From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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. --la .filip.

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 gimste 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 gimste, 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.