Osaka University Knowledge Archive

Ren, Xue-Jing

Xie, Bao-Hua

Jiang, Yue-Ping

English

DECOMPOSITION OF COMPLEX HYPERBOLIC ISOMETRIES BY TWO COMPLEX SYMMETRIES

Title メタフュシカ　第48号　目次
Author(s)
Citation メタフュシカ. 48
Issue Date 2017-12-20
Text Version publisher
URL http://hdl.handle.net/11094/67686
DOI
rights
Note
Osaka University Knowledge Archive : OUKA
https://ir.library.osaka-u.ac.jp/repo/ouka/all/
Osaka University
目　　次
上野修教授の退職記念号出版にあたって         (  i  )
上野修教授　略歴         (  ii  )
上野修教授　研究業績等一覧         ( iii )
上野修教授　功績調書         ( xii )
《論文》
「解釈学的状況」の出生－『存在と時間』第二部の意図したもの－   須藤 訓任 (  1  )
Eigentlichkeitにおける関心について   中橋  誠 ( 17 )
推論規則と二項論理をめぐって   澤邊 興平 ( 29 )
われらに似たるものと自己の観念：スピノザの感情論を自己認識の理論として読む 
  立花 達也 ( 47 )
ハイデガーにおける解釈と言明の主題化   西村 知紘 ( 61 )
カントにおける〈法の道徳からの独立〉と〈法の道徳への依存〉の整合性
  米田  恵 ( 75 )
ダンスワークショップで実現する表現の考察   小泉 朝未 ( 89 )
精神科病院での集団音楽療法を考える－関係し合う時間の中で－   竹内 幸子 (103)
《文献紹介》
帰結関係という視座から関連論理を観る為に   澤邊 興平 (117)
ロバート・ブランダム著『プラグマティズムのボキャブラリー：自然主義と歴史主義を統合する』
（『プラグマティズムの諸相：古典・近年・現代』より）   朱  喜哲 (125)
（Robert Brandom, “Vocabularies of Pragmatism: Synthesizing Naturalism and Historicism,” in Perspectives 
on Pragmatism: classical, recent, and contemporary, Harvard University Press, 2011.）
上山隆大著『アカデミック・キャピタリズムを超えて　アメリカの大学と科学研究の現在』 
  中村 文彦 (133)
【彙報】   (139)
【編集後記】   (149)
Contents
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY, GRADUATE SCHOOL OF LETTERS, OSAKA UNIVERSITY
OSAKA, JAPAN
Theses
Entstehungsgeschichte der „hermeneutischen Situation“ beim frühen Heidegger : 
 Über den zweiten Teil des Sein und Zeit    Norihide SUTO  (  1  )
On the interest of Eigentlichkeit    Makoto NAKAHASHI  ( 17 )
Rules of Inference and Binary Logic    Kohei SAWABE  ( 29 )
Thing Like Us and Idea of Self: On the Self-knowledge in Spinoza’s Theory of Affects 
     Tatsuya TACHIBANA  ( 47 )
Auslegung und Thematisierung der Aussage 
 in der Philosophie Martin Heideggers   Chihiro NISHIMURA  ( 61 )
Das Abhängigkeits- und Unabhängigkeitsverhältnis 
 des Rechts von der Moralität bei Kant    Megumi YONEDA  ( 75 )
Expression realized in Dance workshop   Asami KOIZUMI  ( 89 )
Considering the Case for Group Music Therapy in Psychiatric Hospitals
 Encounters in Connected Realities   Sachiko TAKEUCHI  (103)
Book Reviews
Relevant Deductions and Logics of Relevance via Consequence Relations
     Kohei SAWABE  (117)
Robert Brandom, “Vocabularies of Pragmatism: Synthesizing Naturalism and Historicism,” 
 in Perspectives on Pragmatism: classical, recent, and contemporary, 
 Harvard University Press, 2011.    Heechul JU  (125)
Takahiro Ueyama: Beyond Academic Capitalism, NTT Press, 2010. 
    Fumihiko NAKAMURA  (133)


