facetious examples?

2382 views
Skip to first unread message

Thomas Schenk

unread,
Jan 31, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/31/97
to

shee...@woods.uml.edu wrote:
>
> Can someone please give me some examples of when a person is being facetious?
> What is the difference between facetious and sarcastic?

A sarcastic remark is one that is made with the intention of making its
victim an object of ridicule, often humorous, but not necessarily so,
usually with malicious intent. If a person hasn't slept for several
days, and looks it, a sarcastic remark might be, "You look like
something that the cat just dragged in."

A facetious remark, in the same situation might be, "I've seen you
looking better." There is an attempt by the speaker to be humorous and
witty, and it may seem so to him or her, but not usually to other
listeners. Facetiousness usually has the negative connotation of failed
humor.
--
************************
Dr Thomas M Schenk
Laguna Beach, California


shee...@woods.uml.edu

unread,
Jan 31, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/31/97
to

B.W. Battin

unread,
Feb 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/1/97
to

On 31 Jan 97 17:29:32 -0500, shee...@woods.uml.edu wrote:

>Can someone please give me some examples of when a person is being facetious?
>What is the difference between facetious and sarcastic?

To be facetious means to say something that is not meant to be taken
seriously. For example, if I think the new Ford is extremely fast and
powerful, I might say just the opposite. "Yeah, and it sure in
underpowered, too." The remark is facetious. I'm really indicating
that I think the Ford *is* powerful.

Sarcasm, on the other hand, is harsh, a sneer or a mean-spirited jibe
for instance. It's used to ridicule. If Ted considers himself
smarter than everybody else, you might say, "Of course Ted would have
the answer in two seconds." You are not indicating that Ted can
really do this, but commenting on his know-it-all attitude.

BWB

Stuart Leichter

unread,
Feb 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/2/97
to

In article <1997Jan31.172932.1@aspen>, shee...@woods.uml.edu wrote:

> Can someone please give me some examples of when a person is being facetious?
> What is the difference between facetious and sarcastic?

For one unique thing, "facetious" includes all the vowels in sequence.

Sarcasm is mildly or strongly hurtful. Facetiousness is playful and more
artful. Sarcasm is the currency of immature and inchoate irony.
Facetiousness comes from experience and wit, usually embodying charm.

Q: Hello, how are you today?
A (facetiously): Able to hear, but no more.

Q: Hello, how are you today?
A: (sarcastically): Why don't you ask your wife?

--
Stuart Leichter
----
Unlike rules, distinctions are made to be kept.

Copy Desk

unread,
Feb 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/3/97
to

Actually, facetiousLY includes ALL the vowels in sequence.
--
==========================================
If man did not exist, God would need to invent him.

Stuart Leichter <slei...@nb.net> wrote in article
<sleichte-010...@wheat-040.nb.net>...
:
: For one unique thing, "facetious" includes all the vowels in sequence.
:


Martin A. Mazur

unread,
Feb 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/3/97
to

In article <1997Jan31.172932.1@aspen>, shee...@woods.uml.edu wrote:
>Can someone please give me some examples of when a person is being facetious?
>What is the difference between facetious and sarcastic?

OK, it's Monday and I'm in a bad mood, and you may say "who asked you?" since
so many nice people have already answered your question, but don't you have a
dictionary? Judging from your name, English is probably your first
language, and the distinction you ask about is not at all subtle.

I'll bet that the originator of the "Comptroller/Controller" thread didn't
bother to look it up (she said she tried Yahoo, which isn't a dictionary).
But, at least her question related to something on which there can be some
natural puzzlement.

And yes, I'm being sarcastic. If you want facetious, wait till Friday.

--
Martin A. Mazur .................... Representing only himself
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/m/x/mxm14/

"Subjectivism is the epistemology of savages." - Leonard Peikoff


B.W. Battin

unread,
Feb 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/3/97
to

On Mon, 03 Feb 97 13:24:14 GMT, mx...@psu.edu (Martin A. Mazur) wrote:


>OK, it's Monday and I'm in a bad mood, and you may say "who asked you?" since
>so many nice people have already answered your question, but don't you have a
>dictionary? Judging from your name, English is probably your first
>language, and the distinction you ask about is not at all subtle.
>
>I'll bet that the originator of the "Comptroller/Controller" thread didn't
>bother to look it up (she said she tried Yahoo, which isn't a dictionary).
>But, at least her question related to something on which there can be some
>natural puzzlement.
>
>And yes, I'm being sarcastic. If you want facetious, wait till Friday.
>
>--

It was a perfectly legitimate question and resulted in some
informative answers. If you don't wish to respond to a question, why
not simply ignore it? Why so belligerent?

