Re: Uk-Ugh (was: A quick new project)

Raymond wrote:
>
>At 8:31 pm +0100 7/3/02, Christophe Grandsire wrote:
> >En réponse à Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...>:
> >
> >>
> >> That's why they're the ultimate IALs. Whatever people say to you, you
> >> can
> >> interpret it as somethign suitably politically correct an inoffensive!
> >>
> >
> >Or the worst, as whatever people say to you, you can interpret it as the
>worst
> >insult possible :)) . And my understanding is that people always take the
> >worst
> >interpretation possible, if only to be able to insult back :)) .
>
>Yes, indeed - having lived more than 60 years on this planet, it's been my
>experience that if something can be unfavorably misconstrued, it will be
>unfavorably miscontrued.
>
>But Andreas is probably right about the ultimate IAL.  My sad experience of
>a few years in Auxlangland (which I regret) is that auxlangers' favorite
>past-time is insulting one another, so the uk-ugh language with, as
>Christophe has pointed out, unlimited possibilities for insult is probably
>just the job.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>At 1:19 pm -0600 7/3/02, William Annis wrote:
> >Inspired by Uk and Ugh, a slight misquote of Humpty Dumpty:
> >
> >"When I say a word it means exactly what I want it to mean, no more
> >and no less."
>
>But isn't the point of the Uk-Ugh language that words mean exactly what the
>_listener_ wants the to mean, i.e. "reverse Humpty-Dumpty"?
>
The point of Ugh (I can't speek for Uk, since it wasn't I who invented it)
is that to the speaker it means whatever speaker wants it to mean, and to
listener whatever the listener wants it to mean.

                                                         Andreas

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

Reply