メタフュシカ　第48号　目次

メタフュシカ　第48号　彙報

モリモト, モエ

守本, もえ

カワバタ　ヤスナリ　チリヌルオ　ニ　オケル　シセン　ショシュツ　テキスト　ヲ　シザ　ト　シテ

Asahi, Shota

Title An Attempt at Analyzing Verbal Ironies and Jokes
Author(s) Asahi, Shota
Citation OUPEL(Osaka University Papers in EnglishLinguistics). 18 P.1-P.7
Issue Date 2017-12
Text Version publisher
URL https://doi.org/10.18910/67778
DOI 10.18910/67778
rights
Note
Osaka University Knowledge Archive : OUKA
https://ir.library.osaka-u.ac.jp/repo/ouka/all/
Osaka University
SHOTA ASAHI 
S. Okada & E. Tanaka (eds.) Osaka Univ. Papers in English Linguistics, 18, 2017, 1-7. 
AN ATTEMPT AT ANALYZING VERBAL IRONIES AND 
JOKES 
1 INTRODUCTION 
Many scholars have studied jokes and ironies in linguistics. It is often said that ironies 
and jokes share many common features. However, scholars regard jokes and ironies 
as separate linguistic phenomena. In this brief discussion, I claim that they cannot be 
separated from each other discretely because there are many examples of ‘ironical 
joke’, which have both an ironical intention and an amusing effect. Moreover, I claim 
that the definitions of ironies and jokes are not clear enough. In many cases, these 
problems have not been addressed. I claim that we need clear definitions to analyze 
these linguistic phenomena. In this paper, I consider the interaction between ironies 
and jokes and analyze some typical examples of ironies, jokes, and ‘ironical jokes’ 
and present the original definitions of the three rhetorical categories, focusing on the 
intention of the speaker and the effects on the hearer. In section 2, I will demonstrate 
that ironies and jokes have common features, as highlighted in previous studies. In 
section 3 I will analyze ‘ironical jokes’. In section 4, I will illustrate the differences 
and commonalities between ironies and jokes. In section 5, I will present my original 
definitions of the three categories. 
2 THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN IRONIES AND JOKES: PREVIOUS RESEARCHES 
In previous studies, many scholars have analyzed ironies and jokes. Though some of 
them have pointed out their similarities, they have not fully compared ironies with 
jokes. I claim that we should pay more attention to their common features. Here I 
present their common features, as suggested in previous studies: 
(1) [Grice and Neo-Grician] 
 Ironies and jokes are texts involving a violation of Grice’s cooperative 
 principle. This violation triggers conversational implicatures. 
      (Attardo 1993 & Utsumi 2000: my own summary) 
2 
SHOTA ASAHI 
 
 
(2) [Mention theory: Relevance theorists] 
  All the standard cases of ironies and jokes involve the mention of a 
 proposition. An irony or joke echoes someone’s thought, utterance, 
 expectation, or cultural norm, in which the speaker dissociates herself 
 from the echoed materials. 
(Higashimori and Yoshimura 2003: my own summary) 
As stated above, their common features have been highlighted in previous studies. 
Therefore, even if you take whichever viewpoint in your analysis, you cannot think of 
them as entirely different phenomena separated from each other.  
I will not take these viewpoints because these theories have some problems. First, 
the problem of Gricean and Neo-Gricean theories is their claim that ironies and jokes 
involve a violation of Grice’s cooperative principle. Nevertheless, in some examples, 
we will judge them not to involve any violation of Grice’s cooperative principle or we 
cannot clearly judge whether they involve any violation. 
(3) [situation] A mother asked her son to clean up his messy room, but he 
was lost in a comic book. After a while, she discovered that his room 
was still messy, and said to her son: 
a. This room is totally clean! 
b. I love children who keep their rooms clean. 
(Utsumi 2000) 
 
In this example of irony, (3a) clearly includes a violation of Grice’s cooperative 
principle (maxim of quality) because the proposition that the son’s room is totally 
clean is clearly false in the situation of (3). However, (3b) does not seem to include 
any violation but it still works as an irony. Moreover, many examples of jokes do not 
seem to include any violation. 
(4) If your son flunks out of school and is illiterate and anti-social, what can 
 he grow up to be? 
  An Italian policeman. 
(Ritchie 2004: 56) 
The joke in (4) is based on the mutual knowledge about Italian policemen. The 
answer ‘An Italian policeman’ does not seem to violate Grice’s cooperative principle. 
Yet, the example in (4) works as a joke.  
In other words, a violation of Grice’s cooperative principle is not necessary for 
ironies or jokes. I claim that this violation-based approach covers only a restricted 
range of ironies and jokes. Therefore, I do not adopt this approach in this discussion. 
With regards (2), Relevance theorists say that all the standard cases of ironies and 
jokes involve the mention of a proposition. Although this theory may appear to be 
unproblematic, I claim that applying the mention theory to ironies and jokes is not 
without a problem, because an ‘echoic use’ can be related to various possible 
3 
AN ATTEMPT AT ANALYZING VERBAL IRONIES AND JOKES 
 
 
expressions. Attardo (1993) highlighted the problem of ‘infinite regression’, which I 
support. 
 
if the mention theory admits zero-mention (that is, mention without any surface 
trace of the operation) there is an immediate danger of an infinite regression. If 
sentences can be zero-mentioned, any mentioned sentence can be zero-mentioned, 
including any zero-mentioned sentence, etc., thus producing an infinite regression. 
(Attardo 1993) 
 
I think that infinite regression is gravely problematic. For example, a quotation is a 
kind of echoic use: 
 
