Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

USAGE: mandatory veracity & pygectomy (was: RE: USAGE: WOMYN (was: RE: [CONLANG] Optimum number

From:And Rosta <a-rosta@...>
Date:Wednesday, May 29, 2002, 18:59
John Cowan:
> And Rosta scripsit: > > > I'm sure there is some name for a clinical condition similar to > > what JYS Czhang has -- something like "gelotolepsy", though I > > have a feeling that I invented that & it's not the correct term. > > Googling reveals that "gelotolepsy" is a synonym for "geloplegia", > which is defined (badly translated from German) as "loss of affective > tone with cheerful mind excitation; in connection with imperative sleep > urge, e.g. as symptom of narcolepsy."
OK, that -- the one where laughter leads to fainting -- is not the one I mean. I mean the propensity for collapsing in helpless laughter with relatively minimal provocation.
> > ObConlangish: For some reason, in my usage (as writer & reader) > > LOL, ROTFL, etc. have to be literally true > > For LOL I hold the same as you, but the more emphatic terms need > not be literally true for me: if I am LOLing I am willing to say > that I am ROTFLing even though I remain in my chair. After all, > would you be unwilling to say that you are ROTFLMAOing in any > circumstances other than an actual glutectomy?
'pygectomy'? Anyway, on reflection I think I agree with you about ROTFL (not a term I myself use, because I keep on confusing it with RTFM), though given that its meaning is idiomatic, I think one can truthfully say "I laughed my arse/ass off" if one merely laughed a lot without actually getting debuttocked.
> > Livagian too has a class of words, such as those > > for promises, declarations of love, No-that-reaaly-means-No, > > etc., that must be used honestly and without irony. To utter > > them insincerely, even if the insincerity misleads noone, is > > seen as at best in very bad taste and at worst as intolerably > > antisocial. > > Lojban attitudinals have this property.
I had originally included mention of Lojban attitudinals in my message, but on reflection deleted that, because Lojban attitudinals are like 'ouch' and 'wow' -- they *express* emotion and attitude without making truth-conditional claims, yes, but as with the English interjections one may use them without really the emotion or ironically. So I think they're different. I admit that the Lojban community does comprise some who wish to police our usage so that all Lojban usage is most puritanically literal -- but that reflects one side of Lojban culture rather than the language itself. --And.


John Cowan <jcowan@...>mandatory veracity & pygectomy (was: RE: USAGE: WOMYN (was: RE:
Lars Henrik Mathiesen <thorinn@...>