Mỉ Mỉao ga Nhäqpy at 03:48, 12 July 2022

2022-07-12T03:48:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:48, 12 July 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	How can we tell if an act someone might perform in a conversation is an [~~https://toaq.net/refgram/18/~~ illocution]? Is "making a promise" an illocution? What about "telling a joke"?		How can we tell if an act someone might perform in a conversation is an [[illocution]]? Is "making a promise" an illocution? What about "telling a joke"?

	== The illocution test ==		== The illocution test ==

Mỉ Mỉao ga Nhäqpy: hiss non-existent link, get smacked. (replaced it with a link to refgram because otherwise it would just be pointing to nothing. and nothing is bad. hmm..... bad wording)

2022-07-12T02:14:32Z

*hiss* non-existent link, get smacked. (replaced it with a link to refgram because otherwise it would just be pointing to nothing. and nothing is bad. hmm..... bad wording)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:14, 12 July 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	How can we tell if an act someone might perform in a conversation is an [[illocution]]? Is "making a promise" an illocution? What about "telling a joke"?		How can we tell if an act someone might perform in a conversation is an [https://toaq.net/refgram/18/ illocution]? Is "making a promise" an illocution? What about "telling a joke"?

	== The illocution test ==		== The illocution test ==

Laqme: Created page with "How can we tell if an act someone might perform in a conversation is an illocution? Is "making a promise" an illocution? What about "telling a joke"? == The illocution test == Asserting a fact, asking a question, and making a promise are all different illocutions: you can't assert a fact that is also a question, or ask a question that is also a promise. On the other hand, "joking" is not an illocution. It fails the '''illocution test''', by being ''compatible'' wit..."

2022-07-11T23:18:33Z

Created page with "How can we tell if an act someone might perform in a conversation is an illocution? Is "making a promise" an illocution? What about "telling a joke"? == The illocution test == Asserting a fact, asking a question, and making a promise are all different illocutions: you can't assert a fact that is also a question, or ask a question that is also a promise. On the other hand, "joking" is not an illocution. It fails the '''illocution test''', by being ''compatible'' wit..."

New page

How can we tell if an act someone might perform in a conversation is an [[illocution]]? Is "making a promise" an illocution? What about "telling a joke"?

== The illocution test ==
Asserting a fact, asking a question, and making a promise are all different illocutions: you can't assert a fact that is also a question, or ask a question that is also a promise.

On the other hand, "joking" is not an illocution. It fails the '''illocution test''', by being ''compatible'' with every other illocution. You can assert a fact jokingly, or ask a question jokingly, or make a promise jokingly, or issue a command jokingly.

"Flirting" is not an illocution: there are flirty assertions, questions, promises, commands, and so on.

== So is {{t|daha}} wrong? ==
As long as we are aware that {{t|daha}} (and {{t|moho}}…) mark illocution ''plus'' some sort of meta "joking" flag that is not illocution, I think there is no big problem.

It goes against the [[isolating]] nature of Toaq a little. I can't make a jokey promise until I go define {{t|nhaha}}. (And oh no, {{t|kaha}} is already taken!)

Also, it is very important that {{t|da}} doesn't mark the ''absence'' of a joke. {{t|Daha}} should not and cannot be mandatory. The next section rambles about why that is.

== Illocution vs. intent ==
The key distinction here is that there are various '''illocutions''' in language (assertion, question, promise…), and we can make them with far more complicated '''intents''' (reassuring, joking / getting a reaction, fishing for compliments…).

We hide our intents all the time. Whereas another possible (weaker) illocution test is this: illocutions are not the sort of thing it even makes sense to want to hide.

If Toaq is chess, illocutions are your ''moves'' (moving, capturing, castling). There can be a hidden plan/intent ''behind'' the move, or it can be a "joke" move, etc. But the move type itself is necessarily visible to the opponent.

We had better be able to lie or tell jokes or flirt or bluff with regular {{t|da}}, and not be ''forced'' by Toaq to mark every joke with {{t|daha}}. Otherwise, it would make for a very weird game of chess, where we are forced to reveal our intent. It's just not the sort of thing ''any'' human language concerns itself with or ''can'' even enforce.

Illocution test - Revision history

Mỉ Mỉao ga Nhäqpy at 03:48, 12 July 2022

Mỉ Mỉao ga Nhäqpy: *hiss* non-existent link, get smacked. (replaced it with a link to refgram because otherwise it would just be pointing to nothing. and nothing is bad. hmm..... bad wording)

Mỉ Mỉao ga Nhäqpy: hiss non-existent link, get smacked. (replaced it with a link to refgram because otherwise it would just be pointing to nothing. and nothing is bad. hmm..... bad wording)