(5)  Mary: What did Paul said last night? 
 John: He said, “I am very tired”. 
Thus, even if an expression does not generate any implicature, it can be an echoic use. 
The concept of echoic use is too wide. Therefore, I will not adopt the mention theory 
in this paper, either.  
I claim that previous studies are insufficient. Therefore, I will attempt to analyze 
ironical jokes based on my own methods. I will attempt to conduct research on the 
commonalities and differences between ironies and jokes and focus on their effects on 
hearers. In the next section, I will analyze ‘ironical jokes’.  
3  IRONICAL JOKES 
In this section, I analyze ‘ironical jokes’. First, the general definition of ironies, jokes 
and ironical jokes (first approximation) are as follows: 
 
(6) Irony: an utterance (or a text) with which the speaker has the intention 
  of criticizing indirectly and which will have an effect of  
  criticizing someone (if it works) 
(7) Joke: an utterance (or a text) with which the speaker has the intention  
      of making hearers laugh and which will have an effect of making 
      hearers laugh (if it works) 
(8) Ironical joke: an utterance that has both the characteristics of ironies  
            and jokes 
 
I will analyze some typical ‘ironical jokes’ and brush up these definitions based on the 
consideration of the differences between ironies and jokes. In this paper, I will focus 
4 
SHOTA ASAHI 
 
 
especially on their effects on the hearers. 
Now let us consider the following examples: 
 
(9) (teacher) “Rita, what will you do when you get as big as your mother?” 
   (Rita) “Go on a diet, miss”. 
     (Higashimori 2011: 7) 
(10) A strict aunt came to tea and said her niece, “Eat up your spinach, child, 
    and you’ll grow up to be beautiful.” “Didn’t they have spinach in your 
    day Auntie?” came the reply. 
 (ibid.: 37) 
 
In (9) the teacher asks Rita what she will do when she grows up as old as the teacher. 
However, Rita intentionally misunderstands this utterance and answers in an 
unexpected way. Rita’s utterance has the intention of criticizing her mother’s bodily 
shape. In (10) the utterance of the niece “Didn’t they have spinach in your day 
Auntie” has the intention of criticizing the aunt’s looks. 
In these examples, there are two important points. First, the speaker intends to 
criticize the object of his/her utterance (The object may be in the speech situation, or 
may not be present in the situation). In (9), Rita has the intention of criticizing the 
shape of her mother (probably, her mother is not present in the situation). Similarly, in 
(10), the niece has the intention of criticizing the aunt’s looks. I will call this object 
‘target’ henceforth. Second, these utterances make the other hearers laugh. In (9) and 
(10), the hearers, except the target of the ironical intention, will likely laugh.  
From this analysis, ironical jokes appear to have two aspects the (ironical aspect 
and funny aspect). I define the function of ironical jokes as follows: 
 
(11) (Ironical jokes) 
 Ironical aspect: The speaker has the intention of criticizing the target. 
 Funny aspect: The utterance makes the other hearers except the target of  
 criticism laugh. 
 
I claim that these two aspects of ironical jokes suggest the difference between ironies 
and jokes. I will discuss it in the next section. 
4 THE COMMONALITY AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IRONIES AND JOKES 
 Based on the above analysis of some ironical jokes, I hypothesize about the 
difference between ironies and jokes in (11) as follows: 
5 
AN ATTEMPT AT ANALYZING VERBAL IRONIES AND JOKES 
 
 
(12) An irony has direct objects of sarcasm. The sarcastic effect does not 
    extend to the other hearers except the targets of sarcasm. 
(13) A joke has a funny effect on hearers. This effect can extend to other 
 hearers in addition to the hearers a joke is directed to. 
In other words, I claim that the difference between ironies and jokes is the extent that 
their effects. From this viewpoint, if a speaker utters (10) to an object of sarcastic 
intention (the aunt) and if there is no other hearer except the object, this utterance 
does not have a funny effect. In that case, the example (9) is only categorized as an 
irony. On the other hand, when other people are listening, (9) would be an ironical 
joke. 
An ironical joke has the characteristics of ironies and jokes. The speaker has the 
intention of criticizing someone and of making other hearers laugh. Furthermore, it 
generates the effects of criticizing the objects and making them laugh, if it works. 
In addition, there are many non-ironical jokes. The following is an example: 
 
(14) CUSTOMER: I can’t find words to express my annoyance. 
   STORE CLERK: May I sell you a dictionary? 
(Higashimori 2011: 8) 
 
