I've often been confused by the definition of irony, since it seems to me that more than most words, people like to argue and correct people as to whether something actually does constitute irony or not.
Merriam-Webster gives a very simple definition for irony: (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity
"Rain on your wedding day" is a well known example of something widely considered to not be ironic, and I've never understood this. Assume an outside wedding just to make the point easier....no one would plan or hold an outside wedding on a day where rain was expected. Sure, it's not something that can be predicted with accuracy, but there would certainly be an expectation that a wedding planned on a sunny day, would not encounter rain.
Now, getting to the titular question, when I have tried asking for explanations from people, I've never understood the explanations given. They always seem to rely on additional conditions imposed on the dictionary definition.
As an example, as per the rain/wedding day example, some explanations I have received are:
Rain is not something that can be accurately predicted, so you can never have an expectation for no rain, only a hope. -- This seems bogus to me, you can certainly have a reasonable expectation for it not to rain on a certain day, more so in some locales/times than others but still.
That rain is completely independent and unrelated to when someone wants to get married. It's not an unexpected thing that is the opposite of what you would expect. -- This seems flawed as well, because if someone is planning an outdoor wedding, they will certainly be planning for and expecting clear weather, at least that it not be raining.
You can hope for no rain, but rain doesn't care. Rain is not affected by the date you want your wedding. Just because you don't quite have the foresight of multiple weeks doesn't mean rain is some unexpected thing. It's quite a common occurrence. You can be bummed out, but it isn't something inspires irony. They're completely unrelated despite someones feelings about having it on their wedding day. -- This explanation in particular I find quite odd, as it seems to imply a relationship is necessary between the cause of the incongruity and the thing affected by the incongruity for it to be irony. I don't see that as the case, and it isn't really mentioned in the definition.
So, what is the basis for needing a relationship between items in an example for something to be ironic or not?
Merriam Webster further provides two examples:
It's ironic that computers break down so often, since they're meant to save people time.
It is ironic that the robber's car crashed into a police station.
Another explanation:
The robbers thing is ironic because the police are the one thing the robbers would most want to avoid, and in trying to escape them they actually end up crashing into them. Rain on your wedding day isn't ironic, it's just something bad that you wouldn't like. A better example I read would be if you it rained on your wedding day and you were marrying the weather man it'd be ironic, because he's the last person you'd expect to get married in bad weather.
So the consensus seems to be that you can't expect a lack of rain, so therefore it when rain comes it can't be ironic, simply disappointing. I don't understand by any means why you can't expect a lack of rain...in the middle of Summer in L.A. with a forecast showing Sunny days for the next week...it would seem entirely reasonable not to expect rain.
Additionally, I find it hard to see any distinction between the two examples MW provides and the rain/wedding day example.
I especially have trouble understanding how marrying a weather man and having it rain is ironic, but marrying a non weather man, and planning a wedding around weather and having it rain (when forecast said no rain) is not ironic. It seems to come down again, to the items in an example having a relationship.
English is not my first language and I have been having trouble with this for years. Could someone explain to me what all these condition are imposed on top of the definition, because it seems to be random cherry-picking as to whether something is irony or not.
As far as I can tell, as long as there is an incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result, then something is ironic.