

You're using the word "connotation" to mean "implication", which it
simply doesn't. Go look it up.

This may explain, however, why you seem to think the two definitions
of {mabla} are reconcilable.

> >In the second version (x3 derogates/'curses at' x2 in form x1):
> >
> >"malglico" is a curse directed at the event of mistakenly
> >uttering "gletu" langually-expressing other-than the meaning of
> >"sexual copulation".
> >
> >I have no idea if it makes sense to direct swearing at an event;
> >seems pretty marginal to me, but I'll let that go.
>
> Events are what most people swear at, by my observation. They may
> swear at things or people, but usually in reaction to some event
> involving that thing or person.
>
> The way I intended my sentence to be understood which I think fits
> both versions of the place structure, is
>
> "malglico" derogates the erroneous utterance of "gletu" not to
> express the meaning "sexual copulation"

Wow. That *utterly* fails to match "x1 is a derogative
connotation/sense of x2", and it disturbs me that you can't see
that. ""malglico" derogates" describes an event of derogation;
""malglico" is a derogative connotation" describes the identity of
"malglico". They have almost nothing to do with each other.

> >So, it seems to me that in both cases you are using the second
> >definition and utterly ignoring the first one, which supports our
> >point (that mabla is broken) greatly.
>
> The two are intended to be paraphrases of each other, one a more
> descriptive (adjectival) sense and the other a more active verbal
> sense, because mabla is a word that is not primarily used as the
> central selbri of a sentence.

That's nice, but it's not true. They are simply contradictory.

> It is intended to support that. Like in other cases, the
> abbreviated wording used to compress the place structures to fit
> within LogFlash sometimes led to unclearness.
>
> Remember that the place structures were NOT written to serve as
> baseline definitions - that was a long-after-the-fact decision
> because people were tired of my not getting the dictionary done,
> and justifiably concerned that I might modify a place structure
> wording so as to significantly change the meaning of a word which
> they felt was contrary to the concept of baselining the gismu list
> (which baselining originally meant only the words themselves and
> the keywords).

I'm not sure what your point is here; it can't be an admission of
mabla's broken-ness because you just stated the untenable position
that you think it isn't broken.

-Robin

On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 05:01:23PM -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> On 12/13/06, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
>
> >It is true that you can't use DEF2 mabla to swear at someone, but
> >no-one does this anyways, that I've noticed; they do things like
> >"do mabla tolmencre", which is fine with DEF2, isn't it?
>
> No, I don't think anyone interprets that as "you are a swear-word
> idiot".

No, I use it to turn "tolmencre" into a swear word, which seems to
me to be what's wanted.

> >By "swear word" you mean something like "x1 is shitty / fucking /
> >damned / bloody", yes? Is that not {se mabla} in DEF2?
>
> No, in DEF2, se mabla is "x1 is called nasty word x2 by x3".

Ah, true.

-Robin

On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 03:03:53PM -0500, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> Jorge Llambías wrote:
> >>So, it seems to me that in both cases you are using the second
> >>definition and utterly ignoring the first one, which supports
> >>our point (that mabla is broken) greatly.
> >
> >Yes, lojbab is defending DEF2,
>
> I was defending all three, which I see as being different
> expressions of the same concept as the word mabla might be used in
> different roles of a sentence.

That's...

Umm.

That's insane. Sorry.

-Robin

On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 10:00:58AM -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> On 12/13/06, Eppcott <wikidiscuss@lojban.org> wrote:
> >Re: BPFK gismu Proposal: mabla and zabna Somehow, the comments I
> >received in an email from xorxes do not appear here. But I'll
> >comment anyway.
>
> Yes, it appears that the only posts that show are those posted
> directly on the wiki. I don't know where those sent with "reply"
> get stored.

That's A Fucking Bug. I'll go take a look; I guess someone broke
imports yet again.

-Robin

On 12/13/06, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
> Jorge Llambas wrote:
>
> > DEF1: x1 is a derogatory sense/connotation of (expression) x2 by std x3
>
> There is no "expression" in the definition. I tend to associate x1 with
> an expression.

Yes, but an expression is not a sense/connotation. An expression
_has_ a sense/connotation.

