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.) --xorxes

x3 is the person who holds x2 in contempt. --pne

That is correct for the official definition. But in usage, mabla is used by the derogator, to derogate, not by a third party talking about a derogator who derogates. It is used as a swear word, not to talk about swear words.

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 bancus. Last Modification: Monday 11 of December, 2006 19:36:33 GMT by xorxes.