Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 12:39:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711281739.MAA28682@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: Re: Ironic Use of Attitudinals X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199711141943.OAA09061@cs.columbia.edu> (message from Logical Language Group on Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:12:39 -0500) Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 898 X-From-Space-Date: Fri Nov 28 12:39:53 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Actually, I think the strongest point against using attitudinals ironically was made by Ashley Yakeley, in noting the cultural ramifications. Not all cultures use irony the same way, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were some that hardly used it at all. Just as Lojban "legislates" against using culturally-specific idioms and metaphore (without marking or explaining them), so too it should discourage using its attitudinals in a culturally-biased way. If my culture regularly uses irony, and so does my Lojban (unmarked), how can a listener from a less ironic culture follow? I might as well, as Lojbab says, be speaking English (after all, there are English dictionaries, right?) I think the ironic or non-ironic use of attitudinals falls under cultural neutrality, and unless there's actually a reason to determine a neutral use of irony, it seems a lot simpler not to have it. ~mark