I think it's sarcasm, actually? The target of my wit was not the mad typographers of Google, but rather the HN commentors who like to sprinkle comment threads on awe-inspiring subjects with dismissive pedantry. Sometimes it feels as though the CDC could announce that a universal cure for cancer has passed its phase 3 clinical trials, and the median HN response would be: "does this page really need to load 170kb worth of CSS? And why does it degrade so badly when I run NoScript?"

Or like the way that some people, when confronted with the awsome ineffable magnitude of my sense of humour...

</Ironic_humor> ;-)

Gosh, there is a lot of depth to language. I like lisper's note because there are a lot of people whose first language is not English and may not know the difference; I like your rejoinder that it was sarcasm against another audience, but was ironic humor to Google. (We can write to multiple audiences at once, no?)

And now here's a font complete enough that perhaps I can find the right glyph to punctuate the idea. We need something with a bit more nuance than the interrobang, I think.

Just to be clear, I quite liked Lister's note as well. I'm a language nerd myself, and always appreciate having more opportunities to cheekily overload some entendres.

sarcasm derives from the ancient greek meaning 'tearing of the flesh'. Sarcasm is intended to wound the recipient. Ironic humor is also a poke, but only tickles. I suggest a new word 'gargalism'.

Also, Rongorongo isn't yet in the Unicode standard. Can't fault a Unicode font for not supporting something which isn't there.

You are technically correct which, as we all know, is the best kind of correct.

Thank you for introducing this notion to me! I struggle with accusations of "sarcasm" when I am not intending to "mock or convey contempt", merely expressing an idea as its more accessible inverse!

You are most welcome.

Well, you did this by sort of mocking (imaginary / hypothetical) haters or nitpickers, so I'd argue it does fall under sarcasm category. Sarcasm doesn't always have to be directed at the person you're addressing, or even an existing person.

I don't think you intended to direct this comment to me. I am not OP.

Instead of "you" it should read "the OP", I apologize.

> Just FYI, this is not sarcasm, it's ironic humor. Not the same thing. Sarcasm is "the use of irony to mock or convey contempt" which is obviously not what you meant.

Just FYI, you were humorless in your interpretation of his comment. Humorless is "unable to see humor in things when most others do."

There was no humor in the attempt. Can't help that.

I'm glad pedantry and nitpicking like this are acceptable on HN and I say this without any intention of irony (or, indeed sarcasm).

What % of people do you estimate would make that distinction?

Call me old fashioned, but I think it's important to know what words actually mean, and to use the words that mean what you actually intend to convey. To quote Tom Stoppard, "If there is any point to using language at all is that a word is taken to stand for a particular fact or idea and not for other facts or ideas." (If you're not familiar with that quote, it worth looking it up and reading it in context.)

Uh huh. Stephen Fry has you pegged, I'm afraid. http://youtu.be/J7E-aoXLZGY

Beautiful rejoinder. That was a fun video. :)

  When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a
  scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean
  —neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, 
  “whether you can make words mean so many different 
  things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which 
  is to be master—that’s all.”

-- LEWIS CARROLL (Charles L. Dodgson), Through the Looking-Glass, chapter 6, p. 205 (1934). First published in 1872.

:D

Yes I think what corrupts this ideal is the extent to which words come to represent feelings and associations instead of facts and ideas.

Like how "literally" has come to represent the feeling of emphasis, and the association with the experience of one-upping other emphatic adjectives like "extremely."

Common use does not make it right. People using litterally in this way are just showcasing their ignorance.

You must not be familiar with the "Prescriptivist vs Descriptivist" debate.

http://english.blogoverflow.com/2012/10/prescriptivism-and-d...

> Common use does not make it right.

In fact, this is the very mechanism by which language evolves.

You mean degrades?

Being flexible with my language doesn't keep me from being precise. I said what I meant.

Actually not. If you google the debate you'll find there's a history of using the word this way that goes back a very, very, long time in a variety of literature.

I have to admit I thought the same as you until someone pointed this out.

Common use is literally the only thing which defines correctness.

¿Por que no los dos? In current use, ‘literally’ for emphasis is a sign of a lowbrow sociolect.

> lowbrow sociolect

Is this Pretentious Twaddlese for "stupid"?

No, for ‘ignorant’, as the grandparent said.

The dictatorship of the Majority ?

I find it weird that this fight is only over "literally" (which doesn't actually literally mean non-metaphorically, but rather "to do with letters") but not "really", "truly" and "actually" and other such words which do literally mean "this is true and real".

You've fallen victim to Muphry's law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law

"litterally" only has one t in it.

The same word in French as two so this is probably one letter that was dropped over time.

> Common use does not make it right.

Yes, it does. There is no "right" in language use beyond communication with the target audience. What people understand a word to mean is all there is.

That is a very counter-productive and shallow view of language. Language is always changing — semantics are no exception. Words don't mean the same today as they did 100 years ago, and even then they didn't mean the same as they did 200 years ago, and even then... You get the drift...

It's arrogant to think that the language that we're speaking right now is the pinnacle of linguistic evolution and that it's only downhill from here.

Clearly we aren't at the pinnacle of linguistic evolution. Ancient Greek and Latin were far more evolved than modern Indo-European languages. Indo-European languages have been going downhill for the past 2000 years or so ;-)

All this is true. Nonetheless, if you go too far towards the other extreme and apply Humpty-Dumpty's theory of language ("When I say a word it means exactly what I want it to mean") you won't be able to communicate at all.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/eft/eft43.htm

I hear that argument a lot, but I rarely see a case where someone notes "wrong" usage — like you did — where there's actually any ambiguity. Like when people complain about "literally" being used as an intensifier. I doubt they're confused if the speaker e.g. actually died of embarrassment or if they're just using it as an intensifier.

Language has so much redundancy that a slightly different understanding of a single word in a sentence rarely is of any consequence.

Again, everything you say is is true (which, BTW, is why I prefaced my comment with "Just FYI..."). But the sarcasm/ironic-humor confusion is very prevalent even among native speakers, and in a different set of circumstances it could cause confusion or worse because the implied stance of sarcasm is the exact opposite of ironic humor. Also, HN is a public forum, and comments are read not only by their respondees but by lurkers as well, some of whom may not be native speakers and who might therefore appreciate having some of the subtleties of the language pointed out to them.

After reading all the comments here, you still stand behind your original pedantic comment as being appropriate and productive? Fascinating.

If you knew the OP was more likely to feel insulted than to feel helped, that wouldn't have changed your action?

Well, we don't have to speculate. The OP weighed in:

> Just to be clear, I quite liked Lister's [sic] note as well.

So yes.

You're missing a small word ("it") in your quote.

There's another small word ("is") missing in your last sentence.

Call me old fashioned, but even small words matter. To quote Ernest Cline, "People who live in glass houses should shut the fuck up."

I apologize for the profanity, but it's just such a great quote, and so appropriate in this case.

I hear you, but does Stoppard's affinity for style and precision relate to off-topic pedantry? I'm not trying to diminish the importance of correctness. I actually do share your appreciation for these things. Maybe we can make a distinction between literature and singling out one person publicly.

Btw, Stoppard also said "I was always looking for the entertainer in myself ... [but] it's really about human beings".

> Call me old fashioned, but I think it's important to know what words actually mean [...] To quote Thomas Stoppard

It's also important, when pretentiously namedropping a writer and bragging about how you actually read them (all to win a pointless internet argument about a throwaway 'sarcasm' tag) to actually know that writer's name.

This isn't an argument. If I used a word to mean the opposite of what it actually means I'd want someone to point it out. Just like if I get an author's name wrong I'd want someone to point it out. (Thanks for pointing it out.)

He didn't use "sarcasm" to mean the opposite of what it actually means.

Because his post could be read as sincere (unjustified) criticism of Google, he used the well-known internet convention of "/sarcasm" to avoid an unnecessary, off-topic sub-thread stemming from his post. How's that for irony.

Well, if people thought I was looking out of shape or overweight I wouldn't mind someone saying so.

However wouldn't you agree that what I would like, and what is considered generally polite in our culture are probably not always equal?

I literally believe you.

Webster Dictionary: Sarcasm http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm

Full Definition of sarcasm 1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain

2 : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual

Nope your Ironic contains sarcasm.

That's right, sarcasm is a particular kind of irony. And it's not the kind that the OP was employing.

What? And miss all this intellectually stimulating badinage?

(Now that was sarcasm.)