In (14), the customer intends to tell the clerk “I am so annoyed that I cannot express 
it.” However, the clerk intentionally misunderstands the customer’s utterance as “I 
cannot remember words to express my annoyance.” In this case, the clerk has no 
intention of criticizing the customer but the clerk’s utterance has a funny effect. 
Therefore, this example is categorized as a non-ironical joke. In other words, a simple 
joke does not have the speaker’s intention of criticizing someone, but the intention of 
making hearers laugh. On the other hand, a simple irony does not have the intention 
of making hearers laugh but the intention of criticizing someone. This is the 
difference between simple ironies and simple jokes. With regard to this topic, I have 
another question of whether there are any non-funny ironies. As stated above, it can 
be dependent on the context. Therefore, I intend to make my research topic in the 
future.  
Many previous researchers say that ironies and jokes have many common 
characteristics. They claim that many ironies and jokes involve false propositions. 
Here, ‘false proposition’ means that the proposition of the utterance is not true for the 
hearer in the situation where the utterance is spoken. I basically agree with this idea. 
However, the utterance that does not involve any false proposition can be an irony, a 
joke or an ironical joke. The examples (9), (10), and (14) do not seem to involve false 
propositions but they have the functions of ironies and jokes. This is at least counted 
as a commonality among the three categories of rhetorical expressions. I propose that 
a new framework is needed for the analysis of ironies and jokes. 
6 
SHOTA ASAHI 
 
 
5 THE ORIGINAL DEFINITIONS OF IRONIES, JOKES AND IRONICAL JOKES 
In the previous section, I observed the commonalities and differences between ironies 
and jokes. From the above discussion, I propose the revised versions of the original 
general definitions ironies, jokes, and ironical jokes: 
(15) An irony is an utterance with which the speaker has an intention of 
 indirectly criticizing a target and which will have an effect of criticizing 
 the target. This effect does not extend to other hearers except the targets 
 of sarcasm. 
(16) A joke is an utterance with which the speaker has an intention of 
 making the target laugh and which will have an effect of making a 
 target laugh. This effect extends to other hearers in addition to the target. 
(17) An ironical joke is an utterance with which the speaker has an intention 
 of indirectly criticizing a target and making the hearers except the target 
 laugh and which will have an effect of criticizing the target and making 
 other hearers except the target laugh. 
These definitions are more detailed than (6), (7), and (8), respectively. In this paper, I 
focused on the intention of the speaker and the effects on the hearer. However, I must 
consider the linguistic structures of these different types of rhetorical expression and 
classify ironies and jokes into more detailed categories. These issues will be my 
future research subjects. 
6 CONCLUSION 
From the analysis in this brief discussion, I hypothesize as follows: Irony is a sort of 
jokes because of the presence of ‘ironical jokes’. In other words, irony has a funny 
effect on hearers except the object of sarcasm. Because of some shared commonalities 
between the two rhetorical expressions, such as the funny effect, I assert that we 
should not divide ironies and jokes as distinct categories. Analyzing them together 
may reveal their linguistic commonalities and the reason why jokes make hearers 
laugh. In addition, I claim that ironies and jokes should be defined more explicitly as 
more detailed definitions are necessary for further studies. 
REFERENCES 
Attardo, Salvatore (1993) ‘Violation of Conversational Maxims and Cooperation: The 
Case of Jokes’ Journal of Pragmatics 19, 537-558. 
Graeme Ritchie (2004) The Linguistic Analysis of Jokes. Routledge Studies in 
7 
AN ATTEMPT AT ANALYZING VERBAL IRONIES AND JOKES 
 
 
Linguistics, London. 
Higashimori, Isao (2011) Eigo Joke no Kenkyuu: Kanrensei Riron Niyoru Bunseki 
(The Analysis of English Jokes: the Analysis from the Relevance Theory), 
Kaitakusha, Tokyo. 
Higashimori, Isao and Akiko Yoshimura (2003) Kanrenseiriron no Shintenkai－
Ninchi to Communication (The Development of the Relevance Theory-Cognition 
and Communication), Kenkyusha, Tokyo. 
Utsumi, Akira (2000) ‘Verbal Irony as Implicit Display of Ironic Environment: 
Distinguish Ironiies Utterances from Nonirony’ Journal of Pragmatics 32, 
1777-1806. 
 
 
 
Shota Asahi 
asahisyota@gmail.com 


An Attempt at Analyzing Verbal Ironies and Jokes

Tanaka, Hideharu

Pseudo-Gapping : an Alleged Case for Scope Parallelism

Pinault, Georges-Jean

Peyrot, Michaël

Wilkens, Jens

Śāriputra and the Girl Reborn as a Dog : A Further Tocharian B Parallel to the Old Uyghur Daśakarmapathāvadānamālā

サカモト, ミツヨ

ユカワ, エミコ

Sakamoto , Mitsuyo

Yukawa, Emiko

坂本, 光代

湯川, 笑子

スーパー　ダイバーシティー　ト　ハ　ナニ　カ

モンゴル語新聞『フフ・トグ/青旗』記事索引初稿（1941年

Title 『フフ・トグ/青旗』（1941年） 号外（12月13日）
Author(s)
Citation OUFCブックレット. 10-2 P.424-P.426
Issue Date 2017-07-31
Text Version publisher
URL http://hdl.handle.net/11094/62222
DOI
rights
Note
Osaka University Knowledge Archive : OUKA
https://ir.library.osaka-u.ac.jp/repo/ouka/all/
Osaka University
424 
ᠬᠦ
ᠬᠡ ᠲᠤᠭ köke tuγ
青
旗 
<999-1-00-m
> ᠨᠡᠮᠡᠯᠳᠡ ᠳ᠋ᠤᠭᠠᠷ᠂ ᠡᠨᠭ᠍ᠭᠡ ᠡᠷᠳᠡᠮᠳᠦ ᠢᠢᠨ ᠨᠠᠢᠮᠠᠳᠦᠭᠠᠷ ᠤ
ᠨ ᠤ ᠠ
ᠷᠪᠠᠨ ᠬᠤᠶᠠᠷ ᠰᠠᠷᠠᠢᠢᠨ ᠠ
ᠷᠪᠠᠨ 
ᠭᠤᠷᠪᠠᠨ ᠠ᠂ 
<999-1-00-g> nem
elte duγar, engke erdem
tü-yin naim
aduγar on-u arban 
qoyar sarayin arban γurban-a. 
<999-1-00-y>
青
旗 
號
外 
康
徳
八
（一
九
四
一
）年
十
二
月
十
三
日 
 <999-1-01-m
> ᠱᠤᠭ ᠵᠢᠷᠤᠭ᠂ [ᠨᠢᠪᠪᠤᠨ ᠴᠢᠷᠢᠭ (ᠶᠠᠫᠤᠨ ᠴᠡᠷᠢᠭ) ᠲᠤᠷ ᠴᠤᠬᠢᠭᠳᠠᠵᠦ ᠰᠦ
ᠨᠦᠭ᠍ᠳᠡᠭ᠍ᠰᠡᠨ ᠠ
ᠩᠬᠢᠯᠢ 
(ᠠ
ᠩᠭᠯᠢ) ᠢᠢᠨ ᠤ
ᠩᠭᠤᠴᠨ᠂ ᠨᠢᠪᠪᠤᠨ ᠴᠢᠷᠢᠭ (ᠶᠠᠫᠤᠨ ᠴᠡᠷᠢᠭ) ᠲᠤᠷ ᠠ
ᠪᠳᠠᠭᠳᠠᠭᠰᠠᠨ ᠠ
ᠮᠠᠢᠢᠷᠢᠬ ᠠ (ᠠ
ᠮᠧᠷᠢᠺᠠ) ᠢᠢᠨ ᠴᠢᠷᠢᠭ 
(ᠴᠡᠷᠢᠭ) ᠤᠨ ᠤ
ᠩᠭᠤᠴᠨ] 
<999-1-01-g> šoγ ǰiruγ. [nibbun čirig (yapun čerig)-tür čokiγdaǰu 
sönügdegsen anggili (anggli)-yin ongγuča, nibbun čerig (yapun čerig)-tür 
abtaγdaγsan am
ayiriq-a (am
erika)-yin čerig (čerig))-ün ongγuča] 
<999-1-01-y>
日
本
軍
に
敗
れ
て
沈
没
し
た
イ
ギ
リ
ス
・
ア
メ
リ
カ
の
軍
艦
（
漫
画
） 
 <999-1-02-m
> ᠷᠠᠵᠢᠦᠦ  (ᠷᠠᠳᠢᠤ᠋)᠂ [ᠱᠤᠭ ᠵᠢᠷᠤᠭ] 
<999-1-02-g> raǰiou (radio). [šoγ ǰiruγ] 
<999-1-02-y>
ラ
ジ
オ
（
漫
画
） 
 <999-1-03-m
> ᠬᠠᠷᠢᠶᠠᠴᠠᠢ ᠴᠤᠭᠯᠠᠷᠠᠭᠰᠠᠨ ᠮᠠᠳᠦ ᠪᠤᠯᠪᠠᠴᠦ ᠬᠠᠷᠢᠯᠴᠠᠨ ᠵᠠᠩᠬᠢᠳ
ᠳᠤᠬᠤ ᠬᠦ
ᠴᠦᠨ ᠦ
ᠭᠡᠢ ᠠ
ᠩᠬᠢᠯᠢ 
(ᠠ
ᠩᠭᠯᠢ)᠂ ᠠ
ᠮᠢᠷᠢᠬ ᠠ (ᠠ
ᠮᠧᠷᠢᠺᠠ)᠂ ᠤ
ᠷᠠᠨᠳᠠ(ᠬᠤᠯᠠᠨᠳ᠋)᠂ ᠬᠢᠳᠠᠳ
᠂ 
<999-1-03-g> qariyačai čuγlaraγsan m
etü bolbaču qarilčan ǰanggidduqu 
küčün ügei anggili (anggli), am
iriq-a (am
erika), oranda (qolant), kidad. 
<999-1-03-y>
燕
の
よ
う
に
集
ま
っ
た
が
団
結
で
き
な
い
イ
ギ
リ
ス
、
ア
メ
リ
カ
、
オ
ラ
ン
ダ
、
支
那 
 <999-1-04-m
> ᠰᠡᠬᠦᠳᠡᠷ ᠪᠤᠯᠪᠠᠰᠦ᠂ ᠨᠢᠪᠪᠤᠨ(ᠶᠠᠫᠤᠨ) ᠤ ᠠ
ᠭᠠᠷ ᠤᠨ ᠴᠢᠷᠢᠭ (ᠴᠡᠷᠢᠭ) ᠤᠨ ᠪᠦ
ᠮᠪᠦᠭᠡ ᠳ᠋ᠤᠷ 
ᠳᠠᠭᠠᠷᠢᠭᠳᠠᠨ᠂ ᠭᠠᠰᠢᠭᠤᠨ ᠢ ᠠ
ᠮᠰᠦᠵᠦ ᠪᠠᠢᠢᠬᠤ᠂ ᠠ
ᠩᠬᠢᠯᠢ (ᠠ
ᠩᠭᠯᠢ) ᠢᠢᠨ ᠪᠡᠯᠡᠳ
ᠭᠡᠯ ᠤᠨ ᠭᠠᠵᠠᠷ ᠱᠢᠩᠭᠠᠫᠤᠤᠷᠦ ᠬᠤᠳᠠ ᠢᠢᠨ 
ᠪᠠᠢᠢᠳᠠᠯ᠂ 
<999-1-04-g> següder bolbasu, nibbun (yapun)-u aγar-un čirig (čerig)-ün 
böm
büge-dür daγariγdan, γasiγun-i am
suǰu bayiqu, anggili (anggli)-yin 
beledkel-ün γaǰar šingγapuuru qota-yin bayidal. 
<999-1-04-y>
日
本
空
軍
の
爆
撃
に
逢
い
苦
境
に
立
た
さ
れ
た
イ
ギ
リ
ス
領
シ
ン
ガ
ポ
ー
ル
市
の
様
子
（
写
真
） 
 
