"of course" or "off course"
Paul
Which is correct, "Of course silly!" or "Off course silly!" I'm
99.99999999999% certain it's the first choice, but I have to be 100%
certain! :-)
Thanks!
Paul
John Varela
wrote:
Here, take another 00.00000000001% of certainty. "Off course" means
either you are lost or you are in the process of getting lost.
> Thanks!
You're welcome.
--
John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
alan
"Roger Burton West" <roger+a...@nospam.firedrake.org> wrote in message
news:20091113231045....@firedrake.org...
>
> The latter is properly shouted from one boat to another, in such weather
> as we are currently experiencing in the UK.
And both of them need a comma between "course" and "silly" . . .
Peter Moylan
"Off course silly" is a fielding position, for those who play cricket on
a golf course.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Chuck Riggs
<roger+a...@nospam.firedrake.org> wrote:
>The former is an agreement.
>
>The latter is properly shouted from one boat to another, in such weather
>as we are currently experiencing in the UK.
Not properly, since it would be highly improper to address another
boat's captain that way.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
John Varela
wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:11:41 +0000 (UTC), Roger Burton West
> <roger+a...@nospam.firedrake.org> wrote:
>
> >Paul wrote:
> >>Which is correct, "Of course silly!" or "Off course silly!" I'm
> >>99.99999999999% certain it's the first choice, but I have to be 100%
> >>certain! :-)
> >
> >The former is an agreement.
> >
> >The latter is properly shouted from one boat to another, in such weather
> >as we are currently experiencing in the UK.
>
> Not properly, since it would be highly improper to address another
> boat's captain that way.
Oh, I don't know about that. The person doing the shouting almost
certainly knows the other boater, else how would he know that the
latter is off course?
Let's assume that they two boaters are friends. Then, the proper
way to tell one's friend that he is off course would be to shout:
"Ahoy! You're off course you dumb son of a bitch."
Joe Fineman
>> The latter is properly shouted from one boat to another, in such
>> weather as we are currently experiencing in the UK.
>
> And both of them need a comma between "course" and "silly" . . .
I have heard tell of a copyeditor who, confronted with the sentence
The captain failed to make any change of course before a collision
was inevitable.
inserted commas around "of course".
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: Dogs, children, and fools can pay honest compliments. :||
Adam Funk
> I have heard tell of a copyeditor who, confronted with the sentence
>
> The captain failed to make any change of course before a collision
> was inevitable.
>
> inserted commas around "of course".
If you can document that, you should send it to Geoffrey Pullum. His
current (as far as I am aware) "Dumb Copy Editor" prize is for the one
who wanted to change the title of the book _Metaphors We Live By_...
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1561
--
The three-martini lunch is the epitome of American efficiency.
Where else can you get an earful, a bellyful and a snootful at
the same time? [Gerald Ford, 1978]
Peter Moylan
> On 2009-11-14, Joe Fineman wrote:
>
>> I have heard tell of a copyeditor who, confronted with the sentence
>>
>> The captain failed to make any change of course before a collision
>> was inevitable.
>>
>> inserted commas around "of course".
>
> If you can document that, you should send it to Geoffrey Pullum. His
> current (as far as I am aware) "Dumb Copy Editor" prize is for the one
> who wanted to change the title of the book _Metaphors We Live By_...
>
> http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1561
A well-known SF writer - I think it was Anne McCaffrey - once used the
title _Get of the unicorn_. It appeared in the bookshops as
_Get off the unicorn_.
The worst copy-editing error that ever affected me was a mathematical
one. In a technical paper full of mathematics, an editor changed a "less
than" sign to "greater than". I caught the error at galley proof time,
and changed it back. The editor, apparently convinced that I was wrong,
changed it again, and that's how it was printed.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
Are you speaking from experience? No, I didn't think so.
Jerry Friedman
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:29:02 UTC, Chuck Riggs <chri...@eircom.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:11:41 +0000 (UTC), Roger Burton West
> > <roger+aue200...@nospam.firedrake.org> wrote:
>
> > >Paul wrote:
> > >>Which is correct, "Of course silly!" or "Off course silly!" I'm
> > >>99.99999999999% certain it's the first choice, but I have to be 100%
> > >>certain! :-)
>
> > >The former is an agreement.
>
> > >The latter is properly shouted from one boat to another, in such weather
> > >as we are currently experiencing in the UK.
>
> > Not properly, since it would be highly improper to address another
> > boat's captain that way.
>
> Oh, I don't know about that. The person doing the shouting almost
> certainly knows the other boater, else how would he know that the
> latter is off course?
The latter is holding up a cardboard sign that says "Denver"?
--
Jerry Friedman
Nick
Denver being where 5 - at least partly navigable - watercourses meet,
it's a good place to go off course.
The turn in at Denver is particularly nasty, with sandbanks all over the
place. Add the fact that, if you're over 62 foot and heading to or from
Salter's Lode (as most people going in and out of Denver are) you have
to wait until the tide is level so that the gates at both ends are
opened, and it's all a lot of fun.
[Unlucky random inland US place name!]
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
John Varela
wrote:
> On 14 Nov 2009 19:57:01 GMT, "John Varela" <OLDl...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:29:02 UTC, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
> >wrote:
> >> Not properly, since it would be highly improper to address another
> >> boat's captain that way.
> >
> >Oh, I don't know about that. The person doing the shouting almost
> >certainly knows the other boater, else how would he know that the
> >latter is off course?
> >
> >Let's assume that they two boaters are friends. Then, the proper
> >way to tell one's friend that he is off course would be to shout:
> >"Ahoy! You're off course you dumb son of a bitch."
>
> Are you speaking from experience? No, I didn't think so.
Not me. I don't do boats. I have never understood the point of
messing about in boats.
tony cooper
wrote:
>Not me. I don't do boats. I have never understood the point of
>messing about in boats.
I have owned a boat. Not a big one, but a 18' bow-rider with an
outboard motor. Owning a boat is an excellent way to decide where
your future disposable income should be spent. The ratio of
in-the-water to in-the-shop is roughly 1:1.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:11:41 +0000 (UTC), Roger Burton West
> <roger+a...@nospam.firedrake.org> wrote:
>
>>Paul wrote:
>>>Which is correct, "Of course silly!" or "Off course silly!" I'm
>>>99.99999999999% certain it's the first choice, but I have to be 100%
>>>certain! :-)
>>
>>The former is an agreement.
>>
>>The latter is properly shouted from one boat to another, in such
>>weather as we are currently experiencing in the UK.
>
> Not properly, since it would be highly improper to address another
> boat's captain that way.
