I used this word on a recent post and I got to thinking. What is irony? I'm thinking I got the gist of it in my post but do I really?

It is a word that is often used in place of paradox or absurd and is tossed around with such ease that the meaning is completely lost.

I am familiar with it as a literary term but have never really grapsed its essence.

I've already found so many here that have an exquisite way of expressing thoughts with depth and clarity so why go anywhere else?

re:I am familiar with it as a literary term but have never really grapsed its essence.

Oh you must be american..

according to many on the other side of the pond, we americans (in general) don't get irony.
it seems one requirment to understanding is true blue british blood running in your veins, and allegence to the queen.
I don't get it.. oh well.

so many here that have an exquisite way of expressing thoughts with depth and clarity so why go anywhere else [for the meaning of irony]?

Well, Aorto, none of us here have more depth or clarity than you do, so it would be ironic if you found more irony here than already exists here. :)

"Well, Aorto, none of us here have more depth or clarity than you do, so it would be ironic if you found more irony here than already exists here."

And at that moment, he was enlightened.

"... true blue british blood running in your veins, and allegence to the queen...."

Some have blues coming and some have *them going.

he was enlightened

He was enlightened, Aorto?

I have a bet on with themilum, you know. :)

From Dr. Bill [wwh]:

'irony'. In the first place, there is no 'iron' in it.

irony
1502, from L. ironia, from Gk. eironeia, from eiron "dissembler," perhaps related to eirein "to speak" (see verb). Used in Gk. of affected ignorance, especially that of Socrates. For nuances of usage, see humor

And it need not 'bite the flesh' as sarcasm does.

'irony'. In the first place, there is no 'iron' in it.

Made me laugh! Then I questioned: isn't that paradox? Still pretty funny. I think 'affected ignorance' gives me something good to go on. I'll keep digging.

Dr. Bill [wwh] suggests making "a post, contrasting
meiosis and litotes with irony".

Not a bad idea, wwh.

And that's an understatement.

I'd like to juxtapose a few questions for you one of these days. Then I'd be posting your answers to the questions I'm posing. Would that be ironic? I suppose it would be if people got the right answer out of me for a change.

M-W: Main Entry: mei·o·sis
Pronunciation: mI-'O-s&s
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Greek meiOsis diminution, from meioun to diminish, from meiOn less; akin to Sanskrit mIyate he diminishes
1 : the presentation of a thing with underemphasis especially in order to achieve a greater effect : UNDERSTATEMENT

M-W: Main Entry: li·to·tes
Pronunciation: 'lI-t&-"tEz, 'li-, lI-'tO-"tEz
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural litotes
Etymology: Greek litotEs, from litos simple, perhaps from lit-, lis linen cloth
: understatement in which an affirmative is expressed by the negative of the contrary (as in "not a bad singer" or "not unhappy")

And, "while you're at it", says Dr. Bill, "give definition of meiosis in cell division and distinguish from mitosis".

Holy Mosis, Dr. Bill, you don't ask for much! :)

M-W: Main Entry: mi·to·sis
Pronunciation: mI-'tO-s&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural mi·to·ses /-"sEz/
Etymology: New Latin, from Greek mitos thread
1 : a process that takes place in the nucleus of a dividing cell, involves typically a series of steps consisting of prophase, metaphase, anaphase, and telophase, and results in the formation of two new nuclei each having the same number of chromosomes as the parent nucleus -- compare MEIOSIS

M-W: Main Entry: mei·o·sis
Pronunciation: mI-'O-s&s
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Greek meiOsis diminution, from meioun to diminish, from meiOn less; akin to Sanskrit mIyate he diminishes
2 : the cellular process that results in the number of chromosomes in gamete-producing cells being reduced to one half and that involves a reduction division in which one of each pair of homologous chromosomes passes to each daughter cell and a mitotic division -- compare MITOSIS

I feel like your onscreen meiosis, Dr. Bill.

Does that make me your AWADuosis?

For sure, it makes me your AWADuensis. :)

Ok, Plutarch, if you and Bill are through bantering about the subject and confounding the meaning of the term with disassoiated derivatives of Greek, I will explain to the good people out in Awadland the full and absolute meaning of the word "Irony".

