A very cunning linguist. This guy needs to write a musical.

Hey Sarzy.

"Someone being wrong about something isn't automatically irony." No, that's not what I was saying at all! If the guy is perfectly aware that they won't be arresting anybody and yet still comes out with a crazy line like that, they are being ironic! It's all about intonation with verbal irony (hard to express in text). "All languages use pitch semantically, that is, as intonation, for instance for emphasis, to convey surprise or irony, or to pose a question."

Have look at linguistic usage disputes and cosmic irony.

"It's a death row pardon two minutes too late" is an example of the "irony" Alanis Morrisette used. It's confused with cosmic irony, but it's really 'the mere "coincidental or unexpected"'. It's a popular understanding of irony. "A lifeguard drowning" is the same thing. One doesn't expect a lifeguard to drown, but it isn't ironic because it doesn't "describes a discrepancy between the expected result and actual results." What if someone held a lifeguard underwater and they drowned? How would that be ironic in any way? Maybe you'd have more of an argument with some context, like the lifeguard went to save someone's life and ended up drowning (or near drowning) in the attempt while the victim escaped alive. Or as dannym3141 suggests, they kill the person they're trying to save.

Take a look at the bulletproof glass example on wikipedia. It's (situational) irony because bulletproof glass should stop bullets and normal glass shouldn't. If it were normal glass the bullet would go straight through and miss the president. Because it is bulletproof, it bounces off and hits the president. Situational irony. Compare that with your seatbelt example. Does anyone claim that a seatbelt would save your life in an incident that occurs underwater? I doubt even the wildest marketer would claim such a thing. It's not irony because seatbelts should assist in a collision with another vehicle, an impact collision, where the impact would normally kill/heavily injure you. Water isn't going to do that. A response of "but seatbelts should save your life!" ain't going to cut it.

My example of "pleasant day" when it's raining is an example of verbal irony (i.e. "a disparity of expression and intention: when a speaker says one thing but means another, or when a literal meaning is contrary to its intended effect."). You don't need to try to belittle it (or me) with "lesser-used" and "if it's irony at all." I'm not trying to attack you or bring you down.

Having read the situational irony as described in wikipedia, I think the video title is correct. It is ironic. The expected result is one or more terrorists being arrested; the actual result is that they're all COPs (of a form). My example ("four arrests in one!") is a verbal irony statement because clearly you can't arrest any of the people.

I must admit, I don't really like situational irony, it can be so easily confused with coincidence and unexpected situations, and so one ends up with endless discussions about irony (such as this one). If only we could only ditch it and go back to dramatic and verbal irony I'd be a lot happier. Nevertheless, the examples on wikipedia are pretty good. It needs to be read closely, so the expected/actual dilemma can be uncovered.

On re-reading your initial comment, your cancer drug example is a good example of situational irony. The lifeguard and seatbelt ones, one the other hand, would need a lot more context before they could become ironic.

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^ledpup:
Well, this may be a trap, but Sarzy, none of your examples are ironic. They're all Alanis Morissette irony. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony. E.g. The image of a person holding a sign that says "I can't afford an actual sign" is a perfectly good example of irony. All your examples are just things that happen. Irony is all about truth and the assertion of it by proposing its negation. Eg Saying "Gee, what a pleasant day we're having" when there is a hurricane outside that is ripping off the roofs of houses. That's ironic.
Irony has to be the most misunderstood of all English words.

No, my examples are all correctly ironic -- going by the information on the wikipedia page you linked to, they are situational irony, which is almost always what people are referring to when they call something ironic (whether they're using the term correctly or not). Your hurricane example, if it's irony at all (which is debatable), would be dramatic irony, which is definitely a lesser-used variety of the term.



And I really don't see how your example would make this video ironic. Someone being wrong about something isn't automatically irony.

>> ^sillma:

They are so fucking weird when they talk like "uglabugla guga buga igugu miggugugawf horse fublae gublae blabliblabli few words in pretty good english bibilibabili buu".


I prefer to think it makes "them" linguistic instead of fucking weird.

>> ^MilkmanDan:
Interesting. Didn't "idiot", "moron", and "imbecile" once have specific linguistic definitions tied to low IQs or adults with intelligence comparable to young children? Maybe we're ready to move "retarded" away from its older and more clinical definition also.
On the other hand, as much as I hate obsession with political correctness, I despise the use of the word "gay" to denote anything bad or distasteful. It isn't so much that I take offense to it; more that the word has basically ceased to have any meaning at all when used in that context. When a kid can say "this salad is gay", "that movie was gay", "your shirt is gay", or even "you kissed a GIRL? That is soooo GAY" (ala the Simpsons) it no longer has any meaning.
I guess the evolution of language is inevitable, but there will be different elements of that change over time that annoy us in different ways.


You're right about the history of words like idiot, moron and imbecile. The difference is that in the modern day a doctor or service provider would never use those words; they are purely pejorative at this point. However "Mental Retardation" is still the correct medical term, and there's not really any exact substitute. "Developmentally disabled" can sometimes be used as a replacement, however it's a more general term that includes disabilities like autism.