425 
<999-2-01-m
> ᠵᠢᠷᠤᠭ ᠤᠨ ᠲᠠᠢᠢᠯᠪᠤᠷᠢ᠂ [ᠨᠢᠪᠪᠤᠨ ᠴᠢᠷᠢᠭ (ᠶᠠᠫᠤᠨ ᠴᠡᠷᠢᠭ)  ᠤᠨ ᠨᠢᠰᠬᠦ ᠮᠠᠰᠢᠨ ᠠ ᠺᠤᠸᠠᠮ ᠠ
ᠷᠠᠯ ᠢ 
ᠲᠠᠯᠪᠡᠴᠢᠨ᠂ ᠡᠵᠡᠯᠡᠨ ᠠ
ᠪᠤᠭᠰᠠᠨ] 
<999-2-01-g> ǰiruγ-un tayilburi. [nibbun čirig (yapun čerig)-ün niskü 
m
asin-a kuw
am
 aral-i delbečin, eǰelen abuγsan] 
<999-2-01-y>
日
本
空
軍
機
が
グ
ア
ム
島
を
空
爆
し
て
占
領
（
絵
の
説
明
） 
 <999-2-02-m
> ᠨᠢᠪᠪᠤᠨ ᠤ ᠴᠢᠷᠢᠭ (ᠶᠠᠫᠤᠨ ᠴᠡᠷᠢᠭ)᠂ ᠹᠦ
ᠢᠷᠢᠪᠪᠢᠨ(ᠹᠧᠯᠢᠫᠢᠨ) ᠤ ᠭᠠᠵᠠᠷ ᠳ᠋ᠤᠷ ᠭᠠᠷᠤᠭᠰᠠᠨ ᠠ
ᠨᠦ᠂ 
<999-2-02-g> nibbun-u čirig (yapun-u čerig), füiribbin (felipin)-u γaǰar-dur 
γaruγsan anu. 
<999-2-02-y>
日
本
軍
が
フ
ィ
リ
ピ
ン
に
上
陸 
 <999-2-03-m
>
 ᠳ᠋ᠤᠢᠢᠰ (ᠬᠧᠷᠮᠠᠨ) ᠢ
ᠲ᠋ᠠᠯᠢ ᠠ
ᠨᠦ ᠠ
ᠮᠢᠷᠢᠬ ᠠ (ᠠ
ᠮᠧᠷᠢᠺᠠ) ᠢᠢᠨ ᠵᠦ
ᠭ ᠪᠠᠢᠢᠯᠳᠤᠬᠤ ᠮᠠᠶᠠᠭ (ᠮᠠᠶᠢᠭ) 
ᠲᠠᠢ᠃
 
