|
|
Posted by Giles on 10/16/58 11:36
On 2006-01-04 20:23:00 +0000, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> said:
> In article <422najF1gqq4hU1@individual.net>,
> Giles <usenet.giles@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <irony free>
>> Sorry Michelle. I was feeling a little snappy at the moment of posting,
>> for reasons unconnected with your post. And I do use such tags, in an
>> all too frequent manner.
>
> I didn't take it as being snappy; I took it as humor. You have nothing
> to apologize for.
<grin>
>> But wouldn't signalled irony cease to be irony? It strikes me it would
>> then be more like sarcasm. Which was why I thought my line on irony
>> markers was, erm, an irony. Apologies.
>> </irony free>
>
> I understood it to mean that you were suggesting that we needed such
> markers for the irony impaired.
Hence the irony.
> And we do, if we want to ensure that they recognize it as irony--just
> as I suggested for sarcasm and the sarcasm impaired. <g>
<pedantic> Sarcasm usually involves an overt indicator that the
opposite to what is said is meant, particularly tone of voice, so a
<sarky> marker is fair enough given absence of tone.
But irony? Inadvertent irony relies on the spectator's knowledge of the
situation and recognition of the self-deluded or tragic error of the
actor's statement/action. Advertent irony relies on the
spectator/reader's knowledge of the context and the apparent knowledge
of the actor/writer to discern that a statement that literally reads
one way has a putative alternative meaning that to some degree runs
against or transforms the literal meaning.
Neither can survive being made obviously literal, IMHO.
Giles
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|