Irony compared to Allegory

[Ashley Yakeley <AshleyB@HALCYON.COM>]

To understand my contention that irony isn't really polysemy, try
comparing to to allegory. Consider:

1. "Well water must not enter river water.", as spoken by Jiang Zemin.

You can see how 'well water' and 'river water' make you think first of
well water and river water, and then that meaning becomes a sign, with
the help of context, for a completely different meaning. _This_ is
interpretation, not polysemy: an example of polysemy is the word 'well'
which might mean 'healthy'.

Irony behaves the same way.

If one wished to translate this into Lojban, would one be forced to
translate it as "the affairs of the dependent state must not influence
the affairs of the sovereign state"? All I can say is, I hope not.

2. "In passing through a wood she met old neighbour wolf, who had a great
desire to eat her.", from Perrault's version of _Little Red Riding Hood_.

Here possible interpretations are rather more fluid. At the allegorical
level, it might mean "the young women encounters a man, perhaps familiar
to her, who would do her harm". At the psychic level, it might mean "the
pubescent girl's ego encounters her own sexuality, which has been with
her in nascent form for a long time, but which now threatens to overwhelm
her" (or not).

Which is the one true meaning of _Little Red Riding Hood_, that should be
expressed in Lojban? The literal, the allegorical, or the psychic? Note
these last two are just two possible interpretations of the literal
meaning, which others might disagree with. The text means many things,
but this is not polysemy either: any meanings attached to the English
word 'wolf' are meanings attached only to the literal meaning of 'wolf'.


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