Re: Ironic Use of Attitudinals

[Ashley Yakeley <AshleyB@HALCYON.COM>]

At 1997-11-10 13:34, Rick Nylander 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'.
>
>Lojbab is referring to _lojban_ attitudinals as being expressions of
>internal states.

Obviously, but attitudinals in other languages are also expressions of
internal states, rather than statements about those internal states, and
yet they are used ironically. Therefore, the same quality in lojban
attitudinals does not imply they cannot also be used ironically.

...
>I interpret the refgram as saying that the listener should accept
>attitudinals at face value, and that therefore the speaker should use
>them as such. ("Used sincerely, not ironically.")

I don't believe the refgram prohibits ironic use of attitudinals as not
lojban, but only declares that lojban attitudinals have no _a priori_
ironic assumptions, as perhaps some English attitudinals do.

In fact, I don't believe the refgram would have the authority to forbid
such use, any more than it would have the authority to declare that one
should never tell jokes in lojban, or that one should never offend people
in lojban. Why? Because language's role in communication is the
expression of meaning as text (sound or image). A language has no place
dictating further interpretations of that meaning, or how one should
react to that meaning.

>If someone says {.oiro'o} in conversation, then you should look for blood.

But they could be mocking you. Such mockery may be most effective when
the language matches sincere usage.

As far as the language is concerned, the meaning is the same -- physical
pain of the speaker. But the usage might be so inappropriate that _that
meaning_ is itself a sign for something else... the punchline of a joke,
for instance.

>Attitudinals constitute the meta-linguistic features that are used in
>conversation such as smiles.

No, they are not _the_ meta-linguistic features, they are just _some_
meta-linguistic features. Their existence does not stop you using _other_
meta-linguistic features not specified by lojban (such as smiling) if you
feel they won't be misunderstood.

>You can call your friend a pig, and if
>they don't see you smiling, they are likely to be offended -
>miscommunication has occurred.

Well, you can do the same in lojban. You may use an attitudinal, but you
can also smile.

...
>Attitudinals are one of the rather bizarre aspects of lojban that
>attracted my attention in the first place.

Actually, many (most? all?) languages, including English, have
attitudinals, so I don't see why you consider them 'bizarre'. Lojban is
special here only because it happens to have a very large attitudinal
vocabulary -- and very nice it is too.


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