Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 22:39:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711140339.WAA01465@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Rick Nylander Sender: Lojban list From: Rick Nylander Subject: Re: Sarcasm X-To: Lojban list To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1003 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Nov 13 22:39:40 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Lee Daniel Crocker writes: >First, I'd like to point out that what we are discussing here >is not "irony" but "sarcasm". Irony is a semantic thing, and >can be expressed honestly, or with no attitudinals at all. Ah, so the debate takes a new direction, eh? :-) I was going to use the word sarcasm earlier, but _just in case_, I looked "sarcasm" and "irony" up in my little dictionary. It defined sarcasm as: "1. A cutting or contemptuous remark. 2. Ironical criticism or reproach." Irony was defined as "1. the use of words to express the opposite of what one really means." (other definition not applicable.) "Irony" seems to be the more inclusive of the two words, and seems more appropriate considering that we are discussing using attitudinals to say the opposite of what is meant. _I_ would have started the discussion using the word sarcasm but, after looking up the two definitions, it seemed that Ashley was smarter to use "irony." Unless you want to say Mr. Webster is wrong. %^O Rik.