I presumed that it was further information: the second boat is
straying dangerously close to the batsman in some sort of aquatic
version of cricket.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |A little government and a little luck
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |are necessary in life, but only a
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |fool trusts either of them.
| P.J. O'Rourke
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Skitt
> "John Varela" wrote:
>> Not me. I don't do boats. I have never understood the point of
>> messing about in boats.
>
> I have owned a boat. Not a big one, but a 18' bow-rider with an
> outboard motor. Owning a boat is an excellent way to decide where
> your future disposable income should be spent. The ratio of
> in-the-water to in-the-shop is roughly 1:1.
I too have owned boats. I had a used 16' Dorsett runabout. Man, was I
happy when I bought it -- almost as happy as when I sold it. Then, of all
things, I did it all again, this time with a 12' Vaporvette (the Corvette of
the waterways, the advertisement said). That, finally, cured me of wanting
to own boats.
--
Skitt (AmE)
boatless for the last 19 years
Chuck Riggs
My point yesterday was that a camaraderie exists between people at
sea. The sea is so large and my boat is so small, type of thing. Few
captains, no matter the size of his boat or ship, would think of
treating other captains with disrespect. For example, a boarding
tradition that applies to all crew members is to always ask permission
before coming on board someone else's ship. That applies to small and
large yachts, too.
Jerry Friedman
Next time, "Pike's Peak or bust".
(It wasn't that random, by the way. It's probably the hitchhiker's
sign I see most often, so it was the first to come to mind.)
--
Jerry Friedman
John Varela
wrote:
"A hole in the water where your money goes."
Adam Funk
> The worst copy-editing error that ever affected me was a mathematical
> one. In a technical paper full of mathematics, an editor changed a "less
> than" sign to "greater than". I caught the error at galley proof time,
> and changed it back. The editor, apparently convinced that I was wrong,
> changed it again, and that's how it was printed.
Ouch. Convinced on what basis, that it looked better pointing the
other way?
Here's a brief excerpt from chapter 18 "Defend your style" of _How to
Write Mathematics_ (Steenrod, Halmos, Schiffer & Dieudonné, American
Mathematical Society, 1981):
A mathematician friend reports that in the manuscript of a book of
his he wrote something like "p or q holds according as x is
negative or positive". The editorial assistant changed that to "p
or q holds according as x is positive or negative", on the grounds
that it sounds better that way. That could be funny if weren't
sad, and, of course, very very wrong.
(I wonder if someone who doesn't understand how "according as" works
has similar problems with "respectively" and "whether".)
--
Oh, I do most of my quality thinking on the old sandbox. [Bucky Katt]
Andreas Waldenburger
wrote:
> Thus spake John Varela (OLDl...@verizon.net) unto the assembled
> multitudes:
>
> >> Which is correct, "Of course silly!" or "Off course silly!" I'm
> >> 99.99999999999% certain it's the first choice, but I have to be
> >> 100% certain! :-)
>
> > Here, take another 00.00000000001% of certainty. "Off course" means
> > either you are lost or you are in the process of getting lost.
>
> Confusion might arise if a German speaker used these phrases, as
> there is a tendency for Germans to pronounce the word "of" as "off"...
>
Vott doo yoo meen? Zey doo sount ze same, dont zey?
> No offence to Germans intended. My observation is based on having
> once been married to one.
>
That must have been hard. I find the German accent to be the most
brutal thing one can do to the English language. Besides a French
accent, maybe.
(Just so you know: I am German. And yes, the French suck!)
/W
--
INVALID? DE!
Peter Moylan
<gross overgeneralisation>
There's a fundamental difference. When a German speaks English, you can
usually understand what is being said. When a French person speaks
English, you have to listen for a while before realising that it's English.
</gross overgeneralisation>
Peter Moylan
> On 2009-11-15, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>> The worst copy-editing error that ever affected me was a
>> mathematical one. In a technical paper full of mathematics, an
>> editor changed a "less than" sign to "greater than". I caught the
>> error at galley proof time, and changed it back. The editor,
>> apparently convinced that I was wrong, changed it again, and that's
>> how it was printed.
>
> Ouch. Convinced on what basis, that it looked better pointing the
> other way?
It was a bit more subtle than that. The editor was defending the
"intuitively obvious" conclusion. The point of the theorem that I was
presenting was that the intuitively obvious answer was wrong.
It's interesting to see how easily people can be led astray by the
"obvious". On another occasion, I was having lunch with a professional
colleague - quite eminent in his field, so I'd better not name him - and
he was using a paper napkin to outline a conjecture. I responded "No,
that's not true in general. Here's an example where it fails." And I
sketched out the example.
He looked at it, and said "Yes, but here's an example where it works",
and he gave his example.
He then leaned back, with a look of victory on his face, and said "It
only takes one counterexample."
Peter Moylan
And it's the place you reach if you take a left turn at Albuquerque.
For suitable values of the starting point, that is. But I've just
discovered that Bugs was not from Hollywood, he was a New Yorker.
Someone familiar with American accents would have figured that out a lot
sooner, of course.
R H Draney
>
>It's interesting to see how easily people can be led astray by the
>"obvious". On another occasion, I was having lunch with a professional
>colleague - quite eminent in his field, so I'd better not name him - and
>he was using a paper napkin to outline a conjecture. I responded "No,
>that's not true in general. Here's an example where it fails." And I
>sketched out the example.
>
>He looked at it, and said "Yes, but here's an example where it works",
>and he gave his example.
>
>He then leaned back, with a look of victory on his face, and said "It
>only takes one counterexample."
That was your mistake...instead of showing him your example on the napkin, you
should have drawn it on the counter....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Roland Hutchinson
That's "toin".
> For suitable values of the starting point, that is. But I've just
> discovered that Bugs was not from Hollywood, he was a New Yorker.
> Someone familiar with American accents would have figured that out a lot
> sooner, of course.
Half of Hollywood (near enough) consisted of New Yorkers when Bugs was
created and developed. Bugs, as you probably discovered, speaks with a
sort of amalgam of the Brooklyn and Bronx accents of that period.
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
Peter Moylan
> Peter Moylan filted:
>> It's interesting to see how easily people can be led astray by the
>> "obvious". On another occasion, I was having lunch with a professional
>> colleague - quite eminent in his field, so I'd better not name him - and
>> he was using a paper napkin to outline a conjecture. I responded "No,
>> that's not true in general. Here's an example where it fails." And I
>> sketched out the example.
>>
>> He looked at it, and said "Yes, but here's an example where it works",
>> and he gave his example.
