Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 05:28:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711111028.FAA26428@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Ashley Yakeley Sender: Lojban list From: Ashley Yakeley Subject: Re: Ironic Use of Attitudinals X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2997 X-From-Space-Date: Tue Nov 11 05:28:08 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU At 1997-11-10 13:34, Rick Nylander 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'. > >Lojbab is referring to _lojban_ attitudinals as being expressions of >internal states. Obviously, but attitudinals in other languages are also expressions of internal states, rather than statements about those internal states, and yet they are used ironically. Therefore, the same quality in lojban attitudinals does not imply they cannot also be used ironically. ... >I interpret the refgram as saying that the listener should accept >attitudinals at face value, and that therefore the speaker should use >them as such. ("Used sincerely, not ironically.") I don't believe the refgram prohibits ironic use of attitudinals as not lojban, but only declares that lojban attitudinals have no _a priori_ ironic assumptions, as perhaps some English attitudinals do. In fact, I don't believe the refgram would have the authority to forbid such use, any more than it would have the authority to declare that one should never tell jokes in lojban, or that one should never offend people in lojban. Why? Because language's role in communication is the expression of meaning as text (sound or image). A language has no place dictating further interpretations of that meaning, or how one should react to that meaning. >If someone says {.oiro'o} in conversation, then you should look for blood. But they could be mocking you. Such mockery may be most effective when the language matches sincere usage. As far as the language is concerned, the meaning is the same -- physical pain of the speaker. But the usage might be so inappropriate that _that meaning_ is itself a sign for something else... the punchline of a joke, for instance. >Attitudinals constitute the meta-linguistic features that are used in >conversation such as smiles. No, they are not _the_ meta-linguistic features, they are just _some_ meta-linguistic features. Their existence does not stop you using _other_ meta-linguistic features not specified by lojban (such as smiling) if you feel they won't be misunderstood. >You can call your friend a pig, and if >they don't see you smiling, they are likely to be offended - >miscommunication has occurred. Well, you can do the same in lojban. You may use an attitudinal, but you can also smile. ... >Attitudinals are one of the rather bizarre aspects of lojban that >attracted my attention in the first place. Actually, many (most? all?) languages, including English, have attitudinals, so I don't see why you consider them 'bizarre'. Lojban is special here only because it happens to have a very large attitudinal vocabulary -- and very nice it is too. -- Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA http://www.halcyon.com/ashleyb/