irony markers

[Steven Belknap <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>]

>> Also, speakers often omit tagging their
>>speech as irony, but the irony is often pointed out by transcriptionists.
>>There is an importance difference between written and spoken language which
>>stubbornly resists isomorphism.

lojbab:
>THAT is a Sapir-Whorfian prediction!  There never has been a language that
>clearly defined isomorphism in a way to make it even remotely possible.  I
>agree that isomorphism has not had time to evolve in language (heck, we have
>only had written language for a few thousand years, and only Greek and
>Latin have any semi-continuity of usage such that one could consider
>the language of today the same as the language of BC (Oh, maybe Hebrew and
>written Chinese have something there).  Isomorphoism was not even and
>issue until the last couple of centuries - not how many ways Shakspar spelt
>his name.

Hmm. I hadn't considered that. You are making a very interesting point.
Perhaps I AM making a Sapir-Whorfian prediction.

lojbab:
>We will only know through usage whether isomorphism will catch on.
>I think the addition of smileys to net discourse is a mark in favor of the
>idea.  Some people feel that if you have to mark a smiley it isn't funny,
>others say the same about irony.

Smileys generally mean something like, "This is intended humorously." They
substitute for tone of voice or actual smiling. They are fine for quick
messages that we dash off to eachother via email. It takes hard work to
write ironic or humorous prose which gets the humor or irony across.
Smileys are a way of getting the message across without working so hard.
Irony works best when there is at least some likelihood that some members
of the target audience will miss the irony. Explicit irony marking
diminishes the possibility of missing the irony. The irony may get
communicated, but in an unsatisfying form.


>>Simply because it is possible to use tone of voice, emphasis,
>>and facial expressions while speaking, these types of expression will be
>>used in spoken lojban.

lojbab:
>And the computer will fail to detect them.  Lojban is designed assuming
>that at
>some not too distant time, someone will have a computer program that will
>try to understand spoken Lojban.  Now whether it will ever be possible to get
>a computer to understand content is a real issue.  But getting a computer to
>recognize unmarked irony is one step beyond understanding content that is not
>inhgerently deceptive.  Isomorphiosm in the language is supposed to make the
>process easier.

You are assuming that the computer will interact with human speakers of
lojban through ascii text. I am assuming that the computers will speak and
listen in the same way that people do; thus the computer will have access
not only to the text, but the metalinguistic context as well.

lojbab:
>(This...discussion...is suitable for public consumption on the list - feel
>free to post it - I cannot since you
>sent (it) to me privately without such permission).

Done.

Is there a cmavo in lojban for "this text is intended for private exchange
only?"

Just wondering.

-Steven

Steven Belknap, M.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine
University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria