Irony Mark???

Primary tabs

112 posts / 0 new
Last post
Terry Biddle's picture
Offline
Joined: 21 May 2005 - 1:42pm
0

I think a "vertical" solution is most effective. I think whichever sets up best in copy is probably the best solution.

K Cerulean Pease's picture
Joined: 19 Oct 2003 - 5:03pm
0

Lurking in the standard PC encoding is a character that nobody ever uses for anything: the "logical not". I think it could be put to use as an indicator for flat sarcasm that need be unambiguously sarcastic. "That sounds logical.¬" literally means "That sounds logical... not."

Kevin Larson's picture
Offline
Joined: 11 Aug 2004 - 12:47am
0

> This is the equivalent of making a bad joke and then explaining it, I’m afraid. If one needs to explain irony/sarcasm, then it wasn’t very effective irony/sarcasm to begin with.

I completely agree. I also find question marks repulsive. Why should I attach a question mark to a properly written question.

Terry Biddle's picture
Offline
Joined: 21 May 2005 - 1:42pm
0

Why should I attach a question mark to a properly written question.

Because punctuation also indicates "inflection." Your sentence above reads monotone without a question mark.

Carl Crossgrove's picture
Offline
Joined: 8 Sep 2003 - 2:07pm
0

Kevin, come now. Written language isn't the same as spoken. It is bad grammar to leave question marks out of written questions. By that logic I can just abandon punctuation, capitalization and maybe even word spaces.

Choz Cunningham's picture
Offline
Joined: 27 Jun 2006 - 1:30pm
0

Biddy, you fell for it.

Kevin Larson's picture
Offline
Joined: 11 Aug 2004 - 12:47am
0

I'm sorry, did the irony not come through. I wonder if there's some way I could have conveyed it better.

Carl Crossgrove's picture
Offline
Joined: 8 Sep 2003 - 2:07pm
0

Oh I get it. Kevin, that's too subtle. The tone you are conveying is actually a little more snarky even than simple irony. But it also would not work in sentences that did not end in questions. I'm sure you realize.

Terry Biddle's picture
Offline
Joined: 21 May 2005 - 1:42pm
0

I’m sorry, did the irony not come through. I wonder if there’s some way I could have conveyed it better.

LOL. Point taken. :)

Choz Cunningham's picture
Offline
Joined: 27 Jun 2006 - 1:30pm
0

I'm going to look up how Underware encoded their version, and see how compatible things can be. Perhaps that, the snark and the French design could share a spot.

The official resource for all things snarky, aside from Joan River's home page, is coming very soon.

Choz Cunningham's picture
Offline
Joined: 27 Jun 2006 - 1:30pm
0

The Underware solution places the irony mark in the ASCII Circumflex's position. I don't think that is a good long-term solution, though it certainly makes spreading it easy enough.

Previously, I had been recommending placing the snark in the Unicode private use area (at E2D2), where it was not too likely too cause problems, and accessing it through OpenType -clig-. This has two drawbacks: possible conflict with other common "add-on" uses of the PUA, and problems encoding the contextual ligation to work when you want it and not other times.

On the first issue, the snark is very similar to the Medieval Unicode Font Initiative's "Punctus Interrogativus Horizontal Tilde" which they encode @ F1E8. I am tempted to change the recommendation, but our earlier experiments suggest that a "basic" snark's top bar sets best at about 3/4ths the width of the ASCII tilde. Nevertheless, compatibility with MUFI standards may be good.

-clig-, it turns out, is not the greatest place to offer the .~-to-snark conversion. Even though it is a terminal mark, it is not always followed by space. Sometimes it is followed by a carriage return, and I am sure there are other exceptions. Any thoughts from the othere 'philers on that? A stylistic set perhaps, or in -dlig-? The goal is to offer a painless transition from a dot-tilde to a snark biglyph.