Author Topic: Funny English and Linguistics stuff... (Read 203972 times)

spacepook · « **Reply #525 on:** July 15, 2012, 04:04:41 PM »

My mind!

Porter · « **Reply #526 on:** July 16, 2012, 07:52:41 AM »

Quote

névé

That's not even English.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #527 on:** July 16, 2012, 07:53:48 AM »

Prescriptivist!

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #528 on:** July 16, 2012, 02:26:46 PM »

Quote from: Porter on July 16, 2012, 07:52:41 AM

Quote
névé
That's not even English.

Your mom's not even English.

Porter · « **Reply #529 on:** July 17, 2012, 06:10:40 AM »

True.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #530 on:** July 20, 2012, 03:26:00 PM »

Why does my refrigerator not frigerate things twice?

BlackBlade · « **Reply #531 on:** July 20, 2012, 03:38:42 PM »

Actually it's constantly refrigerating into infinite as it fights the constant attempts of heat to get in.

Jonathon · « **Reply #532 on:** July 20, 2012, 03:39:00 PM »

Well, technically, re- usually means "back" or "again", not "twice". And apparently refrigerate was originally used to mean "to reduce a fever" or something similar. In that sense, you were bringing a temperature back down.

rivka · « **Reply #533 on:** July 20, 2012, 08:00:17 PM »

You're probably going to say that "reduce" doesn't mean to duce twice either, huh?

Porter · « **Reply #534 on:** July 20, 2012, 08:51:24 PM »

Double Deuce!

Jonathon · « **Reply #535 on:** July 20, 2012, 09:30:19 PM »

Quote from: rivka on July 20, 2012, 08:00:17 PM

You're probably going to say that "reduce" doesn't mean to duce twice either, huh?

Yes. Yes I am.

"Reduce" doesn't mean to duce twice.

It did, however, originally mean "to lead or bring back".

SteveRogers · « **Reply #536 on:** July 27, 2012, 01:58:19 PM »

Edit:

Adding a link to the picture on the site.

Jonathon · « **Reply #537 on:** July 27, 2012, 02:12:50 PM »

I guffawed. Also, the mouseover text is pretty great.

SteveRogers · « **Reply #538 on:** July 27, 2012, 02:16:16 PM »

I couldn't figure out how to post the picture with the mouseover text intact. That's why I linked to it separately.

Jonathon · « **Reply #539 on:** July 27, 2012, 02:22:03 PM »

I don't think there is a way to post it here with the mouseover text. Unless I enabled HTML in posts or something.

SteveRogers · « **Reply #540 on:** July 27, 2012, 02:43:21 PM »

That would be beyond my skill level anyway, so the link will just have to suffice.

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #541 on:** July 29, 2012, 05:10:51 AM »

Quote from: SteveRogers on July 27, 2012, 01:58:19 PM

Edit:

Adding a link to the picture on the site.

This is an example of xkcd's artwork "style" getting in the way of its effectiveness. I love xkcd for its wit and brilliance, but again I have to say that it would be way more admirable if he'd get off of the stick figure thing. In this case, I had no idea why it was supposed to be funny until I clicked through and saw the title. The character wasn't obviously Frodo - it could have been Miss Havisham or anyone (that's who I was thinking it was) because of the overly simplistic drawing.

I know we had this discussion before, but I still hold to the fact that the strip would be all sorts of brilliant if he would put the time into drawing that it deserves. Does drawing that much detail for a daily web comic take time? Of course it does. But I'm pretty sure he's doing financially well enough to be doing this full-time and there are plenty of other comic artists who managed a daily strip with artistically fleshed-out frames.

Brinestone · « **Reply #542 on:** July 29, 2012, 08:44:22 PM »

I knew instantly it was Frodo but took a moment to see the words in the web.

BlackBlade · « **Reply #543 on:** July 31, 2012, 08:11:49 AM »

I don't know what my brain would have done, as I read Annie's commentary before really absorbing the picture.

Porter · « **Reply #544 on:** July 31, 2012, 01:17:14 PM »

I knew instantly that it was Frodo, and I loved the mouseover text, but utterly failed to see the "Some Pig" in the image the first time I saw this comic. I only saw it today because Jonathon's comment convinced me that there was something in the image I had missed.

SteveRogers · « **Reply #545 on:** August 03, 2012, 12:05:42 PM »

Jonathon · « **Reply #546 on:** August 03, 2012, 12:11:00 PM »

I was going to post that this morning but forgot. Thanks, Steve!

Also, I have to wonder: how many people get that it's a joke about context-free grammar?

SteveRogers · « **Reply #547 on:** August 03, 2012, 12:27:28 PM »

I didn't get the joke till I read the mouse-over text, but it made me laugh pretty hard once I clued myself into it.

Jonathon · « **Reply #548 on:** August 03, 2012, 12:29:34 PM »

I had to read the mouseover text too. Sadly, I've never had a real class in syntax.

SteveRogers · « **Reply #549 on:** August 03, 2012, 12:31:22 PM »

Personally, I don't think that would make me very sad.