Re: Ironic Use of Attitudinals

[Ashley Yakeley <AshleyB@HALCYON.COM>]

At 1997-11-11 09:02, Rick Nylander wrote:

>To quote from the refgram, chapter 13, section 1:
>        "In Lojban, everything that can be spoken can also be written."
>
>This says that attitudinals are intended to be substitutes for what you
>would normally say using changes in voice pitch, smiles, etc.

Yes, but that doesn't stop you communicating by pointing at things, or
facial expression (which is reasonably likely to be understood, even
across cultures) while speaking lojban. Voice pitch is rather different,
but even then there are some relatively cross-cultural factors --
shouting to indicate anger or distress, etc. Of course, there are
probably attitudinals for all of this, but those who use such things
instead of attitudinals while speaking lojban can still be reasonably
described as 'speaking lojban'.

Note that I'm not considering use of voice pitch to indicate grammar
here, since that sort of thing is in the domain of language definition
(and of course in lojban, it's specifically not used).

Actually, this doesn't make any difference as far as irony is concerned,
since it's perfectly possible to write ironically.

>In section 16 of  chapter 13:
>        "The exact ramifications of the indicator system in actual usage
>are unknown. There has never been anything like it in natural language
>before."

You'll notice that 'it' refers to the _system_ of attitudinals, which is
quite unique, rather than attitudinals themselves (which are not).

>This is as good a statement as you are going to get that attitudinals
>are not intended to be the equivalent of anything in english or any
>other language.

The very next sentence:

    The system provides great potential for emotional expression and
    transcription, from which significant Sapir-Whorf effects can be
    anticipated.

The rest of the paragraph continues on the theme of expressiveness of the
system, to which 'never anything like it' refers.

>>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.
>
>Heresy!  Heresy!  Better be careful, or the language police might
>getcha' ;-)
>Obviously nothing can forbid you using (or abusing) any language in any
>way that you choose.  You can speak all english backward if it makes you
>happy.  But no one will understand what you're saying if you do.

Aha! We've reached the heart of the problem. You see, irony _can_ be
understood without non-linguistic clues. Consider:

     A: I had to get up at 10am this morning.
     B: .oicaidai

     A: Ah, the 'The Dukes of Hazzard'... .u'ero'ebe'unai

     Teacher: Can anyone tell me what a compound is... Johnson?
     Student: Sorry, what?
     Teacher: .a'adai

Do you see how the meaning of the attitudinal is first taken as exactly
what the refgram says it is, but then _that meaning_ is humourously
inappropriate to its context?

Notice that ironic use does not in any way 'pervert' the attitudinal,
inasmuch as the same attitudinals can still be used non-ironically by the
same people in the same social roles:

     Student: It seemed to turn bright green immediately before igniting.
     Teacher: .a'adai



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