>>
>> He then leaned back, with a look of victory on his face, and said "It
>> only takes one counterexample."
>
> That was your mistake...instead of showing him your example on the napkin, you
> should have drawn it on the counter....r
>
>
Andreas Waldenburger
wrote:
> Thus spake Andreas Waldenburger (use...@geekmail.invalid) unto the
> assembled multitudes:
>
> >> Confusion might arise if a German speaker used these phrases, as
> >> there is a tendency for Germans to pronounce the word "of" as
> >> "off"...
> >>
> > Vott doo yoo meen? Zey doo sount ze same, dont zey?
>
> Only viz ze vint behine you.
>
I don't get that remark, sorry. :-/
> >> No offence to Germans intended. My observation is based on having
> >> once been married to one.
> >>
> > That must have been hard. I find the German accent to be the most
> > brutal thing one can do to the English language. Besides a French
> > accent, maybe.
>
> Oh, I don't know, I think it's quite endearing.
Well, you would have to, having been married to one of those accents. ;)
> Can't be any worse than German or French spoken with an English
> accent...
>
IMHO, German works pretty well with an English or American accent.
French with an English accent is pretty much as unbearable as the other
way around. I really get the impression that these two languages are
mutually exclusive. (Ever seen "The Science of Sleep", with Charlotte
Gainsbourg? Yuck. (I hope it is clear that I'm exaggerating for
effect.))
My qualm with the German accent is that is sounds disrespectful to the
English language to me. Like they're not really trying. However, that
might be because I've always had a fondness for the language and most
folks in school really *were* not trying. So that might have tainted my
perception of the accent.
What I find most funny (and infuriating) is that many Germans can't
keep their pronunciation straight. They'll pronounce words like "fast"
and "rather" the Oxford way (as taught to us in school), but
relentlessly pronounce ever damn "r" that is coming their way (like the
American English we mostly hear outside school). Every time I hear that
I want to scream "Which is it!? Make up your mind!"
So it's probably a preference thing. I just hate the accent of my
people. But I guess it can be quite cute. Willem Dafoe's Klaus Daimler
in "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou" is awesome (and pretty much the
only convincing German accent by a non-German that I have ever
encountered).
Wow, that went on for a bit too long. Sorry.
/W
--
INVALID? DE!
Peter Moylan
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:17:52 +0000 (UTC) A.C...@DENTURESsussex.ac.uk
> wrote:
>
>> Thus spake Andreas Waldenburger (use...@geekmail.invalid) unto the
>> assembled multitudes:
>>
>>>> Confusion might arise if a German speaker used these phrases, as
>>>> there is a tendency for Germans to pronounce the word "of" as
>>>> "off"...
>>>>
>>> Vott doo yoo meen? Zey doo sount ze same, dont zey?
>> Only viz ze vint behine you.
>>
> I don't get that remark, sorry. :-/
I can't resist quoting Fatbelly Jones:
"And when the wind is blowing from behind
It blows my mind."
Joe Fineman
> On 2009-11-14, Joe Fineman wrote:
>
>> I have heard tell of a copyeditor who, confronted with the sentence
>>
>> The captain failed to make any change of course before a
>> collision was inevitable.
>>
>> inserted commas around "of course".
>
> If you can document that, you should send it to Geoffrey Pullum.
Alas, it is only a dim memory, and Google does not avail.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: God came down to earth twice: the first time He brought :||
||: death, and the second, seeing His mistake, He brought Hell. :||
Ian Jackson
A.C...@DENTURESsussex.ac.uk writes
> I still don't
>understand why you have need of three genders when one will do perfectly well
>:-)))
>
I think that English is 'sexless'. As we don't have any genders (apart
from referring to things like ships as 'she'), what we do have cannot
really be described as 'neuter'. Despite all the difficulties which
'foreigners' may find when learning English, the lack of any gender -
and nouns and adjectives having to agree according whether they are
singular and plural - must make learning a relative doddle.
The funny thing is, why do so many apparently unrelated languages have
genders?
--
Ian
Ian Jackson
<OLDl...@verizon.net> writes
– absolutely nothing – half so much worth doing as simply messing
about in boats. Simply messing,” he went on dreamily: “messing –
about – in – boats; messing -”
--
Ian
Richard Chambers
Having genders has all the disadvantages you have mentioned or implied, but
it does have one easily recognisable advantage. This concerns precision of
identification when the word "it" is used.
"The glass hit the cup with great force, and it broke as a result." Which
broke, the glass or the cup?
"Le verre a frapp� la tasse avec ..... et elle est cass�e ...." No doubt
about it. The cup broke.
This does not work every time, because you might have two objects with the
same gender. But in 50% of cases, it will work, and it is useful to the
language.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Andreas Waldenburger
wrote:
> Thus spake Andreas Waldenburger (use...@geekmail.invalid) unto the
> assembled multitudes:
>
> I'm by no means fluent (indeed, after 13 years out of practice, I've
> gotten pretty rusty), but at least I can pronounce German pretty
> well. One of its advantages is that it has a consistent set of
> pronunciation rules.
Sure, but that still doesn't offset that most foreigners tend to think
that ...
> Pity its grammar is so damned hard.
Yes. Ollzoh I really not understand can, vott you soh straynsh about it
find!
It really never occurred to me that our way of sometimes putting verbs
at the end of sentences can be genuinely confusing until it was pointed
out to me by some English people. Oh yeah, and we have all the
conjugations and declinations going. Well, what can I say? Sorry. ;)
> And I still don't understand why you have need of three genders when
> one will do perfectly well :-)))
>
Amen! What I wouldn't give for us to finally get past that. You know
how big of a deal it has become in recent years that the female form of
every collective noun be included in any half official piece of writing?
People get really agitated about it! Not that I have anything against
including women when making a point. But I think it would serve all
better if we just adopted a mostly genderless system, and cut the
shenanigans.
> > So it's probably a preference thing. I just hate the accent of my
> > people.
>
> Wie schade! You should learn to love it. Most British people do,
> but sadly, perhaps for the wrong reasons :-)
>
Like when they're shouting commands at someone? ;)
Well, I do enjoy it when I hear Germans portrayed by non-Germans in
English-language shows. Nobody seems to get the accent right, ever
(Willem Dafoe excluded, he rocked). So I *sort of* like it. Well, not
really.
/W
--
INVALID? DE!
Peter Moylan
Because they're related?
We tend to forget that English historically also had these genders. Go
back far enough and you'll find things like declined adjectives and
articles that were different depending on the noun gender.
The masculine/feminine/neuter gender system seems to be common to the
Indo-European languages. (Did Latin and Greek once have a neuter gender?