> This was when we were
> still using le du'u for le sedu'u as well.

OK, so we agree that the two definitions, _as worded_, are incompatible.

> > DEF3: x1 is bloody/fucking/shit/damned in aspect x2 by standard x3
>
> That "definition" is not in the gismu list at all.

I know. That's the one I think corresponds to the real usage and original
intent of mabla, but it is not explicit in the gismu list, only implicit in the
bracket comments.

> I will accept that if someone were
> to interpret my wording in DEF1 as requiring an abstraction in x1, even
> though I normally made that explicit when it was required, that the two
> would be incompatible. But I intended an expression for x1 - perhaps
> changing "is" to "has" would be a minimal change to make that clearer.

That still wouldn't make DEF1 and DEF2 compatible, because in one
case x2 would be the sense of expression x1 and in the other case it
would be its referent, but it would at least make them closer.

It would still leave us without a word to swear with, only a word to talk
about swearing.

> I can see where teaching "mabla as the Lojban swear word" is misleading.
>
> It can be used in lieu of a swear word. But a real "swear word" would
> be an attitudinal.

If mabla as DEF1/DEF2 is used in lieu of a swear word, that would be the
paroxism of euphemistic use.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 12:13:53PM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 10:00:58AM -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> > On 12/13/06, Eppcott <wikidiscuss@lojban.org> wrote:
> > >Re: BPFK gismu Proposal: mabla and zabna Somehow, the comments
> > >I received in an email from xorxes do not appear here. But I'll
> > >comment anyway.
> >
> > Yes, it appears that the only posts that show are those posted
> > directly on the wiki. I don't know where those sent with "reply"
> > get stored.
>
> That's A Fucking Bug.

Hey, Bob: How would you say that in Lojban? Take "srera" for "bug".

-Robin

On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 05:14:57PM -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> On 12/13/06, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
> >I will accept that if someone were to interpret my wording in
> >DEF1 as requiring an abstraction in x1, even though I normally
> >made that explicit when it was required, that the two would be
> >incompatible.

I don't see any other way to read it; everyone I've talked to about
it has read it that either x1 or x2 needs an abstraction.

Most of us read x1 as being the words and x2 as being the
abstraction, but Eimi points out that that's wrong: if you look in a
dictionary, only words have connotations, and connotations are
ideas.

Therefore, in the first definition, x1 is a derogative connotation /
sense of x2 used by x3, it is definately the case that x1 is an idea
(an abstraction) and x2 is some words.

If that's not what you intended, then we certainly have a problem.

-Robin

I prefer doing this in public, so I'm continuing to post to the wikidiscuss page. I have taken my time with this today. I have taken several hours to mull this over and work on it. I'm afraid that I have still made errors in the following, and used some English words with less than the perfect rigor of clarity required for this task. I hope very much that I'm casting more light than heat on this discussion.

> Before even addressing which one of DEF1, DEF2 or DEF3 is the
> real {mabla}, I think we need to agree that DEF1, DEF2 and DEF3
> are incompatible with one another. Without this basic agreement,
> discussing which one is better seems pointless.

I agree in full that those are the three meanings as currently written, and that they are incompatible with one another.

> I would say it means "your pot is a fucking tray". Of course it does not
> say there is anything inherently wrong with trayness. We don't seem to
> disagree at all on the effect of {mabla} as a modifier. But to get that effect
> {mabla} has to _be_ a derogatory word, not mean "is a derogatory word".

> How many times have people
> asked how to swear in Lojban and been told that {mabla} is the way
> to do it? Why do we want to remove *the* swear word from the
> language?

This is not what I remember. Discussions of swearing in Lojban take place in one forum or another almost bimonthly, and yes, they all involve {mabla}. Your memory seems to contradict one part of the consensus I've always heard: in almost every such discussion I have participated in, someone has said that we cannot select a series of phonetic sounds and artificially make it a swear word. No fiat on our part can infuse {mabla} with taboo shock value.

Eppcott:
>>> __We do not need to take the metalinguistic concept of 'derogative
>>> connotation' out of mabla and reduce it to just a stronger {xlali}.__

Robin:
>> No one's suggesting that.