I think your example of using "gay" or "faggot" as an all purpose insult among straight people is apt. Someone who uses "faggot" as an insult is almost never seriously questioning the sexual orientation of the other person. Rather they're using the logic that since being gay is so horrible and filthy, it should anger the other person to be called it. Which of course exposes the bigotry of anyone who uses it as an insult.

In sentiment, calling someone "retarded", who you know isn't, is precisely the same thing. It shows you believe it's shameful and humiliating to be a retard.

Interesting. Didn't "idiot", "moron", and "imbecile" once have specific linguistic definitions tied to low IQs or adults with intelligence comparable to young children? Maybe we're ready to move "retarded" away from its older and more clinical definition also.

On the other hand, as much as I hate obsession with political correctness, I despise the use of the word "gay" to denote anything bad or distasteful. It isn't so much that I take offense to it; more that the word has basically ceased to have any meaning at all when used in that context. When a kid can say "this salad is gay", "that movie was gay", "your shirt is gay", or even "you kissed a GIRL? That is soooo GAY" (ala the Simpsons) it no longer has any meaning.

I guess the evolution of language is inevitable, but there will be different elements of that change over time that annoy us in different ways.

>> ^burdturgler:
Lack of proof is not proof
Absence of evidence is not evidence
This person doesn't understand logic, faith or Occam's razor.


I've heard the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument before. It comes up frequently but in a variety of linguistic forms. The most common form I've found is "Just because you cant see something, doesn't mean it isn't there!"

To that I reply; it doesn't mean it IS there either.

I really, really hope that a lot of those numbers can be explained by intentional snarkiness towards polling. "Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer" seems like a fairly common human paradigm, so I tend to think that if you post a poll question that people don't really take very seriously, they are strongly tempted to provide an answer that just maintains or enhances the absurdity of the query.

Take for example the Greenpeace internet poll to name a tagged and tracked humpback whale. "Serious" names, that often had some linguistic or anthropological link to whales like "Aiko", "Kaimana", etc. got less than 1% of the total votes, and "Mr. Splashy Pants" got 78% (of 150,000+ respondents). I tend to doubt that 78% percent of respondents actually believed that was the best / most suitable name -- instead they liked the idea of promoting the more absurd / humorous option.

That can't fully explain away these numbers, and it is frankly tragic to think that anyone might actually believe that Obama "wants the terrorists to win", or "is a socialist". I think that the real direction that the GOP is taking is grim enough, but this poll doesn't really accurately describe its true failings -- and I should note that I say this as a registered republican who would really love for the party to return to some measure of sanity.

One day, far in the future, linguistic scientists will invent the words necessary to describe this video.

A very enjoyable read, dag. I actually study linguistics and programming for my bachelor in Cognitive Sciences, and I'm really looking forward to see what possibilities lies there.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

^I wish I had studied linguistics more.

Look specifically into linguistics instead of just a variety of languages. I think you'll like it.

>> ^EDDwitching two consonants, however, is not.

African American Vernacular English (AAVE), is a well documented dialect of English. AAVE does have the k consonant swap in ask, which is something that linguists study, such swaps have historical precedent in other English dialects. Why do we feel comfortable assuming that all the dialects used by white people are "valid", but that AAVE is just an "incorrect" attempt at Standard American English (SAE)?

I was terribly annoyed by this as well and I am sure your allegations of racism are completely unwarranted.

I was not as much making an accusation, as asking a question about the license our society gives us to comment only on the language variance of historically oppressed people. I'm not accusing BRM specifically, but I am asking a question about a societal norm that has racist implications.

>> ^gtjwkq:
You guys should talk about human rights then, it would be very interventionist to consider all humans entitled to the protection of the US Constitution.
I'm guessing Rand Paul considers the prisoners in Guantanamo as prisoners of war. If that's the case, the Constitution does not apply to them, it's not meant to restrict government against war enemies.


So we should cherry pick who gets to live and die?



Ok..

It only effects you when you are at the McDonalds und kommen sie und sagen, dass Ihre Papiere, bitte. (I like to say this out loud, because it has more meaning when it is spoken. Entschuldigung für die Beleidigung Deutschland und die schlechte Grammatik. I'm a linguistic noob when it comes to spoken or written language, and yes I did seek the help of google translate.)

The application of the law is the only place where I feel that Coercive Egalitarianism is important. If one person gets Habeus because of a special interest, and the other doesn't where does that leave the spirit of the law?

So my attempts to passive aggressively Godwin this post have come to fruition. Also, I have met my goal of arguing from absurdity today! Cheers!

>> ^winkler1:
holy crap..that's an ad?!


My thoughts exactly. Europeans are so weird. It's like they're from another country...

Re: irony and sarcasm - had a similar experience in China, it surprised me that they 'got' ironic and sarcastic jokes. Radically different linguistics but apparently humor is more ancient and universal.