Something at the back of my mind says that they did.)
I'm not really an expert on this, but I gather that some non-IE
languages have genders that aren't related to sex. At one stage I tried
to learn something about Australian aboriginal languages, and got the
impression that these had a quite complex gender system: one gender for
grazing animals, a different one for fish, yet another for people in a
different tribe, etc. Don't take these examples too literally, because
the details are long forgotten.
Chinese has something called "classifiers", words that say what category
the referent belongs to. (One for the class of all tea-cups, one for ...
well, I've forgotten, but something along those lines.) These categories
are apparently not genders, but to me they have all the signs of being
genders. (And the classifiers have all the signs of being articles,
something the language supposedly does not have.) We English-speakers
tend not to see such details because we have so thoroughly confused the
concepts of "gender" and "sex".
Richard Chambers
...
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:00:12 +0000 (UTC) A.C...@DENTURESsussex.ac.uk
> wrote:
>
>> Thus spake Andreas Waldenburger (use...@geekmail.invalid) unto the
>> assembled multitudes:
>>
>> I'm by no means fluent (indeed, after 13 years out of practice, I've
>> gotten pretty rusty), but at least I can pronounce German pretty
>> well. One of its advantages is that it has a consistent set of
>> pronunciation rules.
> Sure, but that still doesn't offset that most foreigners tend to think
> that ...
>
>> Pity its grammar is so damned hard.
> Yes. Ollzoh I really not understand can, vott you soh straynsh about it
> find!
>
> It really never occurred to me that our way of sometimes putting verbs
> at the end of sentences can be genuinely confusing until it was pointed
> out to me by some English people. Oh yeah, and we have all the
> conjugations and declinations going. Well, what can I say? Sorry. ;)
Can you please something of the German language explain? I have a very good
German friend. To her said I one day that German a very good language is.
"Why?", has she me astonished asked. I have to her replied, that it in
German impossible it is to before the end of the sentence interrupt.
"Certainly is that not my experience!", has she to me replied.
[I just simply cannot keep this up, my head hurts]. To cut a long story
short in English English, I thought that in German it would be impossible to
interrupt before the end of a sentence because the verb and its associated
"nicht" -- if the speaker chooses to include "nicht" -- often comes at the
end of the sentence. Therefore, the listener does not know until the end of
the sentence whether the speaker is going to say something that he agrees or
disagrees with. e.g.
I believe passionately that communism a good thing is.
I believe passionately that communism a good thing not is.
So, I asked her, how can you possibly disagree before the end of the
sentence if you do not know whether or not a "nicht" will be delivered?
Nevertheless, she assured me, Germans do interrupt each other before the end
of a sentence, quite as much as the British do. I asked her how they knew
that it was appropriate to interrupt. She could not tell me. Are you able to
explain this mystery to me, please?
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
John Varela
<use...@geekmail.INVALID> wrote:
> It really never occurred to me that our way of sometimes putting verbs
> at the end of sentences can be genuinely confusing until it was pointed
> out to me by some English people. Oh yeah, and we have all the
> conjugations and declinations going.
I assume that of course all here have read Mark Twain's essay on the
subject.
John Varela
<my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Half of Hollywood (near enough) consisted of New Yorkers when Bugs was
> created and developed. Bugs, as you probably discovered, speaks with a
> sort of amalgam of the Brooklyn and Bronx accents of that period.
The voice was done by Mel Blanc, who was from San Francisco. Is the
accent perhaps more Jewish than New York?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Blanc
R H Draney
>
>On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:45:02 UTC, Roland Hutchinson
><my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Half of Hollywood (near enough) consisted of New Yorkers when Bugs was
>> created and developed. Bugs, as you probably discovered, speaks with a
>> sort of amalgam of the Brooklyn and Bronx accents of that period.
>
>The voice was done by Mel Blanc, who was from San Francisco. Is the
>accent perhaps more Jewish than New York?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Blanc
Blanc said that when he was first given the character of Bugs, he was told that
he was kind of a wise guy, and that led him to decide that his accent should be
something between Brooklyn and the Bronx....
Mel may have been Jewish in actual fact, but he drifted quite a ways from his
cultural roots, even to the point of giving his son a name that translates as
"White Christmas"....r
Steve Hayes
>I'm not really an expert on this, but I gather that some non-IE
>languages have genders that aren't related to sex. At one stage I tried
>to learn something about Australian aboriginal languages, and got the
>impression that these had a quite complex gender system: one gender for
>grazing animals, a different one for fish, yet another for people in a
>different tribe, etc. Don't take these examples too literally, because
>the details are long forgotten.
That is true of Bantu languages, which have several genders, though the
grammarians usually call them "noun classes". Some of them classify singulars
and plurals as different genders/classes too.
In Zulu, for example, class 1 is the "personal" class, with singulars begining
with "umu-" and plurals with "aba-". So "umuntu" is a person, and "abantu" is
"people" (from where the general classification of "Bantu" comes from -
languages that use similar words for people. In Sotho it is motho/batho, in
Kwanyama omunhu/ovanhu, in Herero omundu/ovandu, and so on. In Zulu if you as
the abstract prefix ubu- to the root -ntu, you get "ubuntu", which means
"humanity", though to most English-speaking people it is a variant of the Unix
computer language.
The great advantage Zulu has over English is this separation of gender from
sex, so one can avoid argumen ts about sexist pronouns and the singular they.
Umuntu is "man", male and female, and quite different words are used from
wermen (amadoda) and women (abafazi).
>
>Chinese has something called "classifiers", words that say what category
>the referent belongs to. (One for the class of all tea-cups, one for ...
>well, I've forgotten, but something along those lines.) These categories
>are apparently not genders, but to me they have all the signs of being
>genders. (And the classifiers have all the signs of being articles,
>something the language supposedly does not have.) We English-speakers
>tend not to see such details because we have so thoroughly confused the
>concepts of "gender" and "sex".
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Roland Hutchinson
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:45:02 UTC, Roland Hutchinson
> <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Half of Hollywood (near enough) consisted of New Yorkers when Bugs was
>> created and developed. Bugs, as you probably discovered, speaks with a
>> sort of amalgam of the Brooklyn and Bronx accents of that period.
>
> The voice was done by Mel Blanc, who was from San Francisco. Is the
> accent perhaps more Jewish than New York?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Blanc
It is a deliberate conflation of Brooklyn and Bronx accents.
There is nothing that marks Bugs's speech as having Jewish roots.
Peter Moylan
> It really never occurred to me that our way of sometimes putting
> verbs at the end of sentences can be genuinely confusing until it was
> pointed out to me by some English people.