BWB

Martin A. Mazur

unread,
Feb 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/3/97
to

In article <32f70052...@news.concentric.net>,
Most a.u.e. regulars have a pet peeve or two. Talk to Truly on a bad day.
"Peeves" threads are started frequently enough. I laid mine out some months
ago in a "Peeves" thread. Probably my biggest one is "dictionary questions".
These are questions that, for a literate English speaking person, can be
adequately answered by simply consulting the dictionary. Occasionally, I
choose not to ignore such posts, probably to the detriment of my health. With
the number of posts to AUE growing past a thousand a week, a "dictionary post"
is as big a breach of netiquette as a post that quotes too much text or
answers something that's already been answered, or a post that requests
something that's in the FAQ.

The post was not a legitimate question. There was no subtlety at all to what
was required to answer it. Just because some nice people gave a few good
examples doesn't mean that similar examples could not have been provided by
the original poster had he consulted the dictionary and simply thought about
it for a minute.

The other example I alluded to, the "controller/comptroller" post, was also
technically a "dictionary post". IIRC, the main bits of info requested were
the pronounciation of both, and what the difference in meaning was. Both
questions could be adequately answered by a dictionary. On the other hand,
there is something intrinsically puzzling about the word "comptroller" that
many dictionaries do not adequately address. The thread had the (probably
unintended) benefit that some interesting light was shed on this puzzlement.
There is nothing difficult, puzzling or interesting about the difference
between "facetious' and "sarcastic" to people who know how to use a
dictionary.

And, by the way, in my own crabby way, I followed the herd in providing
examples. My answer was sarcastic, except for the last line, which was
facetious.

Larry Preuss

unread,
Feb 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/3/97
to

In article <5d52jm$1t...@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>, mx...@psu.edu (Martin A.
Mazur) wrote:


> Most a.u.e. regulars have a pet peeve or two. Talk to Truly on a bad day.
> "Peeves" threads are started frequently enough. I laid mine out some months
> ago in a "Peeves" thread. Probably my biggest one is "dictionary questions".
> These are questions that, for a literate English speaking person, can be
> adequately answered by simply consulting the dictionary. Occasionally, I
> choose not to ignore such posts, probably to the detriment of my health. With
> the number of posts to AUE growing past a thousand a week, a "dictionary
post"
> is as big a breach of netiquette as a post that quotes too much text or
> answers something that's already been answered, or a post that requests
> something that's in the FAQ.

Martin, I've had trouble with the "already been answered" thing, and don't
know how avoid this breach of netiquette. The unpredictable delay in
appearance of posts, and the occasional drop-outs from my server, mean that
I may be the second or third to answer with identical information. Is there
really a way to avoid this?
Larry

--

Curt Gould

unread,
Feb 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/3/97
to

mx...@psu.edu (Martin A. Mazur) wrote:

>>>Judging from your name, English is probably your first
>>>language, and the distinction you ask about is not at all subtle.

>The post was not a legitimate question. There was no subtlety at all to what

[ironic snip]

>There is nothing difficult, puzzling or interesting about the difference
>between "facetious' and "sarcastic" to people who know how to use a
>dictionary.

MWCD10 considers the distinction subtle enough to cross refence the two
words with other synonyms for "wit" and "witty". MW's New Dictionary of
Synonyms devotes a couple of columns to their subtleties. Some
dictionaries include a sense for "facetious" of a failed attempt at wit
due to bad timing or bad taste. One person's facetiousness can be
another's sarcasm. The same remark can be facetious for one listener and
sarcastic for another. Sarcasm can be used facetiously -- as caustic irony
not meant to be taken seriously. I read your first reply as that. Others
saw it as purely belligerent sarcasm. The question of which it was is
interesting, but only to the extent that it answers the question that you
found "not legitimate".