Xorxes:
>> {lo vi xlali} is "this harmful thing". {mabla} does not mean "harmful", it
means "shitty/despicable".

So someone probably is, indeed, suggesting that. Unless I have missed elements of the definition that you're trying to convey, "shitty/despicable" seems like a type of "harmful", just more emotional about it. Perhsps you can elaborate.

>>> {malglico} means "inappropriately English-like, in whatever ways
>>> or contexts Englishyness could ever be inappropriate."

>>Stronger than "inappropriate", but basically yes. {nalmapti} would
>>work for the blander "inappropriate".

I meant 'out of context' or 'good in another context, bad in this one', not a milder or less emotionally-laced version of 'xlali'. Yes, {mapti} has important elements of the semantics, but doesn't make a value judgement of an unflattering comparison between x1 and x2, just as {smuni} does not.

Actually, I may just have hit on the key to getting across what I mean. Insults usually involve making a value judgement of an unflattering comparison between x1 and x2.

Here's another try at the wording:

mabla derogatory x1 is unflatteringly compared to the x2 to context/use/purpose/value-judger x3.

{mapti}, {xlali} and {smuni} don't do this. It is the only way that I have seen in the past few years to insult in a practical, definable fashion without trying to artificially make up a swear word like "gorram" as if we are Joss Whedon. The above meaning has always been my implicit understanding of the gloss word, before you brought the poorly-worded definition to my attention.

Usage examples of my proposed wording (and perhaps you can help me refine it to better convey the following in a formally-worded definition):

{.i le do patxu cu mabla lo palne}

Your pot is unflatteringly traylike. I am making a big fat emotionally-loaded value judgement about your stupid pot's undesired similarity to trays.

{.i le nu do cusku zo klama kei cu malglico zoi .gy. orgasm .gy. le nu do djaci lu tamglefri li'u}

Your use of the lojban word for 'come' is unflatteringly English-y for 'orgasm' in context/use/purpose of you wanting "tamglefri".

Also if there were words for 'hamster' and 'elderberries' in Lojban you could say .i le do mamta cu mabla lo smacyxamsta .i le do patfu selpanci lo jbarr,elde (Pardon my deplorable fu'ivla.)

On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 12:13:53PM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 10:00:58AM -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> > On 12/13/06, Eppcott <wikidiscuss@lojban.org> wrote:
> > >Re: BPFK gismu Proposal: mabla and zabna Somehow, the comments
> > >I received in an email from xorxes do not appear here. But I'll
> > >comment anyway.
> >
> > Yes, it appears that the only posts that show are those posted
> > directly on the wiki. I don't know where those sent with "reply"
> > get stored.
>
> That's A Fucking Bug. I'll go take a look; I guess someone broke
> imports yet again.

Fixed.

-Robin

On 12/13/06, Eppcott <wikidiscuss@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> Your memory seems to contradict one part of the consensus I've always
> heard: in almost every such discussion I have participated in, someone
> has said that we cannot select a series of phonetic sounds and artificially
> make it a swear word. No fiat on our part can infuse {mabla} with taboo
> shock value.

I agree with that. {mabla} is not the taboo-breaking type of swear word
that often involves sex, religion or bodily functions. {mabla} is a more
plain kind of swearing that involves simple derogation.

> Here's another try at the wording:
>
> mabla derogatory x1 is unflatteringly compared to the x2 to
> context/use/purpose/value-judger x3.
>
> Usage examples of my proposed wording (and perhaps you can help me refine it to better convey the following in a formally-worded definition):
>
> {.i le do patxu cu mabla lo palne}
>
> Your pot is unflatteringly traylike. I am making a big fat emotionally-loaded
> value judgement about your stupid pot's undesired similarity to trays.

That seems quite acceptable to me. Using {lo palne}
instead of {lo ka ce'u palne} in x2 is no problem. So neither
x1 nor x2 carry a quoted word.

> {.i le nu do cusku zo klama kei cu malglico zoi .gy. orgasm .gy.
> le nu do djaci lu tamglefri li'u}

This involves the place structure of {malglico}, which would be a separate
topic.

> Also if there were words for 'hamster' and 'elderberries' in Lojban you
> could say .i le do mamta cu mabla lo smacyxamsta .i le do patfu
> selpanci lo jbarr,elde (Pardon my deplorable fu'ivla.)

No problem.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 12:35:33PM -0800, Eppcott wrote:
> > Before even addressing which one of DEF1, DEF2 or DEF3 is the
> > real {mabla}, I think we need to agree that DEF1, DEF2 and DEF3
> > are incompatible with one another. Without this basic agreement,
> > discussing which one is better seems pointless.
>
> I agree in full that those are the three meanings as currently
> written, and that they are incompatible with one another.
>
> > I would say it means "your pot is a fucking tray". Of course it
> > does not say there is anything inherently wrong with trayness.
> > We don't seem to disagree at all on the effect of {mabla} as a
> > modifier. But to get that effect {mabla} has to _be_ a
> > derogatory word, not mean "is a derogatory word".
>
> > How many times have people asked how to swear in Lojban and been
> > told that {mabla} is the way to do it? Why do we want to remove
> > *the* swear word from the language?
>
> This is not what I remember. Discussions of swearing in Lojban
> take place in one forum or another almost bimonthly, and yes, they
> all involve {mabla}. Your memory seems to contradict one part of
> the consensus I've always heard: in almost every such discussion I
> have participated in, someone has said that we cannot select a
> series of phonetic sounds and artificially make it a swear word.
> No fiat on our part can infuse {mabla} with taboo shock value.

Clearly none of those discussions involved me, because I don't *use*
swear words for taboo shock value. I use them for emphasis.
"That's a fucking bug" isn't intended to shock anyone, it's intended
(as bob said) basically as an atitudinal, and when bridi-fied, I use
mabla for that attitudinal.

> Eppcott:
> >>> __We do not need to take the metalinguistic concept of
> >>> 'derogative connotation' out of mabla and reduce it to just a
> >>> stronger {xlali}.__
>
> Robin:
> >> No one's suggesting that.
>
> Xorxes:
> >> {lo vi xlali} is "this harmful thing". {mabla} does not mean
> >> "harmful", it means "shitty/despicable".
>
> So someone probably is, indeed, suggesting that. Unless I have
> missed elements of the definition that you're trying to convey,
> "shitty/despicable" seems like a type of "harmful", just more
> emotional about it.

Aaah, OK. I see your point now.

Yes, that is pretty much exactly the word I want, and (more
importantnly) it is exactly how we've been teaching people to use
mabla, as per my {mabla tolmencre} example, which everyone seems
fine with for "fucking idiot".

> Actually, I may just have hit on the key to getting across what I
> mean. Insults usually involve making a value judgement of an
> unflattering comparison between x1 and x2.

Yes, they certainly do.

> Here's another try at the wording:
>
> mabla derogatory x1 is unflatteringly compared to the x2 to
> context/use/purpose/value-judger x3.

Which definition is that a variant on? I'm going to guess it's a
variant on DEF1, because otherwise it's something entirely new.

I'm going to not explain to you all the ways I don't understand this
definition, in favour of looking at your examples below.

> {mapti}, {xlali} and {smuni} don't do this. It is the only way
> that I have seen in the past few years to insult in a practical,
> definable fashion without trying to artificially make up a swear
> word like "gorram" as if we are Joss Whedon. The above meaning has
> always been my implicit understanding of the gloss word, before
> you brought the poorly-worded definition to my attention.

OK. Let's play with that then.

> Usage examples of my proposed wording (and perhaps you can help me
> refine it to better convey the following in a formally-worded
> definition):
>
> {.i le do patxu cu mabla lo palne}
>
> Your pot is unflatteringly traylike. I am making a big fat
> emotionally-loaded value judgement about your stupid pot's
> undesired similarity to trays.

Umm.

That's something like "x1 is badly / unflatteringly / with insult
intended similar to x2 according to x3".

I hate to break it to you, but that's xorxes' definition:

x1 stinks/sucks in aspect x2 according to x3

The only difference is that he has a property in the x2 and you
don't, so that his version would be

{.i le do patxu cu mabla lo ka palne}

In other words, the definition you grokked from context and usage
and keywords is exactly (barring the ka/thing distinction) the one
that xorxes came up with to fill those needs.