There's a classic story about a German who was speaking at a conference
where simultaneous translation was provided. The people listening to the
English translation were puzzled when the translator went silent for
several minutes, even though the speaker was obviously still speaking.
Finally they heard the translator say "The verb, man. Where's the verb?"
James Hogg
I suppose there are many ways of knowing what a person is going to say,
in any language. Simultaneous translators from German have to practise
that art all the time.
--
James
James Hogg
> Ian Jackson wrote:
>> In message <hdukqs$3t0$1...@south.jnrs.ja.net>,
>> A.C...@DENTURESsussex.ac.uk writes
>>
>>> I still don't understand why you have need of three genders when
>>> one will do perfectly well :-)))
>>>
>> I think that English is 'sexless'. As we don't have any genders
>> (apart from referring to things like ships as 'she'), what we do have
>> cannot really be described as 'neuter'. Despite all the difficulties
>> which 'foreigners' may find when learning English, the lack of any
>> gender - and nouns and adjectives having to agree according whether
>> they are singular and plural - must make learning a relative doddle.
>>
>> The funny thing is, why do so many apparently unrelated languages
>> have genders?
>
> Because they're related?
>
> We tend to forget that English historically also had these genders. Go
> back far enough and you'll find things like declined adjectives and
> articles that were different depending on the noun gender.
>
> The masculine/feminine/neuter gender system seems to be common to the
> Indo-European languages. (Did Latin and Greek once have a neuter gender?
> Something at the back of my mind says that they did.)
Once? All the time. Greek still has neuter.
--
James
James Hogg
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:33:52 +1100, Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm not really an expert on this, but I gather that some non-IE
>> languages have genders that aren't related to sex. At one stage I
>> tried to learn something about Australian aboriginal languages, and
>> got the impression that these had a quite complex gender system:
>> one gender for grazing animals, a different one for fish, yet
>> another for people in a different tribe, etc. Don't take these
>> examples too literally, because the details are long forgotten.
>
> That is true of Bantu languages, which have several genders, though
> the grammarians usually call them "noun classes". Some of them
> classify singulars and plurals as different genders/classes too.
It might be useful to remember that the earliest meaning of "gender" is
"kind, sort, class, race". Doesn't French "genre" still have all these
meanings?
--
James
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
[...]
> I thought that in German it would be impossible to interrupt before
> the end of a sentence because the verb and its associated "nicht" --
> if the speaker chooses to include "nicht" -- often comes at the end
> of the sentence. Therefore, the listener does not know until the end
> of the sentence whether the speaker is going to say something that he
> agrees or disagrees with. e.g.
>
> I believe passionately that communism a good thing is.
German word order is okay. Comma needed before "that" (_da�_) in German.
> I believe passionately that communism a good thing not is.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is Bullenschei�e. Your word order is upgefuckt. Correct:
..., that communism NOT A good thing is.
..., da� Kommunismus KEIN gutes Ding ist.
--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
Peter Moylan
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>> Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> In message <hdukqs$3t0$1...@south.jnrs.ja.net>,
>>> The funny thing is, why do so many apparently unrelated languages
>>> have genders?
>>
>> Because they're related?
>>
>> We tend to forget that English historically also had these genders. Go
>> back far enough and you'll find things like declined adjectives and
>> articles that were different depending on the noun gender.
>>
>> The masculine/feminine/neuter gender system seems to be common to the
>> Indo-European languages. (Did Latin and Greek once have a neuter gender?
>> Something at the back of my mind says that they did.)
>
> Once? All the time. Greek still has neuter.
Thank you. That means that the back of my mind wasn't wrong, just
misleading.
James Hogg
> James Hogg wrote:
>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>> In message <hdukqs$3t0$1...@south.jnrs.ja.net>,
>
>>>> The funny thing is, why do so many apparently unrelated languages
>>>> have genders?
>>>
>>> Because they're related?
>>>
>>> We tend to forget that English historically also had these genders. Go
>>> back far enough and you'll find things like declined adjectives and
>>> articles that were different depending on the noun gender.
>>>
>>> The masculine/feminine/neuter gender system seems to be common to the
>>> Indo-European languages. (Did Latin and Greek once have a neuter gender?
>>> Something at the back of my mind says that they did.)
>>
>> Once? All the time. Greek still has neuter.
>
> Thank you. That means that the back of my mind wasn't wrong, just
> misleading.
It's preferable to frontal lobe dementia.
--
James
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
I think so. You are assuming that in conversation the conversants have a
logical structure in which each person speaks in response to what
another has said with only one person speaking at a time.
It ain't necessarily so.
A person may have a point to make and will not be deterred by the fact
that someone else is speaking.
Two or more people can express their thoughts simultaneously. That does
not mean that they are not listening to one another and that they will
not respond to one another's statements. It is very often possible to
guess the broad trend of what someone will be saying very early on in a
conversation. If A is speaking and is interrupted by B who guesses that
A will be saying "more of the same" and responds accordingly, it is
still possible for B to react at the end of A's statement if A has said
something that B did not expect.
I'm reminded of what a science fiction writer once reported. I think it
was Isaac Asimov who was writing a story that involved radio
communication between civilizations thousands of light years apart. The
idea was for the civilizations to learn about one another. He discussed
this with his wife. How could there be a useful exchange of information
with a delay of thousands of years between messages? His wife suggested
they do what women do - speak simultaneously.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Richard Chambers
Yes, thanks for that reminder. You're not all bad, only 97%. It was
upgefuckt. It is 35 years since I last studied any German, and I had
forgoten about "kein".
What about:-
I have today heard, that Arkle in the 3:30 at Newmarket run will.
I have today heard, that Arkle in the 3:30 at Newmarket run will not.
Have I put the "not" in the right place there?
Richard "bestimmt kein Dummkopf" Chambers Leeds UK.
James Hogg
Not.
I have today heard, that Arkle in the 3:30 at Newmarket not run will.
--
James
Andreas Waldenburger
wrote:
> Thus spake Andreas Waldenburger (use...@geekmail.invalid) unto the
> assembled multitudes:
>
> >> Pity its grammar is so damned hard.
> > Yes. Ollzoh I really not understand can, vott you soh straynsh
> > about it find!
>
> You are the Yoda and I claim my five pounds. :-)
>
Enough with the pop culture references already! :)
> > It really never occurred to me that our way of sometimes putting
> > verbs at the end of sentences can be genuinely confusing until it
> > was pointed out to me by some English people. Oh yeah, and we have
> > all the conjugations and declinations going. Well, what can I say?
> > Sorry. ;)
>
> Well, when conversing with my ex-wife's non-English-speaking parents,
> I managed to make myself understood, even though I am sure my
> appalling grammar made them wince. I think they found it quite
> endearing.
>
Well, it is. In a familiar context. In the workplace, it's not so cute
anymore. (Both hold true for any language, of course.)
> >> And I still don't understand why you have need of three genders
> >> when one will do perfectly well :-)))
> >>
> > Amen! What I wouldn't give for us to finally get past that. [...]
> > ... I think it would serve all
> > better if we just adopted a mostly genderless system, and cut the
> > shenanigans.
>
> Excellent. Please get on the phone to Bundeskanzlerin Merkel
> immediately and do us all a favour. :-)
>
Will do. People around here *love* changes to the language (Kann you
say "Rechtschreibreform"). Maybe this will finally get her out of
office. Actual bad politics doesn't seem to work.
> >> Wie schade! You should learn to love it. Most British people
> >> do, but sadly, perhaps for the wrong reasons :-)
> >>
> > Like when they're shouting commands at someone? ;)
>
> Perhaps, but I was thinking more in the context of British TV comedy
> shows like "Allo Allo", which of course you may never have seen.
I haven't. Often I find British humor a bit ... ehr ... you know? Yeah,
that's it. Though I guess the feeling is mutual.
> "Don't mention the war" and all that stuff. Sorry.
>
I know that phrase from "Fawlty Towers" (which is awesome (the show,
not the phrase)). I didn't know it was sort of a meme.
> > Well, I do enjoy it when I hear Germans portrayed by non-Germans in
> > English-language shows. Nobody seems to get the accent right, ever
> > (Willem Dafoe excluded, he rocked). So I *sort of* like it. Well,
> > not really.
>
> Then perhaps you would enjoy "Allo Allo", which is full of British
> actors playing German military characters.
Yay!
> Especially as "ze fallen Madonna viz ze big boobies" is mentioned
> quite frequently.
>
Sounds like my kind of show! Will look for it. Thanks. :)
/W
--
INVALID? DE!
Andreas Waldenburger
wrote:
> Thus spake Richard Chambers (richard.cham...@ntlworld.net)
> unto the assembled multitudes:
>
> > So, I asked her, how can you possibly disagree before the end of
> > the sentence if you do not know whether or not a "nicht" will be
> > delivered?
>
> > Nevertheless, she assured me, Germans do interrupt each other
> > before the end of a sentence, quite as much as the British do. I
> > asked her how they knew that it was appropriate to interrupt. She
> > could not tell me. Are you able to explain this mystery to me,
> > please?
>
> I used to find that most Germans had an almost uncanny ability to
> anticipate what I was going to say, before I had completed my
> sentence. [snip]
>
And this right there is why German is an exceptionally bad language for
comedy. It is very hard to form an actual punchline (you know, a
PUNCHline) in German. Most humor comes with the object, the verb is
mostly just comedic ballast. The joke is understood by all, but the
funnyperson isn't even done talking yet. That sucks, I tell you that.
That's why you'll find so little verbal comedy in German.
Ahh, pet peeve.
/W
--
INVALID? DE!
Don Aitken
<use...@geekmail.INVALID> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:03:59 +0000 (UTC) A.C...@DENTURESsussex.ac.uk
>wrote:
>
>> Perhaps, but I was thinking more in the context of British TV comedy
>> shows like "Allo Allo", which of course you may never have seen.
>I haven't. Often I find British humor a bit ... ehr ... you know? Yeah,
>that's it. Though I guess the feeling is mutual.
>
For many years, Germany was just about the only European country where
it wasn't shown (it has been sold in over 50 countries). I think there
were worries about possible legal problems. The BBC announced in March
2008 that it had been sold to the satellite channel ProSiebenSat1.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Peter Moylan
There is a simple solution. Introduce the sort of comedy where somebody
gets up and says "number 26".
Peter Moylan
> A number of my colleagues (no names, no pack drill) have an appalling
> standard of written English, and yet here they are working for a
> university. It amazes and distresses me.
Australian universities have been through a long phase of hiring people
from the countries that everyone wants to leave. (The job ads usually
mention the salary, which is why no Australian candidates apply.) The
students are complaining bitterly that they can't understand their
lecturers, but nobody listens.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>
>A number of my colleagues (no names, no pack drill) have an appalling
>standard of written English, and yet here they are working for a university.
>It amazes and distresses me.
>
I used to work in a university and I observed the same.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:57:31 +0000 (UTC), A.C...@DENTURESsussex.ac.uk
>wrote:
>
>>
>>A number of my colleagues (no names, no pack drill) have an appalling
>>standard of written English, and yet here they are working for a university.
>>It amazes and distresses me.
>>
>I used to work in a university and I observed the same.
Having read Peter Moylan's comment I'll add that I was referring to
native-speakers of English.
When I first started taking serious notice of the sometimes poor
standard of English used by university staff I was surprised,
temporarily, to note that engineers and scientists tended to write more
comprehensible English than those in the Arts (languages, etc)
departments.
Peter Moylan
> When I first started taking serious notice of the sometimes poor
> standard of English used by university staff I was surprised,
> temporarily, to note that engineers and scientists tended to write
> more comprehensible English than those in the Arts (languages, etc)
> departments.
As an engineering academic, I used to be horrified at the writing skills
of my students. Then I had a look at what the English majors were
writing, and I didn't feel so bad.
The very worst abusers of the written language, I found, were the
journalism majors and the trainee teachers. This seems to be a question
of entry standards. Some courses are harder to get into than others. The
most fluent users of their language are those studying medicine and
occupational therapy.
LFS
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:57:31 +0000 (UTC), A.C...@DENTURESsussex.ac.uk
> wrote:
>
>> A number of my colleagues (no names, no pack drill) have an appalling
>> standard of written English, and yet here they are working for a university.
>> It amazes and distresses me.
>>
> I used to work in a university and I observed the same.
>
I work in a university and I, too, have observed this, even among very
senior academics whose subject is English and whose first language is
English.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Lars Eighner
talented LFS broadcast on alt.usage.english:
Many years ago when I was still using a typewriter one of those university
guys asked me to look over a proposal he had written. I believe he meant to
amuse himself at my expense because, you know, he was all learned and
everything and he had word-processed the proposal to the nines so it looked
like an offprint from a scholarly journal with bigger fonts for the heads
and proper superscripts and italics --- all of which was very cutting edge
for the time, when home computers were toys that were hooked up to
televisions.