--Curt Gould

B.W. Battin

unread,
Feb 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/3/97
to

On Mon, 03 Feb 1997 13:09:38 -0700, Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com>
wrote:

>B.W. Battin wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 03 Feb 97 13:24:14 GMT, mx...@psu.edu (Martin A. Mazur) wrote:
>>
>> >OK, it's Monday and I'm in a bad mood,
>>

>> It was a perfectly legitimate question and resulted in some
>> informative answers. If you don't wish to respond to a question, why
>> not simply ignore it? Why so belligerent?
>

>He explained why he didn't simply ignore it and why the informative
>answers didn't add value to AUE. Why are you asking questions to which
>the answer has already been given? Or have you just decided to take up
>the behavior-modification-by-holier-than-thou technique again?
>
>--

And to me that answer seemed unnecessarily belligerent, okay?

Look, Truly, at this point I'm more than happy to stop fighting with
you, but you don't seem willing to let me. We're allegedly grownups.
Why don't we start acting like it? I get the distinct impression it
would be a relief to everyone else if we did.

BWB

Truly Donovan

unread,
Feb 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/3/97
to

B.W. Battin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 03 Feb 97 13:24:14 GMT, mx...@psu.edu (Martin A. Mazur) wrote:
>
> >OK, it's Monday and I'm in a bad mood,
>
> It was a perfectly legitimate question and resulted in some
> informative answers. If you don't wish to respond to a question, why
> not simply ignore it? Why so belligerent?

He explained why he didn't simply ignore it and why the informative
answers didn't add value to AUE. Why are you asking questions to which
the answer has already been given? Or have you just decided to take up
the behavior-modification-by-holier-than-thou technique again?

--
Truly Donovan
"Industrial-strength SGML," Prentice Hall 1996
ISBN 0-13-216243-1
http://www.prenhall.com

Stuart Leichter

unread,
Feb 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/4/97
to

In article <32f6545c...@news.concentric.net>, bat...@concentric.net
(B.W. Battin) wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Feb 1997 13:09:38 -0700, Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com>
> wrote:
>

> >B.W. Battin wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 03 Feb 97 13:24:14 GMT, mx...@psu.edu (Martin A. Mazur) wrote:
> >>
> >> >OK,

> >so belligerent?
> >again?
> >

> okay?
>
> Look,

Are they using freeware speech recognition software, or what? The thread
is about "facetious", not "fascistic" or "fetishistic".

bera...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 10, 2018, 9:49:32 AM8/10/18
to
On Tuesday, February 4, 1997 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, Stuart Leichter wrote:
> In article <32f6545c...@news.concentric.net>, bat...@concentric.net
> (B.W. Battin) wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 03 Feb 1997 13:09:38 -0700, Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >B.W. Battin wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, 03 Feb 97 13:24:14 GMT, mx...@psu.edu (Martin A. Mazur) wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >OK,
>
> > >so belligerent?
> > >again?
> > >
>
> > okay?
> >
> > Look,
>
> Are they using freeware speech recognition software, or what? The thread
> is about "facetious", not "fascistic" or "fetishistic".


You, sir, are an exemplary pedant. Can I use these quotes the next time I need to explain that word to someone?

Harrison Hill

unread,
Aug 10, 2018, 11:12:00 AM8/10/18
to
You, sir, certainly had a good think about that reply. I hope I'm
around twenty years from now, when this thread next resurfaces :)

j.cha...@remint.school.nz

unread,
Jul 30, 2019, 1:02:44 AM7/30/19
to
On Friday, 31 January 1997 21:00:00 UTC+13, Thomas Schenk wrote:
> shee...@woods.uml.edu wrote:
> >
> > Can someone please give me some examples of when a person is being facetious?
> > What is the difference between facetious and sarcastic?
>
> A sarcastic remark is one that is made with the intention of making its
> victim an object of ridicule, often humorous, but not necessarily so,
> usually with malicious intent. If a person hasn't slept for several
> days, and looks it, a sarcastic remark might be, "You look like
> something that the cat just dragged in."
>
> A facetious remark, in the same situation might be, "I've seen you
> looking better." There is an attempt by the speaker to be humorous and
> witty, and it may seem so to him or her, but not usually to other
> listeners. Facetiousness usually has the negative connotation of failed
> humor.
> --
> ************************
> Dr Thomas M Schenk
> Laguna Beach, California

hi
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages