Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 18:40:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711072340.SAA22863@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Ashley Yakeley Sender: Lojban list From: Ashley Yakeley Subject: Re: Ironic Use of Attitudinals X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1303 X-From-Space-Date: Fri Nov 7 18:41:03 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU At 1997-11-07 13:03, Logical Language Group wrote: >Since the attitudinals are intended to be expressions of internal states >rather than statements about those internal states, a fluent speaker >should not use attitudinals ironically. Doesn't follow. Consider ironic use of the English humour-attitudinal 'ha ha', or perhaps the Yiddish attitudinal 'oy'. > The fluent speaker will show >his feelings openly (or express the hiding of feelings perhaps). Ironic >usages are by implication statements about feelings rather than ex >pressions >of them. It takes conscious thought to express an emotion falsely or >ironically. Really just simple acting skills. >So I hope no one starts using the attitduinals ironically ever. Kinda >would spoil their purpose. I think it would spoil their purpose if people started assuming a particular attitudinal was ironic whenever they heard it. The kind of irony I had in mind is when an attitudinal is so obviously inappropriate that it's funny. At 1997-11-07 08:15, John Cowan wrote: >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. This is what I had hoped. -- Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA http://www.halcyon.com/ashleyb/