Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 10:23:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711081523.KAA25886@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Robin Turner Sender: Lojban list From: Robin Turner Subject: Re: Ironic Use of Attitudinals X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199711081140.NAA17363@firat.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr> Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1401 X-From-Space-Date: Sat Nov 8 10:23:58 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU At 11:15 07/11/97 -0500, you wrote: >Ashley Yakeley wrote: > >> I assume the refgram is merely saying that none of the attitudinals are >> ironic by default, rather than that attitudinals should never be used >> ironically. Is this right? > >The point is that *explicit* expressions of emotion in English are >inherently somewhat ironic; English has a stiff-upper-lip assumption, >especially in writing. Not so Lojban. Sounds like a good way to examine SWH. If presented with a language which doesn't have a "stiff-upper-lip assumption", will English (and specifically male British english) speakers (a) underuse attitudinal indicators, (b) use them, but only because they feel they are called for, or (c) use them, and reduce their own "stiff-upper-lip factor" as a result? I often find myself becoming more emotional when speaking (or thinking in) Turkish, but I'm not sure if this is a feature of the language, my lack of proficiency in it (maybe I've missed some of the subtleties), or my association of the Turkish language with Turkish culture, where displaying emotion tends to be approved of (although there are the usual gender, class and regional variations to be considered, of course). Lojban would provide a more noise-free linguistic environment to look at this phenomenon. Robin Turner Bilkent Universitesi, IDMYO, Ankara, Turkey.