But first I must go to the bathroom. Be right back.

But first I must go to the bathroom

It would be ironic if you didn't return, themilum.

Hope everything comes out all right.

Hope everything comes out all right.

We may never know, Faldage. [Hope so. :) ]

This thread is coming to define 'stream of consciousness' for me.

it's all Greek to me...

Ahhhh! That's much better. I do my best thinking while soaking in a warm sudsy perfumed bath.

And so here is the skinny...

It is a matter of irony that the word "irony" is
a word that by its very function cannot be precisely
defined.

Have you ever wondered why "What is irony?" is one of
the most re-asked questions to people like me?

Well, the reason is simple - languages (that is, we) have a lingual need for a loose term that refers to the absurd relationships and oddly coincidental events that seem to happen in our lives almost daily. As such the word that describes the paradoxical nature of human discourse must itself be vague enough to encompass the innumberable numbers and varities of such events.

Another way of saying this is... the word 'irony" is not a real word but an expression of the acknowledgement and of our acquiescence of our fate.

And that is the definition #1 of the term "irony".
I will be back in a jiffy with definition #2,
but now I must walk over to the grocery store
to buy a newspaper and a coke.

I've already found so many here that have an exquisite way of expressing thoughts with depth and clarity so why go anywhere else? Honey, if you do a Search on irony, you will probably find more mentions of it than you care to read, but. The term and its (alleged) meaning(s) has been bandied about here a very great deal. Some of the earliest discussions were the most interesting, if memory serves me correctly.

I will be back in a jiffy with definition #2

I can't imagine how you will surpass the depth and clarity of Definition #1, themilum. But I'm sure your Definition #2 will dispel Jackie's nostalgia for archival commentaries. Such reminiscences are more often fondly remembered than fondly relived.

An amiable recollection is very friendly to imperfections. The best way to honor our dead is to speak kindly of it and treat it as we would any other sleeping doggerel: "Let it lie." [And we know you are the "self-annointed arbiter" of doggerel as well as limericks, themilum. :) ]

In any case, we grow impatient for your irony.

The longer we have to wait for your wisdom, the more we will expect of it when it finally arrives. This is the converse of Jackie's nostalgia, and you may find some irony in that.

Your wisdom, which deserves to shine, grows ever more dim as we wait for it, whereas the wisdom buried in our archives, deservedly dim in memory, begins to shine.

The glow is flowing in the wrong direction, themilum. We should expect more of our living around here, and less of our dead.

When the best we have to look forward to is already dead and buried, then, surely, we are better off living in our past. [Please resist the temptation to repine that that's what we're already doing, themilum. :) ]

The old carouser slowly
Stood up, drank life's last glow,
And flung the cup so holy
Into the flood below.

He saw it plunging, drinking
As deep in the sea it sank.
His eyes the while were sinking,
Not a drop again he drank.

From THE KING OF THULE by Goethe
Originally posted in "Beakers" thread yesterday.

Just a little cross-threading to set the stage for your final irony, themilum.

You want irony, Plutarch? I'll give you irony...

Why is it that you youngsters who have ten million
hours left on this Earth exhibit the patience of a
dog in heat; while we who's time on this Earth
can be counted on the foot of a two-toed pig
are blessed with the patience of a chair.

That reality is a simple form of irony. I'll be back in a hour with the rest.

we who's time on this Earth can be counted on the foot of a two-toed pig are blessed with the patience of a chair.

Now, that is an irony with legs on it, themilum.

I will be back in an hour to see where this irony is going. :)

I was not so much thinking nostalgically as I was attempting to suggest a place to start. I haven't done a Search on the word irony, but I feel sure that several dozen listings would come up; and out of all of those--if my memory is correct--it was somewhere in the earlier ones rather than the later ones where many of the Brit-speakers tried valiantly to explain the concept to us irony-poor US'n's. aorto had said, unless I seriously misinterpreted the post, that he (?) would like to have more understanding of irony and that there didn't seem to be a need to look further than here. Somewhere in all those listings, there actually is some explanation, and I was trying to offer a suggestion that might save a little time.

This is not the first time this has happened, she said by way of explanation for the following sounding perhaps more harsh than one instance would warrant: one thing I get tired of here is people assuming they know my motivations and then announcing them as fact. You can check with me; you can post or tell me that you think I'm thinking thus-and-so; but please don't state assumptions about me as fact. And I am not referring to teasing; that's fine.

please don't state assumptions about me as fact

Sorry, Jackie, it wasn't you personally I thinking of. I wasn't around for a lot of the past so, no doubt, there is a lot more in the archives than I know about.

It's just that themilum had delivered up one of his best posts in a long time [well, at least in a day or two] and I thought his "Definition #1" was deserving of more notice that a longing for past wisdom. As you explained, you intended no slight.

Sometimes we interpret stuff as tho it were all occurring in real time, like a natural conversation, but, of course, long lapses can occur between posts and sometimes a poster is not even responding to the last thing that was said.

Sorry, Jackie.

it would help me (and perhaps other here?) if i knew who WE is.

is WE the collective of independant thinkers who sometimes post here?
if so, why does one person, consistantly post about US --as if that one poster was a spokeperson for MY thoughts, (and jackies's thoughts, etc.)

why do they consistantly think it is Their responsibility to be the spokeperson for the collective? (or did i miss the day when one person became the lord almight of this group?)

a real problem i have with WE is, well the idea that WE --the odd, collection of sometimes frequent, and some times infrequent posters could collectively agree on anything!

HELL we can't agree on what is a word, and what isn't --even though they(words) are discussed to death!

Of course, it could be my misreading of the imperial WE.

it could be one poster, who posts under various names and aliases, is speaking of their personal, collective selves. they might be WE because the poster has multiple personalities, or the poster is a conduit for all the voices in his head that are clammmoring to get heard. if that is the case, it should be clarified.

As i said in the first line of this post, it's certainly not clear to me who WE are!

Perhaps what is needed is a thread on personal pronouns..

I speak for myself,
You speak for yourself, and collectively WE can come to an understanding of the uses of personal pronouns.

of course, my understanding (in the end) might not be the same as yours and we might never totally agree about the use of WE. but it still might be educating.

that is what I think.

I too, also dislike when presumptions are made about me, or the general statements are made about groups (and yes, we are a group)that i am part of, be they good or bad.

i am not smart--as group--i am smart or not on my own.
and my spelling (or lack there off) is my problem, not the groups. and my memory is excellent (or suffering from a senior moment) but it is mine, not the groups.

who WE is

"We" is just us fallible humans in general, Of Troy, the universal "we"; all of us, without exception, including me. Maybe, especially me. :)

That's why I apologized to Jackie, Of Troy. I didn't apologize for "we". I just apologized for me.

[context, context]
Perhaps we can all agree about that.

if there's one thing we've learned here over the years, it's this: WE can never agree about ANYTHING. (isn't this a YART? didn't we attempt to come up with a term to refer to ourselves other than "AWADtalkers"? didn't someone suggest an initialism that developed out of "Anything You Like Except Unanimous"? didn't some think this was absolutely brilliant, while others hated it?!

sorry to rehash ancient history, but we are old, ya know.

wwh remembers, and still seethes..

and didn't I get really [rankled] when
I asked [xxx] what it meant, and [xxx] told me to look
it up. I spent two hours going over old posts, and
when I finally figured out what it meant, I didn't
think it was worth the trouble it took.

and [xxx] probably told bill YCLIU. : )

i think part of the reason for a continued failure to reach argreement (on almost any subject) is that i don't see us as a collective.
(THAT IS MY OPINION--notice i didn't presume others see things the same way)

i have met some (30%? 40%?) percent of the the current (by current, i mean people who have posted comments in the past 30 days) posters.

