h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I adore this little description. The wonderful thing about it is, it describes itself: the description "quasi-pseudo-ironic" is itself quasi-pseudo-ironic. This only increases the irony, which negates the pseudo bit, or perhaps the quasi bit, and therefore the description "quasi-pseudo-ironic" both describes itself and by virtue of describing itself, does not describe itself.

The charm of all this is that, when you describe something as quasi-pseudo-ironic, the descriptive term is almost certainly better than the thing you're describing.

Which is probably quasi-pseudo-ironic.

Good one RK.

But what if something is only maybe quasi-psuedo ironic?


az

It's fantastic!

The wonders of a university education, eh?

My favourite phrases are along the same lines: One of them I was told years ago by a linguistics teacher describing something as being a "polysyllabic circumloqution," Which essentially means that it was a different way of saying something, just using bigger words. Like you're doing when you use the phrase "polysyllabic circumloqution," instead of just saying that it's a different way of saying something just using bigger words.

The other one is "floccipaucinihilipilification," which is "the action of estimating something to be useless."
Ironically enough, when somebody hears the definition, they tend to think that it's a completely useless word, which means that they are in fact performing the action it describes.

But I think I like yours better, RK.

az -

Something that is potentially, or hypothetically, perhaps, quasi-pseudo-ironic, must, annoyingly, stay in the realms of the hypothetical -- otherwise we would not call it hypothetical. This (to state the bleedin' obvious) is self-descriptive as well, and therefore ironic. We therefore arrive at the conclusion that whether something is quasi-pseudo-ironic or only potentially quasi-pseudo-ironic, it is still quasi-pseudo-ironic. Of course, now that it is quasi-pseudo-ironic, it is more than quasi-pseudo ironic, and so if something is potentially quasi-pseudo ironic (as well as if it actually is quasi-pseudo ironic), by dint of being so, it is not. I hope that's clear.

And that was a sesquipadalian description, Jerms.











(Which is quasi-pseudo-ironic)

He's been reading too many philosophy books and not enough Daily Mails i reckon.




zdt

Bloody hell!



I think my eyes crossed and something popped in my brain trying to pronounce that in my head, Jerms...

RK and Az...hehehe!

hi RK,

Gaaaa, this is what I get for trying to joke with a philosopher, eh? Of course I prefer semi-sorta-kinda-maybe-quasi-psuedo ironic.

As for sesquipadalian, best not ever to say that with a mouth full of biscuits I reckon.

az

Quasi - almost, but not really; resembling but not actually being
Pseudo - not genuine, pretended; false, pretended or unauthentic; having a close resemblance to.

The precise meaning of the phrase will depend on which meanings of the individual quasi-prefixes are being employed, and on whether "quasi" is being employed as an intensifier or a qualifier of pseudo-ironic.

Noggin

Dang! I forgot 'almost' - that should come after 'semi'.



az

Certainly the irony is ironic. This is self-evident by the use of the word "ironic", as any philosopher will tell you. However as Noggin says, the phrase will indeed depend on whether the word "quasi-" (perhaps, prefix rather than word) is an intensifier rather than a qualifier.

Let us imagine that it is an intensifier. So, the phrase "quasi-pseudo-ironic" means in fact, that the phrase "quasi-pseudo-ironic" means that the phrase "pseudo-ironic" is really rather quite especially pseudo-ironic. This is quite obviously false. Were it quasi-pseudo-ironic, it would be ironic and therefore not quasi-pseudo-ironic. Were it not, it would not be quasi-pseudo-ironic and so the point is moot.

Of course, were something intensely quasi-pseudo-ironic, one must always ask oneself if, if someothing is intensely quasi, it is still quasi.

If something is intensely quasi-, then it is, and the the end of it, quasi, even if intensely so, and perhaps at the edge of being quasi, it is nonetheless quasi. Otherwise we would not call it quasi; that would be an abuse of the word "quasi". Well then, let us imagine that it is very very "almost". This is indeed what "quasi-" means. In which case, the meaning barely changes, except to impart an emotional significance on the part of the author; one might say that I REALLY MEAN [caps used to signify intensity of emotion] that it's quasi-pseudo-ironic, although did I not mean what I had typed, I would not have typed it.

The point is that if I weren't quasi-pseudo-ironic, I would almost certainly be quasi-pseudo-ironic.

Let's all go out and abuse a quasi. This will no doubt violate several pseudo legal acts, which is really rather ironic.

Come to think of it, irons are horribly abused, nasty humans heat them up (without asking them first) and then, not surprisngly, they get depressed.

zdt*NOT guilty of iron abuse, just ask my Tshirts*