I considered the first paragraph and suggested that "to carry on the future
advance of progress" might be edited to "to progress." I do not know what
else might have been in the proposal for it was snatched away, and of it I
heard no more.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> September 5925, 1993
303 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.
Skitt
>>> A number of my colleagues (no names, no pack drill) have an
>>> appalling standard of written English, and yet here they are
>>> working for a university. It amazes and distresses me.
>>>
>> I used to work in a university and I observed the same.
>
> I work in a university and I, too, have observed this, even among very
> senior academics whose subject is English and whose first language is
> English.
Only those with above average natural abilities are able to pursue the math
and science courses satisfactorily. They are also more likely to develop
better language skills.
That's just my opinion, of course.
--
Skitt (AmE)
John Varela
wrote:
Those are interesting observations. I've noticed that, of the
participants in this news group who have identified their
professions, many are engineers, scientists, and software
developers. I can't recall anyone self identifing as an English
major. Or Phys Ed, for that matter.
--
John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
tony cooper
wrote:
Having a major in English is not a profession. An English professor
or a teacher of English is a profession. I have a friend that majored
in American history. He is not a historian. He's a banker.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
>
> Thus spake Andreas Waldenburger unto the assembled multitudes:
>
>> And this right there is why German is an exceptionally bad
>> language for comedy.
>
>
>> It is very hard to form an actual punchline (you know, a
>> PUNCHline) in German.
>
>
>> Most humor comes with the object, the verb is
>> mostly just comedic ballast.
>
>
>> The joke is understood by all, but the funnyperson
>> isn't even done talking yet. That sucks, I tell you that.
>> That's why you'll find so little verbal comedy in German.
>
>
> Fascinating!
>
Nonsense. It's *stupid*.
>
> This goes a long way to explaining why the English have a
> popular perception of the Germans as having no sense of humour! :-)
>
> Nonsense. It doesn't.
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
>
> A.C...@DENTURESsussex.ac.uk wrote:
[...]
>> This goes a long way to explaining why the English have a
>> popular perception of the Germans as having no sense of humour! :-)
>>
>> Nonsense. It doesn't.
This should have been (written by me):
Richard Chambers
I am not qualified to comment on the other Nonsense's you have earned.
However, this last Nonsense is a rare case in which I can agree with Rey,
although I might not have used the same words as he has.
The British popular perception of Germans as lacking a sense of humour is
the result of propaganda in both World Wars. Once the label has been stuck
onto you, it is difficult to get rid of it. With the scurrilous
encouragement of our Tabloid Press, this perception lives on in the
Sunlounger War (an extension of WW2) that is waged every summer between
British idiots and German idiots in the Spanish Costas.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
LFS
But, whisper it quietly, we have had a participant who claimed to be an
English professor...
Skitt
> John Varela wrote:
Well, there you go ...
--
Skitt (AmE)
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
She listed her qualifications some years ago in an exchange with Maria
Conlon. There is no mention of her being an English major:
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.usage.english/2005-12/msg04714.html
Peter Moylan
> John Varela wrote:
>> Those are interesting observations. I've noticed that, of the
>> participants in this news group who have identified their
>> professions, many are engineers, scientists, and software
>> developers. I can't recall anyone self identifing as an English
>> major. Or Phys Ed, for that matter.
>
> But, whisper it quietly, we have had a participant who claimed to be
> an English professor...
That's "professor" in the AmE sense of the word. Not quite the same
thing as a senior academic. When I tried to visualise her professing her
profession, the mental image that came to mind was Snoopy's brother
Spike talking to the cactus.
Amethyst Deceiver
<la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:57:31 +0000 (UTC), A.C...@DENTURESsussex.ac.uk
>> wrote:
>>
>>> A number of my colleagues (no names, no pack drill) have an appalling
>>> standard of written English, and yet here they are working for a university.
>>> It amazes and distresses me.
>>>
>> I used to work in a university and I observed the same.
>>
>
>I work in a university and I, too, have observed this, even among very
^^^
especially
>senior academics whose subject is English and whose first language is
>English.
On a daily basis I am amazed at the correspondence that professors put
their names to. In the main it's email but also strategic papers, and
they're writing them themselves so they have no-one to blame.
Chuck Riggs
I thought Laura was referring to the Dispenser.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Andreas Waldenburger
wrote:
> Thus spake Andreas Waldenburger (use...@geekmail.invalid) unto the
> assembled multitudes:
>
> > And this right there is why German is an exceptionally bad language
> > for comedy. It is very hard to form an actual punchline (you know, a
> > PUNCHline) in German. Most humor comes with the object, the verb is
> > mostly just comedic ballast. The joke is understood by all, but the
> > funnyperson isn't even done talking yet. That sucks, I tell you
> > that. That's why you'll find so little verbal comedy in German.
>
> Fascinating! This goes a long way to explaining why the English
> have a popular perception of the Germans as having no sense of
> humour! :-)
>
No, that's because we actually have no sense of humor. What we have is
a bad copy of the American sense of humor (in recent years, at least).
/W
--
INVALID? DE!
Andreas Waldenburger
wrote:
> Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
> > [snip]
> > And this right there is why German is an exceptionally bad language
> > for comedy. It is very hard to form an actual punchline (you know, a
> > PUNCHline) in German. Most humor comes with the object, the verb is
> > mostly just comedic ballast. The joke is understood by all, but the
> > funnyperson isn't even done talking yet. That sucks, I tell you
> > that. That's why you'll find so little verbal comedy in German.
>
> There is a simple solution. Introduce the sort of comedy where
> somebody gets up and says "number 26".
>
Oh, we have already that. It usually starts with "You know, men and
women are so different ...". From then on, it is pretty much isomorphic
to calling numbers.
I have a hunch that this might have been a pop culture reference. And
this being the internet, chances are it was Monty Python. Am I right?
/W
--
INVALID? DE!
Donna Richoux
Much older, certainly to the age of vaudeville. There were various
stories involving people who repeatedly called out numbers, followed by
laughter from the audience. The usual premise would be a comedian's
convention, where everyone is so familiar with the material that this
saves time. In the anecdotes, a puzzled onlooker would ask what was
going on. The one I remember best ends with the exchange:
"So why is that man over there laughing so hard?"
"Oh, he never heard that joke before."
I think Evan and I tried to track down the age of this idea a few years
ago, but the archives are so unresponsive, I'm afraid to look for our
results.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
R H Draney
>
>On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:55:31 +1100 Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep>
>wrote:
>
>> somebody gets up and says "number 26".
>>
>Oh, we have already that. It usually starts with "You know, men and
>women are so different ...". From then on, it is pretty much isomorphic
>to calling numbers.
