Date:  Thu, 13 Nov 1997 22:57:54 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199711140357.WAA02714@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Ashley Yakeley <AshleyB@HALCYON.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Ashley Yakeley <AshleyB@HALCYON.COM>
Subject:      Re: Ironic Use of Attitudinals
X-To:         Lojban List <LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 538
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Nov 13 22:58:06 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

At 1997-11-13 09:13, Rick Nylander wrote:

>1.      Irony (as proposed) is the use of a word to mean it's opposite.
>[definition]
>        Therefore: To be understood, an ironic term must be understood
>by the listener to be false.

Doesn't follow. Clearly some attitudinals have, at least approximately,
opposites. This doesn't mean they are ever 'false'. I would say, to be
understood, an ironic term must be understood by the listener as
superficially misrepresentative.


--
Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA
http://www.halcyon.com/ashleyb/