> {.i le nu do cusku zo klama kei cu malglico zoi .gy. orgasm .gy.
> le nu do djaci lu tamglefri li'u}
>
> Your use of the lojban word for 'come' is unflatteringly English-y
> for 'orgasm' in context/use/purpose of you wanting "tamglefri".

The x3 is a *context*? Oh, you have
"context/use/purpose/value-judger". OK, so it's just the ever-popular
"by standard x3".

Again:

x1 is execrable / deplorable / wretched / shitty / awful / rotten /
miserable / contemptible / crappy / inferior / low-quality in
property x2 by standard x3

This is just xorxes' definiton, but with a thing in the x2 instead
of a property.

> Also if there were words for 'hamster' and 'elderberries' in
> Lojban you could say .i le do mamta cu mabla lo smacyxamsta .i le
> do patfu selpanci lo jbarr,elde (Pardon my deplorable fu'ivla.)

Yep, that's xorxes' definition with implicit sumti raising (that is,
a thing in the x2 instead of a property). In xorxes' version the
first is:

.i le do mamta cu mabla lo ka sacyxamsta

Your mother sucks in that she's a hamster.

More colloquially: Your mother is a fucking *hamster*.

This certainly captures what the French intended, IMO.

Whether the x2 is a ka or a thing is almost totally irrelevant, but
ka is nice as it lets us do things a bit more complicated/subtle.

-Robin

On 12/13/06, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
>
> Whether the x2 is a ka or a thing is almost totally irrelevant, but
> ka is nice as it lets us do things a bit more complicated/subtle.

It is also more consistent with the rest of the language, as it is
basically the same place structure of banli/barda/bilga/certu/cinla/
clite/cmalu/dukse/ganra/jarki/mulno/pluja/ruble/tsali/virnu/vitno/zasni,
plus a whole lot of others that have no "by standard" place and
another lot that have some additional place inserted in some more
or less random position. It would be even better if the place
structures were even more systematic, of course, as they would be
easier to learn.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>>>>mabla is the modifier of the lujvo, and exactly how the tanru
>>>>modification works has some flexibility.
>>>>
>>>>x1 is a form derogatively of English/English-speaking culture in
>>>>aspect x2, derogated by/in the judgment of x3
>>>>
>>>>is a place structure that I think at least somewhat respects
>>>>jvojva.
>>>
>>>That makes almost no sense to me. Can you fill in all the
>>>places?
>>
>>I did.
>>
>>zo gletu cu malglico fi mi fe le ka bau la lojban lo bacru ba'e na
>>pilno co smuni la'e lo si'o gletu
>
> Umm, no. "zo gletu" is a Lojban word; it isn't any kind of English,

It's use as a cuss word is English-speaking culture.

> let alone a derogative kind.

Most cuss words are derogative in nature

> If you had "lu ko gletu ko li'u" in
> there, that would make some sense,

That would be another malglico use of gletu as a cuss word. But most
commonly I hear "fuck" used as a general purpose negative attitudinal,
and using gletu as a standalone cuss word would be a malglico reflection
of that English-language cultural usage.

> although it doesn't look much to
> me like the definition above; more like:
>
> x1 is corrupted by English culture/language in aspect x2 according
> to x3

"Corrupted" is a polite way to derogate a particular usage.

>>When a speaker says "fuck" as an English cussword/attitudinal,
>>which is what I am assuming you were talking about, he is not
>>attributing copulatory function. He is cussing at something that
>>he considers bad. What that bad thing is, is something that the
>>speaker wants to cuss at/about, whatever it may be.
>
> That's the second definition, then: "x3 derogates/'curses at' x2 in
> form x1". At no point, then, did you use the first definition.

I used both definitions. But I meant something different by the first
definition than you are apparently understanding.

>>>In the second version (x3 derogates/'curses at' x2 in form x1):
>>>
>>>"Fuck" is a curse directed at the bad-to-the-speaker thing, by
>>>the speaker.
>>>
>>>which may or may not be sensible depending on what le xlali is.
>>
>>My sentence fits that place structure in precisely the same way.
>
> Which means it contradicts the first place struture in the
> definition, which is my point here.

It doesn't, the way I meant the first place structure.

