Note that the use of the irony mark would be hard for laptop users due to the lack of a number pad, through which is the only method to type in unicode numbers.
I just copypasted it from wikipedia, but someone pointed out to me that if you use GTK-based applications, you can just press Ctrl+Shift+u, enter the unicode number (2e2e in case of a ⸮) and then press the space bar. The normal number keys work here.
WOW! Someone read Wikipedia instead of doing work! Astonishing, amazing, are you fucking kidding me? Who cares, the 'irony' mark is just as stupid as colouring text green. The only unofficial punctuation mark that's fun is the interrobang.
Who cares, the 'irony' mark is just as stupid as colouring text green.
It's useful for someone like me who has a very hard time recognizing whether someone is being sarcastic or not. It just doesn't process very well in the mind.
If you seriously need a mark to recognize sarcasm or irony in text, you're fucking braindead. Exceptions for languages that have such marks built in to their character systems. That's not a personal attack on anyone who has have missed sarcasm or irony in text (it happens), but read some fucking Elmore Leonard and tell me such a mark is remotely necessary.
Languages grow and change. Perhaps in this globalised world, adding such a grammatical construct would make it easier to understand the language. English is a shit of a language to learn as it is.
By that logic, Japan should adopt a phonetic alphabet for all purposes, as should all languages using character systems less common than Roman alphabet variants. Learning 10k+ kanji to read a newspaper is an infinitly more arduous mental task than shaping preformed linguistic structures to recognize a near-universal spoken and textual element of communication.
By all means, improve my language. Add new character radicals for phonemes and sounds that don't exist. But don't play at assuming that the speaker or reader is dumb. Future generations should learn how to process meaning by context and/or tonal inflection. That's as much a part of language as anything else. There is no reason to alter it.
10:1 if HungryJoe was here all yeasayers would have been ripped new assholes.
I grant you that when I am in Fukuoka I do have trouble reading newspapers with my limited Kanji, and occasionally find myself deriding the idea that conveying a message through media is helped by the deployment of an 10000 strong character base... The context of the article usually carries me through of course but I digress.
I agree with you wholeheartedly in that I believe the average reader is of optimum intelligence and can interpret an ironic detachment from context. I merely put forward the notion that languages change, and to fight this is perhaps an exercise in futility. We do not find the exclamation mark, the question mark, the ellipsis and other forms of punctuation offensive as means of conveying context; why is the 'irony mark' any more repulsive?
@Omnu: Yeah, I know. I'm just making the point that attempting to reengineer languages in the interest of making them easier for the globalized world.
@Casa Vino: You seem very well read, likely a polyglot as well. That's very cool. Anyway, I suppose my point is that while vocabularies evolve, grammatical strictures and the punctuation associated with them largely fossilize. Whereas we can create new words and find new ways to implement preexisting grammar, we shouldn't look to fix our language. Such changes, if they occur at all, should be organic rather than planned and engineered; it's the best way to avoid a cluttered language and simultaneously the best way to keep one intelligent. If we needed a sarcasm or irony mark, one would have appeared in natural usage a long time ago. Presumably, this hasn't happened since our minds are built to read and interpret context in tandem. The same thing happens with puns, mondegreens, and the more intricate tricks of language. We recognize them by context and quality in lieu of of special markings.
Ultimately, I think the fact that someone patented their sarcasm mark speaks to its lack of necessity. If someone attempts to make money from grammar, it's a safe bet that that element is unnecessary.
Also, I would side with Nine. English isn't particularly difficult as a language. It's subleties are more difficult to pick up, but the core of the language isn't any more complex than German or perhaps Dutch.
Also, I would side with Nine. English isn't particularly difficult as a language. It's subleties are more difficult to pick up, but the core of the language isn't any more complex than German or perhaps Dutch.
The latin languages have similar structures for grammar. From what I heard, english just has more exceptions than most languages (which as a french speaker I doubt) and spelling/pronunciation can be tricky.
It has being a long time since I wrote anything in Spanish.
Feel free to make threads and posts in any language you want. Everything is Unicode, so it should all "just work". And by should, I mean probably won't as soon as someone tries to do something funky.
I am by no means fluent in Spanish, but I can understand about 25% of the Spanish advertisements I see in the subway due to Spanish classes in middle school and high school.
Comments
(Interrobang has to be the best name for a piece of punctuation ever.)
By all means, improve my language. Add new character radicals for phonemes and sounds that don't exist. But don't play at assuming that the speaker or reader is dumb. Future generations should learn how to process meaning by context and/or tonal inflection. That's as much a part of language as anything else. There is no reason to alter it.
10:1 if HungryJoe was here all yeasayers would have been ripped new assholes.
I agree with you wholeheartedly in that I believe the average reader is of optimum intelligence and can interpret an ironic detachment from context. I merely put forward the notion that languages change, and to fight this is perhaps an exercise in futility. We do not find the exclamation mark, the question mark, the ellipsis and other forms of punctuation offensive as means of conveying context; why is the 'irony mark' any more repulsive?
@Casa Vino: You seem very well read, likely a polyglot as well. That's very cool. Anyway, I suppose my point is that while vocabularies evolve, grammatical strictures and the punctuation associated with them largely fossilize. Whereas we can create new words and find new ways to implement preexisting grammar, we shouldn't look to fix our language. Such changes, if they occur at all, should be organic rather than planned and engineered; it's the best way to avoid a cluttered language and simultaneously the best way to keep one intelligent. If we needed a sarcasm or irony mark, one would have appeared in natural usage a long time ago. Presumably, this hasn't happened since our minds are built to read and interpret context in tandem. The same thing happens with puns, mondegreens, and the more intricate tricks of language. We recognize them by context and quality in lieu of of special markings.
Ultimately, I think the fact that someone patented their sarcasm mark speaks to its lack of necessity. If someone attempts to make money from grammar, it's a safe bet that that element is unnecessary.
Also, I would side with Nine. English isn't particularly difficult as a language. It's subleties are more difficult to pick up, but the core of the language isn't any more complex than German or perhaps Dutch.
It has being a long time since I wrote anything in Spanish.
I am by no means fluent in Spanish, but I can understand about 25% of the Spanish advertisements I see in the subway due to Spanish classes in middle school and high school.
Finalmente podre practicar mi español