Comments for The Snark http://thesnark.org Home of the Verbal Irony Mark Fri, 30 Jul 2010 04:10:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 Comment on FAQ by admin http://thesnark.org/faq/#comment-81 admin Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:26:19 +0000 http://thesnark.org/faq/#comment-81 <strong>Irony Mark vs. Sarcasm Mark vs. Snark</strong> <blockquote>The short version: The Snark is a shiny, versatile, modern replacement for both the classic Irony Mark and the various Sarcasm Marks, with the best features of both! </blockquote> The long comparison The classic irony mark, as largely described in the Wikipedia article is a late 19th century proposal by the French artist/poet de Brahm. The snark is an early 21st-century version for English, from an ad-hoc group of designers and type enthusiasts. The classic mark looks like a backwards question mark, and requires a specialized piece of type to produce, or a specific design in digital type. The snark looks like a period with a tilde after it, and may appear as two existing marks, typed one after the other, or as a customized variation; just like how "1/2" and "½" both mean "one half". The purpose of all three marks overlap. The classic design is intended for where one might suggest an alternate level of meaning (the essence of irony in general) The snark is specifically for where one would <em>intone </em>a secondary meaning contrary to the literal statement. Specifically, the narrower suggestion for use of the snark is intended to remove confusion on use. More plainly, it is for use in writing where, if it was spoken, the way it was spoken (or the expression of the speaker) would contradict the meaning of the words. This is what separates "verbal irony" from other types that would not likely benefit from a special mark. The snark's usefulness sits right between the Wikipedia pages on irony and sarcasm marks, as it is broader than just a sarcasm mark. It is useful for clarifying over- and understatements, and otherwise twistful talk like deadpan rhetoric or surreal responses, but is never intended to be stamped on every single instance of irony. One current view describes sarcasm as a type of verbal irony, and verbal irony as just one of several types of irony. Irony Mark vs. Sarcasm Mark vs. Snark

The short version:
The Snark is a shiny, versatile, modern replacement for both the classic Irony Mark and the various Sarcasm Marks, with the best features of both!

The long comparison

The classic irony mark, as largely described in the Wikipedia article is a late 19th century proposal by the French artist/poet de Brahm. The snark is an early 21st-century version for English, from an ad-hoc group of designers and type enthusiasts.

The classic mark looks like a backwards question mark, and requires a specialized piece of type to produce, or a specific design in digital type. The snark looks like a period with a tilde after it, and may appear as two existing marks, typed one after the other, or as a customized variation; just like how “1/2″ and “½” both mean “one half”.

The purpose of all three marks overlap. The classic design is intended for where one might suggest an alternate level of meaning (the essence of irony in general) The snark is specifically for where one would intone a secondary meaning contrary to the literal statement. Specifically, the narrower suggestion for use of the snark is intended to remove confusion on use. More plainly, it is for use in writing where, if it was spoken, the way it was spoken (or the expression of the speaker) would contradict the meaning of the words. This is what separates “verbal irony” from other types that would not likely benefit from a special mark.

The snark’s usefulness sits right between the Wikipedia pages on irony and sarcasm marks, as it is broader than just a sarcasm mark. It is useful for clarifying over- and understatements, and otherwise twistful talk like deadpan rhetoric or surreal responses, but is never intended to be stamped on every single instance of irony. One current view describes sarcasm as a type of verbal irony, and verbal irony as just one of several types of irony.

]]> Comment on FAQ by ankita http://thesnark.org/faq/#comment-77 ankita Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:03:05 +0000 http://thesnark.org/faq/#comment-77 <p>what is the difference between irony mark and sarcasm mark (snark). If not then in wikipedia details of both are given differently... plz reply soon</p> what is the difference between irony mark and sarcasm mark (snark). If not then in wikipedia details of both are given differently… plz reply soon

]]> Comment on FAQ by admin http://thesnark.org/faq/#comment-7 admin Thu, 05 Jul 2007 15:20:20 +0000 http://thesnark.org/faq/#comment-7 A: The snark has not yet been given any official Unicode index. The best practice currently is to encode it to #E2D2. This does not seem to conflict with MUFI or any other major encoding agreements, and it really should have its own encoding, since the meaning is distinct from the full stop or tilde. For more details see: <a href="http://thesnark.org/design/#encoding" rel="nofollow">http://thesnark.org/design/#encoding</a> A: The snark has not yet been given any official Unicode index. The best practice currently is to encode it to #E2D2. This does not seem to conflict with MUFI or any other major encoding agreements, and it really should have its own encoding, since the meaning is distinct from the full stop or tilde. For more details see:

http://thesnark.org/design/#encoding

]]> Comment on FAQ by cuttlefish http://thesnark.org/faq/#comment-6 cuttlefish Wed, 04 Jul 2007 20:03:18 +0000 http://thesnark.org/faq/#comment-6 Q: If I include the snark as a unique character in my font, how should I encode it? Q: Has the snark been assigned a specific Unicode point? Is there a pending proposal, or a prefeered Private Use Area number? Q: What about OpenType features to render it from component keystrokes? Q: If I include the snark as a unique character in my font, how should I encode it?

Q: Has the snark been assigned a specific Unicode point? Is there a pending proposal, or a prefeered Private Use Area number?

Q: What about OpenType features to render it from component keystrokes?

]]> Comment on Email offline by admin http://thesnark.org/2007/06/25/email-offline/#comment-5 admin Sat, 30 Jun 2007 05:41:31 +0000 http://thesnark.org/2007/06/25/email-offline/#comment-5 Problem has been identified and is being resolved. Problem has been identified and is being resolved.

]]> Comment on History by cuttlefish http://thesnark.org/history/#comment-4 cuttlefish Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:28:05 +0000 http://thesnark.org/history/#comment-4 The Medieval Unicode Font Initiative lists several historic punctuation marks in its recommendation which resemble the snark. I am not a medieval scholar, so I cannot speak as to whether any of them was ever used in a manner similar to the intended use of the snark, but I think this is worthy of further investigation, at least concerning the history of the form of the mark its self, if not its usage as well. This certainly would not be the first time a glyph has shifted from one purpose to another. Medieval Unicode Font Initiative http://www.mufi.info/ Possible snark relatives can be found on pages 136-138 of the following document: http://www.mufi.info/specs/MUFI-Alphabetic-2-0.pdf The Medieval Unicode Font Initiative lists several historic punctuation marks in its recommendation which resemble the snark. I am not a medieval scholar, so I cannot speak as to whether any of them was ever used in a manner similar to the intended use of the snark, but I think this is worthy of further investigation, at least concerning the history of the form of the mark its self, if not its usage as well. This certainly would not be the first time a glyph has shifted from one purpose to another.

Medieval Unicode Font Initiative
http://www.mufi.info/

Possible snark relatives can be found on pages 136-138 of the following document:
http://www.mufi.info/specs/MUFI-Alphabetic-2-0.pdf

]]>