>>That is a possible keyword translation for mabla, most likely used
>>as a modifier in a tanru.
>
> Except that that keyword translation doesn't match the first
> definition, and may or may not match the second.

It matches either, if you understood what I meant when I wrote the first
definition.

Suggestion: try to phrase the 2nd place structure as a noun

>>>>zo malglico cu mabla le nu srera bacru zo gletu tebaunai le se
>>>>smuni po'u zoi gy sexual copulation gy
>>>
>>>What the *hell* does "te bau nai" mean??
>>
>>pg 206-207 of CLL
>
>
> I don't have mine here; what chapter and section?

Chapter on sumti tcita, section on negation, towards the end of the
chapter (my book is upstairs).

>>nai on a BAI is contradictory negation.
>
> Contradictory negation of *what*, exactly? The only BAI+NAI I've
> ever seen is with causals.

Yep, and that set the usage, which the cited section generalized.

>>>In the first version (x1 is a derogative connotation/sense of x2
>>>used by x3):
>>>
>>>"malglico" is a derogative connotation of the event of ...
>>>
>>>That just makes no sense at all. Events don't have connotations.
>>>Full stop.
>>
>>Of course they do. Events have meanings, and connotation is a
>>form of meaning.
>>
>>The Pearl Harbor attack had the meaning of a declaration of war to
>>most Americans.
>
> Ummm.
>
> No.
>
> You're using the word "connotation" to mean "implication", which it
> simply doesn't. Go look it up.

Sorry, but the dictionary agrees with me (see 1b)
> Main Entry: connotation
> Pronunciation: "k-n&-'tA-sh&n
> Function: noun
> 1 a : the suggesting of a meaning by a word apart from the thing it explicitly names or describes
> b : something suggested by a word or thing : IMPLICATION
> <the connotations of comfort that surrounded that old chair>

>>Events are what most people swear at, by my observation. They may
>>swear at things or people, but usually in reaction to some event
>>involving that thing or person.
>>
>>The way I intended my sentence to be understood which I think fits
>>both versions of the place structure, is
>>
>>"malglico" derogates the erroneous utterance of "gletu" not to
>>express the meaning "sexual copulation"
>
> Wow. That *utterly* fails to match "x1 is a derogative
> connotation/sense of x2", and it disturbs me that you can't see
> that. ""malglico" derogates" describes an event of derogation;

In English, events are usually expressed as verbs. Definition 1 is an
attempt to express an event of derogation such that x1 is a noun or a
predicate adjective, so that people would know what le mabla meant.
Obviously it failed.

I would be interested if you could phrase definition 2 such that it
gives a noun or adjective meaning for x1 (i.e. x1 is a ...) that you
understand as meaning the same thing as x2. If you can, then maybe we
can reach agreement on a replacement wording for definition 1.

> ""malglico" is a derogative connotation" describes the identity of
> "malglico".

Identity???

A derogative connotation comes from an expression that derogates.

>>>So, it seems to me that in both cases you are using the second
>>>definition and utterly ignoring the first one, which supports our
>>>point (that mabla is broken) greatly.
>>
>>The two are intended to be paraphrases of each other, one a more
>>descriptive (adjectival) sense and the other a more active verbal
>>sense, because mabla is a word that is not primarily used as the
>>central selbri of a sentence.
>
> That's nice, but it's not true. They are simply contradictory.

Or you are using a more restricted set of English definitions than I am.

>>It is intended to support that. Like in other cases, the
>>abbreviated wording used to compress the place structures to fit
>>within LogFlash sometimes led to unclearness.
>>
>>Remember that the place structures were NOT written to serve as
>>baseline definitions - that was a long-after-the-fact decision
>>because people were tired of my not getting the dictionary done,
>>and justifiably concerned that I might modify a place structure
>>wording so as to significantly change the meaning of a word which
>>they felt was contrary to the concept of baselining the gismu list
>>(which baselining originally meant only the words themselves and
>>the keywords).
>
> I'm not sure what your point is here; it can't be an admission of
> mabla's broken-ness because you just stated the untenable position
> that you think it isn't broken.

It is a statement that sometimes what you call "broken" means merely
that I tried to say something in too few words, such that it isn't
clear. I don't consider "unclear" to be "broken".

lojbab

Jorge Llambas wrote:
> That still wouldn't make DEF1 and DEF2 compatible, because in one
> case x2 would be the sense of expression x1 and in the other case it
> would be its referent, but it would at least make them closer.
>
> It would still leave us without a word to swear with, only a word to talk
> about swearing.

It is a word to talk about derogative connotations. As an observative
(maybe it should be "se mabla") it observes the implication of derogation.

As an adjectival swear word, like British "bloody" or American
"fucking", I think mabla works. I can accept the possible need for an
explicit cussword attitudinal, though IMHO oicai or i'enaicai have that
force. But maybe people want something that is explicitly a cussword.
In which case I suggest something in experimental space, since cussing

is normally informal and unapproved usage %) or maybe it is a euphemism for

"avoiding use of a swear word"???

lojbab

Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 12:13:53PM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>
>>On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 10:00:58AM -0300, Jorge Llambas wrote:
>>
>>>On 12/13/06, Eppcott <wikidiscuss@lojban.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Re: BPFK gismu Proposal: mabla and zabna Somehow, the comments
>>>>I received in an email from xorxes do not appear here. But I'll
>>>>comment anyway.
>>>
>>>Yes, it appears that the only posts that show are those posted
>>>directly on the wiki. I don't know where those sent with "reply"
>>>get stored.
>>
>>That's A Fucking Bug.
>
>
> Hey, Bob: How would you say that in Lojban? Take "srera" for "bug".

The obvious answer is "malgletu srera" or more simply "mabla srera"
given the current discussion, and I would understand either expression
that way, but I would say

la'ede'u srera .oicai

is more Lojbanic.

Nora, feeling that "gletu" has nothing to do with it, suggests "malplise
srera" (or any other totally irrelevant gismu preceded by mal-) to
emphasize that it has nothing to do with copulation. Thinking further,
she suggests maljenca might work in the sense that it is a
obnoxiously-stunning error.

mabla works for someone who just wants to express the derogation and not
think about the nature of why one is derogating the situation, and that
fits the normal intent of cussing, though not as good as an attitudinal
would.

lojbab

Jorge Llambías scripsit:

> DEF1: x1 is a derogatory sense/connotation of (expression) x2 by std x3
> DEF2: x1 (expression) is a curse directed at (person/object/event) x2 by x3
> DEF3: x1 is bloody/fucking/shit/damned in aspect x2 by standard x3

Well, after reading all the messages to date, I'm going to propose the
following four-place structure for _mabla_:

x1 is the referent/cursee/bad thing (object/event)
referred to by text/phrase/word x2 (sedu'u) which is given
a derogative sense x3 (ka) by person/standard x4.

I think it's important for the referent to be x1, so that the observative
"mabla" can be used as a swear-word, but I'm not wedded to the order of
the other places. This place structure subsumes all three definitions
thus: DEF1 has the sense, text, and standard; DEF2 has the text,
referent, and person; DEF3 has the referent, sense, and standard.

I also notice that "Your father is a *@#$* idiot" and "Your mother is
a *@#$* hamster" are in fact different and reflect different Lojban
syntaxes. The first one is "le do patfu mabla tolmencre", because your
father is an idiot, whereas the second is "le do mamta -hamster mabla",
because your mother is not actually a hamster — she is a hamsterly-cursed
thing; "le ka -hamster" is the mabla3 place.

> How many times have people asked how to swear in Lojban and been
> told that {mabla} is the way to do it? Why do we want to remove *the*
> swear word from the language?

I agree.

--
John Cowan cowan@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan
If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing
on my shoulders.
--Hal Abelson

John Cowan wrote:
> Jorge Llambías scripsit:
>
>
>>DEF1: x1 is a derogatory sense/connotation of (expression) x2 by std x3
>>DEF2: x1 (expression) is a curse directed at (person/object/event) x2 by x3
>>DEF3: x1 is bloody/fucking/shit/damned in aspect x2 by standard x3
>
>
> Well, after reading all the messages to date, I'm going to propose the
> following four-place structure for _mabla_:
>
> x1 is the referent/cursee/bad thing (object/event)
> referred to by text/phrase/word x2 (sedu'u) which is given
> a derogative sense x3 (ka) by person/standard x4.

I could live with it.

>
> I think it's important for the referent to be x1, so that the observative
> "mabla" can be used as a swear-word, but I'm not wedded to the order of
> the other places. This place structure subsumes all three definitions
> thus: DEF1 has the sense, text, and standard; DEF2 has the text,
> referent, and person; DEF3 has the referent, sense, and standard.
>
> I also notice that "Your father is a *@#$* idiot" and "Your mother is
> a *@#$* hamster" are in fact different and reflect different Lojban
> syntaxes. The first one is "le do patfu mabla tolmencre", because your
^cu
> father is an idiot, whereas the second is "le do mamta -hamster mabla",
> because your mother is not actually a hamster — she is a hamsterly-cursed
> thing; "le ka -hamster" is the mabla3 place.

lojbab

On 12/14/06, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> wrote:
>
> Well, after reading all the messages to date, I'm going to propose the
> following four-place structure for _mabla_:
>
> x1 is the referent/cursee/bad thing (object/event)
> referred to by text/phrase/word x2 (sedu'u) which is given
> a derogative sense x3 (ka) by person/standard x4.
>
> I think it's important for the referent to be x1, so that the observative
> "mabla" can be used as a swear-word, but I'm not wedded to the order of
> the other places. This place structure subsumes all three definitions
> thus: DEF1 has the sense, text, and standard; DEF2 has the text,
> referent, and person; DEF3 has the referent, sense, and standard.

What would be the advantage of conflating the three relationships into
one word? The disadvantage is that the word is harder to learn and
use, because a word that has a regular place structure (shared by 50
other words, say) is easier to learn than one that has a sui-generis
place structure.

Why is it important for {mabla} to have a place for a word/expression?
It is easy to form a lujvo for "cuss-word" (malvalsi, malcmene,
ve malskicu, etc) but it is very hard/unwieldly to get rid of a place from
a place structure when it is not required.

I think the proposed four-place {mabla} is an improvement over the current
situation, but that it is the perpetuation of the mistake of preferring
complex and hard to combine place structures over simple and productive
ones.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> What would be the advantage of conflating the three relationships into
> one word?

Swearing inherently involves a text, I think; mabla is appropriate
not just when we vaguely think someone's mother is a hamster, but
when we *say* so.

--
Clear? Huh! Why a four-year-old child John Cowan
could understand this report. Run out cowan@ccil.org
and find me a four-year-old child. I http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
can't make head or tail out of it.
--Rufus T. Firefly on government reports

On 12/14/06, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> wrote:
>
> Swearing inherently involves a text, I think; mabla is appropriate
> not just when we vaguely think someone's mother is a hamster, but
> when we *say* so.

But we use mabla to say so, not to say that we say so.

If {mabla} is a word used to insult or derogate, it does not
have to be, and indeed should not be, the word used to
assert that someone is swearing/insulting/derogating
someone or something.

If mabla is used to say that someone is swearing or being
insulting or derogatory, then it would not be a swear-word.

If I say {ta mabla}, I am being derogatory. I don't have to
have some other insulting word in mind besides the one I'm
using, namely {mabla}. Same when I say {le do mamta
cu mabla lo ka smacu kei lo fatci}: "Your mother is a
fucking mouse by any objective standard". It's an insult.
What other word has to be part of the relationship that I am
insultingly asserting?

It doesn't make sense to use a word meaning "swear" as
a swear-word, or as a derogatory word.

There seems to be a persistent confusion between use and
mention in this thread. {mabla} has to be a word _used_ to
swear, not a word used to talk _about_ swearing. It has to be
a swear-word, not a word meaning "swear-word".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Jorge Llambas wrote:

> On 12/14/06, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> wrote:
>>
>> Swearing inherently involves a text, I think; mabla is appropriate
>> not just when we vaguely think someone's mother is a hamster, but
>> when we *say* so.
>
> But we use mabla to say so, not to say that we say so.

I agree completely with Jorge here. To quote Douglas Hofstadter, you can't
have your "use" and "mention" it too.

--
Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/
7% unemployment is no problem, according to 93% of the population.