<999-2-03-g> duyis (germ
an) itali anu am
iriq-a (am
erika)-yin ǰüg 
bayilduqu m
ayaγ (m
ayiγ) tai. 
<999-2-03-y>
ド
イ
ツ
・
イ
タ
リ
ア
が
ア
メ
リ
カ
に
宣
戦 
 <999-2-04-m
> ᠲᠤᠰᠠᠭᠠᠷ ᠵᠤᠭᠰᠤᠬᠤ ᠵᠢ ᠪᠠᠷᠬᠢᠷᠠᠵᠦ ᠪᠠᠢᠢᠬᠤ ᠡᠨᠡᠳ
ᠭᠡᠭ ᠤᠨ ᠭᠠᠵᠠᠷ᠃
 
<999-2-04-g> tusaγar ǰoγsuqu-yi barkiraǰu bayiqu enedkeg-ün γaǰar. 
<999-2-04-y>
独
立
を
叫
ぶ
イ
ン
ド 
 <999-2-05-m
> ᠹᠦ
ᠢᠷᠢᠪᠪᠢᠨ(ᠹᠧᠯᠢᠫᠢᠨ) ᠤᠨ ᠨᠢᠰᠬᠦ ᠮᠠᠰᠢᠨ ᠠ ᠵᠢ ᠡᠪᠳᠡᠯᠡᠭ᠍ᠰᠡᠨ ᠠ
ᠨᠦ᠂ 
<999-2-05-g> füiribbin (felipin)-un niskü m
asin-a-yi ebdelegsen anu. 
<999-2-05-y>
フ
ィ
リ
ピ
ン
の
飛
行
機
を
破
壊 
 <999-2-06-m
> ᠮᠢᠳ
ᠳᠤᠶᠧ ᠠ
ᠷᠠᠯ ᠢ ᠲᠠᠯᠪᠡᠴᠢᠭ᠍ᠰᠡᠨ ᠠ
ᠨᠦ᠂ 
<999-2-06-g> m
idduye aral-i delbečigsen anu. 
<999-2-06-y>
ミ
ッ
ド
ウ
ェ
ー
島
を
空
爆 
 <999-2-07-g> ᠰᠡᠬᠦᠳᠡᠷ ᠪᠤᠯᠪᠠᠰᠦ᠂ [ᠨᠢᠪᠪᠤᠨ(ᠶᠠᠫᠤᠨ) ᠤ ᠠ
ᠭᠠᠷ ᠤᠨ ᠴᠢᠷᠢᠭ (ᠴᠡᠷᠢᠭ) ᠤᠨ ᠲᠠᠯᠪᠡᠴᠢᠨ ᠴᠤᠬᠢᠬᠤ ᠠ
ᠶᠤᠯ 
ᠲᠤᠤᠷ ᠠ ᠪᠠᠢᠢᠬᠤ ᠹᠦ
ᠢᠷᠢᠪᠪᠢᠨ(ᠹᠧᠯᠢᠫᠢᠨ) ᠤ ᠨᠡᠢᠢᠰᠯᠡᠯ ᠮᠠᠨᠢᠷᠠ ᠬᠤᠳᠠ ᠠ
ᠨᠦ] 
<999-2-07-g> següder bolbasu. [nibbun (yapun)-u aγar-un čirig (čerig)-ün 
delbečin čokiqu ayul dour-a bayiqu füiribbin (filipin)-u neyislel m
anira 
qota anu] 
<999-2-07-y>
日
本
空
軍
の
空
爆
範
囲
内
に
あ
る
フ
ィ
リ
ピ
ン
・
マ
ニ
ラ
市
（
写
真
） 
 