I didn't meet a group, i met individuals.
some i liked before for i met them, and i continued to like them afterwards.

some, didn't much care for, and didn't interact with except nominally. and after i met them, that remained unchanged.

some i liked until it met them, and then.. what i thought chatty or fun, came across in person as shallow, or hurtful.. and i began to disliked them

others, who came across as mean, or harsh, in person, became, wonderful, witty, sharp, but not biting wits.. (and me, being me, i managed to blurt out just how i had previously thought about them.--but as i said, they were witty, and of a much better nature than their online post had lead me to believe, and they laughed--both at my thoughts, and my clumsy blurting out of the truth, and at themselves! and i liked them even more!

but i still don't consider myself as a member of some sort of group, just because i have broken bread with some of the posters.

of the small percentage of users i met,
WE are
YOUNG
OLD
FAT
THIN
PRETTY
Posses a face only a mother could love

we are
educated
ignorant
nice people
horrid neighboors

we are
married
single
divorced
gay
straight
childless
parents
urban
rural
suburban
rich
poor
middle class
american (from both the US and canada)
europeans-- mostly UK, but by no means exclusively)
Other nationalities (oceania, mostly)

we are
starting careers
retired
unemployed
self employed
changing careers
mindless work grunges
teachers
blue collar workers
college professors
high school drop outs
high school students

i am some of those things, but not all of them. i don't see myself as having a shared collective quality or a collective set of shared values. about the only thing i have consistantly in common with other posters to AWAD, is, i too post comments at this place.

i don't see myself as part of group here, i come here for me. (its so very nice of all of you to show up and help to educate and entertain me!) i don't come here to be part of a group. i can (and do) join clubs if i want a group experience.

and i personally dislike post after post that make comments about what WE do here, or what WE think, or how WE behave.

i feel like someone it attempting to pidgeon hole me into a group, (and i am not a member of group here) and to be the spokeperson for the group--and i am quite capable of being a spokeperson for myself, thank you very much!

and every time someone does that to ME. I DISLIKE IT, and by extention the person who did it.

yes, i am a bit self centered. but that's ME.

Well...that was certainly refreshing. Of troy is obviously
a strong woman who does not mince words but blurts out
her opinions without an abundance of tact. Quite refreshing; but excuse me, of troy,
when next week me and the Ladies of Awad
gather at Miss Mammy's Tearoom and Gift Shop for our monthly brunch and tidbits
you will, of course, quite understand if I don't invite you.
Miss Mammy's tearoom, you see, is a place where literary small talk with a touch of snip
is the bauavdree du jour and it is no place to recite
ee cummings wonderful poem "The Boys I mean Are Not Refined".

Maybe me and you can get together this football season
and watch the Patriots beat up on the damn New York Jets.

d'oh, i hate football and even i know its the patriots Vs the Phili's Eagles.

what do you take me for? some ignoramus?

an ignoramus--person who ignores everyone and thing around them while they watch football!

Dr Bill corrected my *made up defination of an ignoramus..

it was original a legal term, and then used to decribe lawyers, i apologies to football fans everywhere..

from Dr Bill:
It was so long ago that I looked this
word up that I had forgotten how 'we don't know'
got to mean 'a stupid person'.
ignoramus
1577, Anglo-Fr. legal term, from L. ignoramus "we do not know," first person present indicative of ignorare "not to know" (see ignore). The legal term was one a grand jury could write on a bill when it considered the prosecution's evidence insufficient.

Sense of "ignorant person" came from the title role of George Ruggle's 1615 play satirizing the ignorance of common lawyers


*i didn't think any one would take my defination seriously!

Who says the Americans don’t do irony?

Let us pose the case of someone too retarded to be executed, but whose IQ increases due to years of litigation: "Mr Atkins, ah got some good noooos, an I got some baaaad news..."

YORKTOWN, Va., Feb. 3 - Three years ago, in the case of a Virginia man named Daryl R. Atkins, the United States Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to execute the mentally retarded. But Mr. Atkins's recent test scores could eliminate him from that group.
His scores have shot up, a defense expert said, thanks to the mental workout his participation in years of litigation gave him.
The Supreme Court, which did not decide whether Mr. Atkins was retarded, noted that he scored 59 on an I.Q. test in 1998. The cutoff for retardation in Virginia is 70.
A defense expert who retested Mr. Atkins last year found that his I.Q. was 74. In court here on Thursday, prosecutors said their expert's latest test yielded 76.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/06/national/06atkins.html?th