Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 22:59:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711140359.WAA02951@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: Ironic Use of Attitudinals X-To: lojban To: John Cowan Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 808 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Nov 13 23:18:04 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >>Not so. The person using them ironically merely has to be sure that the >>context allows for ironic use without too much risk of misinterpretation. > >With me, at least, one had better assume 100% chance of misinterpretation. >Most of the Lojbanists I have conversed with have delighted in taking >someones malglico or other incorrect usages literally. Thus in this >case the mocker becomes the mockee. It's ironical that you would fight irony with... irony. If you mock someone by taking their words at face value when you know that they meant something else, then you're using a form of irony yourself. You're feigning misunderstanding. Is that kind of irony approved of? (If the misunderstanding is real, what is the source of the delight in taking the incorrect usage literally?) co'o mi'e xorxes