426 
<999-3-01-m
> ᠬᠦ
ᠭᠡ ᠲᠤᠭ ᠤᠨ ᠲᠠᠭᠠᠯᠤᠭᠤᠯᠤᠭᠰᠠᠨ(ᠲᠠᠭᠠᠭᠤᠯᠤᠭᠰᠠᠨ) ᠬᠠᠭᠤᠳᠠᠰᠦ᠂ 
<999-3-01-g> köke tuγ-un daγaluγuluγsan (daγaγuluγsan) qaγudasu. 
<999-3-01-y>
青
旗
紙
の
付
録 
 <999-3-02-m
> ᠨᠢᠭᠡ᠂  ᠳ᠋ᠤᠢᠢᠰ (ᠬᠧᠷᠮᠠᠨ)᠂ ᠢ
ᠲ᠋ᠠᠯᠢ᠂ ᠬᠠᠩᠭᠠᠯᠢ (ᠬᠠᠩᠭᠠᠷᠢ) ᠢᠢᠨ ᠵᠡᠷᠭᠡ ᠤ
ᠯᠠᠨ ᠤ
ᠯᠤᠰ ᠤᠳ
 ᠠ
ᠨᠦ 
ᠠ
ᠩᠬᠢᠯᠢ (ᠠ
ᠩᠭᠯᠢ)᠂ ᠠ
ᠮᠢᠷᠢᠬ ᠠ (ᠠ
ᠮᠧᠷᠢᠺᠠ) ᠢᠢᠨ ᠵᠦ
ᠭ ᠪᠠᠢᠢᠯᠳᠤᠬᠤ ᠪᠠᠷ ᠮᠦ
ᠨ ᠠ
ᠷᠪᠠᠨ ᠨᠢᠭᠡᠨ ᠤ ᠡᠳᠤᠷ ᠨᠢᠭᠡᠨᠳᠡ 
ᠲᠤᠩᠬᠠᠯᠠᠪᠠᠢ᠂ 
<999-3-02-g> nige, duyis (germ
an), itali, qangγali (qanγari)-yin ǰerge olan 
ulus-ud anu anggili (anggli), am
iriq-a (am
erika)-yin ǰüg bayilduqu-bar m
ön 
arban nigen-ü edür nigente tungqalabai. 
<999-3-02-y>
十
一
日
、
ド
イ
ツ
、
イ
タ
リ
ア
、
ハ
ン
ガ
リ
ー
の
各
国
が
イ
ギ
リ
ス
、
ア
メ
リ
カ
に
宣
戦
を
布
告 
 <999-3-03-m
> ᠬᠤᠶᠠᠷ᠂ ᠠ
ᠩᠬᠢᠯᠢ (ᠠ
ᠩᠭᠯᠢ) ᠤ
ᠯᠤᠰ ᠤᠨ ᠡᠵᠢᠯᠡᠨ(ᠡᠵᠡᠯᠡᠨ) ᠪᠠᠢᠢᠭᠰᠠᠨ ᠴᠢᠬᠤᠯᠠ ᠪᠤᠭᠤᠮᠳᠡ ᠪᠤᠯᠬᠤ 
ᠱᠢᠶᠠᠩ
 ᠺᠠᠩ
 ᠤᠨ ᠵᠢᠦ ᠯᠤᠩ
 ᠠ
ᠷᠠᠯ ᠢ ᠠ
ᠷᠪᠠᠨ ᠭᠤᠷᠪᠡᠨ ᠤ ᠡᠳᠤᠷ ᠨᠢᠪᠪᠤᠨ ᠴᠢᠷᠢᠭ (ᠶᠠᠫᠤᠨ ᠴᠡᠷᠢᠭ) ᠨᠢᠭᠡᠨᠳᠡ ᠡᠵᠢᠯᠡᠪᠡᠢ 
(ᠡᠵᠡᠯᠡᠪᠡᠢ)᠂ ᠵᠢᠴᠢ ᠱᠢᠶᠠᠩ
 ᠺᠠᠩ
 ᠪᠤᠭᠤᠮᠳᠡ ᠵᠢ ᠠ
ᠪᠬᠤ ᠠ
ᠨᠦ ᠨᠢᠳᠤᠨ ᠡᠮᠦᠨ ᠠ ᠪᠤᠯᠪᠠᠢ᠃
 
<999-3-03-g> qoyar, anggili (anggli) ulus-un eǰilen (eǰelen) bayiγsan čiqula 
boγum
ta bolqu šiyang kang-un ǰiü lüng aral-i arban γurban-u edür nibbun 
čirig (yapun čerig) nigente eǰilebei, ǰiči šiyang kang boγum
ta-yi abqu anu 
nidün em
ün-e bolbai. 
<999-3-03-y>
イ
ギ
リ
ス
占
領
地
の
重
要
要
塞
で
あ
る
香
港
の
九
龍
島
を
十
三
日
に
日
本
軍
が
占
領
し
、
さ
ら
に
香
港
全
土
の
占
領
も
目
前
に
迫
っ
て
い
る 
 


Malay

『フフ・トグ/青旗』（1941年） 号外（12月13日）

Turkish

『フフ・トグ/青旗』（1941年） 第24号（8月30日）

Osaka University

Not a member yet

DECOMPOSITION OF COMPLEX HYPERBOLIC ISOMETRIES BY TWO COMPLEX SYMMETRIES

メタフュシカ　第48号　目次

メタフュシカ　第48号　彙報

カワバタ　ヤスナリ　チリヌルオ　ニ　オケル　シセン　ショシュツ　テキスト　ヲ　シザ　ト　シテ

An Attempt at Analyzing Verbal Ironies and Jokes

Pseudo-Gapping : an Alleged Case for Scope Parallelism

Śāriputra and the Girl Reborn as a Dog : A Further Tocharian B Parallel to the Old Uyghur Daśakarmapathāvadānamālā

スーパー　ダイバーシティー　ト　ハ　ナニ　カ

『フフ・トグ/青旗』（1941年）号外（12月13日）

『フフ・トグ/青旗』（1941年）第24号（8月30日）

95,452

101,362