Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 11:50:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711121650.LAA08780@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: Ironic Use of Attitudinals X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1135 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Nov 12 11:50:27 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Ashley Yakeley > At 1997-11-07 13:03, Logical Language Group wrote: > > >Since the attitudinals are intended to be expressions of internal states > >rather than statements about those internal states, a fluent speaker > >should not use attitudinals ironically. > > Doesn't follow. Consider ironic use of the English humour-attitudinal 'ha > ha', or perhaps the Yiddish attitudinal 'oy'. Or Wow! Phew! Cor! Ouch! etc. You are right that it is perfectly normal to use attitudinals ironically. Indeed, as with the literal/figurative dichotomy, the literal/ironic dichotomy can get pretty hard to make out. However, the usual way of signalling irony in English is through punctuation or intonation. Lojban (as one of its design goals) explicitly wants to avoid reliance on either; it certainly wants to avoid there being any systematic, conventional use of intonation. Therefore it would follow that attitudinals should only be used ironically if the irony does not need to be signalled in any particular way. And to be on the safe side, ironic use should be avoided altogether. That was a good question. --And