How about that airline food?...and what's the deal with convenience
stores?...two Jews get off a streetcar...let me tell you about my
mother-in-law....
>I have a hunch that this might have been a pop culture reference. And
>this being the internet, chances are it was Monty Python. Am I right?
One of the suggested titles for the show was "A Horse, A Spoon And A Basin"...if
they had continued "walk into a bar", the title itself would have been such a
reference....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Mark Brader
>>> There is a simple solution. Introduce the sort of comedy where
>>> somebody gets up and says "number 26".
Donna Richoux:
> [It dates back] certainly to the age of vaudeville. There were various
> stories involving people who repeatedly called out numbers, followed by
> laughter from the audience. The usual premise would be a comedian's
> convention, where everyone is so familiar with the material that this
> saves time. In the anecdotes, a puzzled onlooker would ask what was
> going on. The one I remember best ends with the exchange:
>
> "So why is that man over there laughing so hard?"
> "Oh, he never heard that joke before."
And the alternate ending:
"So why didn't anyone laugh at #26?"
"He can't do the dialect."
I remember that both versions are in Isaac Asimov's Treasury of Humor.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "X-ray of girl shows bureaucratic mentality"
m...@vex.net | --Globe & Mail, Toronto, January 18, 1988
Andreas Waldenburger
> Peter Moylan:
> >>> There is a simple solution. Introduce the sort of comedy where
> >>> somebody gets up and says "number 26".
>
> Donna Richoux:
> > [It dates back] certainly to the age of vaudeville. There were
> > various stories involving people who repeatedly called out numbers,
> > followed by laughter from the audience. The usual premise would be
> > a comedian's convention, where everyone is so familiar with the
> > material that this saves time. In the anecdotes, a puzzled onlooker
> > would ask what was going on. The one I remember best ends with the
> > exchange:
> >
> > "So why is that man over there laughing so hard?"
> > "Oh, he never heard that joke before."
>
> And the alternate ending:
>
> "So why didn't anyone laugh at #26?"
> "He can't do the dialect."
>
> I remember that both versions are in Isaac Asimov's Treasury of Humor.
Wow, I just realized that I love Vaudeville humor. (I always suspected
it, now I'm certain.)
--
INVALID? DE!
Andreas Waldenburger
<use...@geekmail.INVALID> wrote:
> Oh, we have already that.
Oops. Uhm ... wait, I can explain!
Anyway, what I meant was "Oh, we have that already".
/W
--
INVALID? DE!
Andreas Waldenburger
> Isaac Asimov's Treasury of Humor
Damn you! I'm strapped as it is and you make me buy that book? It never
ends.
Well, I guess I need to thank you. Thank you. :)
/W
--
INVALID? DE!
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Peter Moylan:
>>>> There is a simple solution. Introduce the sort of comedy where
>>>> somebody gets up and says "number 26".
>
> Donna Richoux:
>> [It dates back] certainly to the age of vaudeville. There were various
>> stories involving people who repeatedly called out numbers, followed by
>> laughter from the audience. The usual premise would be a comedian's
>> convention, where everyone is so familiar with the material that this
>> saves time. In the anecdotes, a puzzled onlooker would ask what was
>> going on. The one I remember best ends with the exchange:
>>
>> "So why is that man over there laughing so hard?"
>> "Oh, he never heard that joke before."
>
> And the alternate ending:
>
> "So why didn't anyone laugh at #26?"
> "He can't do the dialect."
Or "Some people just can't tell a joke" or "You can't tell that one in
mixed company!"
> I remember that both versions are in Isaac Asimov's Treasury of Humor.
Jokes number 73 and 74, respectively.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The purpose of writing is to inflate
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning,
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and inhibit clarity. With a little
|practice, writing can be an
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |intimidating and impenetrable fog!
(650)857-7572 | Calvin
R H Draney
>>> "Oh, he never heard that joke before."
>>
>> And the alternate ending:
>>
>> "So why didn't anyone laugh at #26?"
>> "He can't do the dialect."
>
>Or "Some people just can't tell a joke" or "You can't tell that one in
>mixed company!"
>
>> I remember that both versions are in Isaac Asimov's Treasury of Humor.
>
>Jokes number 73 and 74, respectively.
Just a note here to mention that, in addition to "Treasury of Humor", Asimov
compiled a second book of jokes called "Asimov Laughs Again"...the format is
much the same, but he mentions within it that he felt freer to explore certain
kinds of humor than he did in the first book as a result of the intervening
death of his former mother-in-law....r
Peter Moylan
> Peter Moylan:
>>>> There is a simple solution. Introduce the sort of comedy where
>>>> somebody gets up and says "number 26".
>
> Donna Richoux:
>> [It dates back] certainly to the age of vaudeville. There were various
>> stories involving people who repeatedly called out numbers, followed by
>> laughter from the audience. The usual premise would be a comedian's
>> convention, where everyone is so familiar with the material that this
>> saves time. In the anecdotes, a puzzled onlooker would ask what was
>> going on. The one I remember best ends with the exchange:
>>
>> "So why is that man over there laughing so hard?"
>> "Oh, he never heard that joke before."
>
> And the alternate ending:
>
> "So why didn't anyone laugh at #26?"
> "He can't do the dialect."
"And why did number 17 get such a bad reception?"
"Oh, they've heard that one before."
Peter Moylan
This isn't new. When I first joined academia, in the days when
cut-and-paste had a much more literal meaning, one of the most important
jobs of the department secretary was to correct the spelling and
grammatical errors of the professor.
Now that everyone has a word processor, there is no proof reader to
intervene as the material is being typed.
Amethyst Deceiver
wrote:
>Amethyst Deceiver wrote:
>> On a daily basis I am amazed at the correspondence that professors
>> put their names to. In the main it's email but also strategic papers,
>> and they're writing them themselves so they have no-one to blame.
>
>This isn't new. When I first joined academia, in the days when
>cut-and-paste had a much more literal meaning, one of the most important
>jobs of the department secretary was to correct the spelling and
>grammatical errors of the professor.
Scarily, I was handed a document a few weeks ago, by a professor, that
was very much literal cut-and-paste, interspersed with pages of
hand-scrawled screed, that needed turning into a book chapter. She has
no excuses for not knowing how to do this herself, and now that her
research administrator has left she's going to have to start doing it
for herself.
>Now that everyone has a word processor, there is no proof reader to
>intervene as the material is being typed.
You'd think. What happens is that instead of having enough
departmental secretaries to do this kind of thing, they buy the skill
in, which costs a heck of a lot more overall.