https://t.co/EqBBsKEO0B@secondmentions
— niall mcdonald (@niall_mcdonald) August 10, 2022
'The Angels crooner'
१० ऑगस्ट, २०२२
I'm not blogging this because it give me a second chance in one morning to blog about underpants (AKA "pants" in England).
I'm blogging this because it was retweeted by Second Mentions, and — as I told you last April — I am fascinated by the silly avoidance of using the same word or phrase you've already used to refer to something you're still talking about (such that the "small house" of paragraph 1 must be a "petite edifice" in paragraph 2):
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२१ टिप्पण्या:
I can't remember the exact source and context (I think it may have been a writer for the Simpsons) but I recall an anecdote that "underpants" is 40% funnier than "underwear."
"I can't remember the exact source and context (I think it may have been a writer for the Simpsons) but I recall an anecdote that "underpants" is 40% funnier than "underwear.""
Imagine how funny it is to the British to hear us talking about "pants" when to them it means "underpants."
I'm just going to wear pants to work today.
There's a Seinfeld thing about how naked is funnier than nude (as an example of how some words are just funnier).
Robbie Williams - I had to look him up.
I'm not blogging this because it give me a second chance in one morning to blog about underpants
That's just icing on the cake.
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2016/09/you-can-call-us-wrong-but-dont-call-us.html — That's an old post of mine on the subject of some words being funnier than others, including the naked/nude difference, and old theory that works with a "k" sound are funnier, and a link to the Wikipedia article "Inherently funny words," which includes this about "pants":
"An old Internet phenomenon involved taking lines from the Star Wars movies and replacing one word from the line with the word "pants", with comedic effect. This suggests that "pants" may be an inherently funny word...."
The link for the Star Wars thing doesn't work, but I found the same thing here: https://www.dicegeeks.com/star-wars-pants-game/
Letterman's Tonight Show was produced by his production company named "World Wide Pants". It never made sense to me.
You'd think Slacks would be funnier than Pants - but it's not.
I always wonder about these acts (12 number one hits) who are huge in the UK but are virtually unknown in the U.S.
'Imagine how funny it is to the British to hear us talking about "pants" when to them it means "underpants."'
I'll knock you up in the morning and we can talk about it...
This "silly avoidance" to use the same word or phrase twice seems to me not silly at all.
As standup comics, my wife and I adhere strictly to the silly avoidance. Using a word twice in the tight confines of a joke (especially if it's a short, setup/punchline one- or two-liner) is a distraction.
It is to be avoided at all costs.
We use the same rule when creating comedy for the written word. (A sentence that would be poorer had it instead been written as "...writing comedy for the written word." A case where it's merely a similar word that is avoided!)
We never read of this "rule" anywhere. We don't recall ever hearing it spoken of. But it's a rule that we've always adhered to and which has done us a lot of good.
I accept that misspelled words in the body of an article might just be typos. But misspellings in large-type headlines are really quite inexcusable. The Daily Mail needs to hire a headline writer who knows that small things aren't "miniscule," but rather "minuscule."
'You'd think Slacks would be funnier than Pants - but it's not.'
One word: Sansabelt.
Wait, is that three words?
Like Brian and/or Traci I, too, work very hard to never repeat a word or its variant in the same sentence or paragraph. I've also wondered how this came to be, since it's an unwritten rule. When I proofread, though, these repeats scream at me to change them. They just feel wrong.
I suspect Althouse is ridiculing a different kind of repeat, though, that is specific to journalism rather than creative art.
And Robbie Williams is wonderful. I discovered his music while living in Germany. He is completely invisible in America, and I've no idea why.
"Blogger Hunter Biden's tax payer funded Hooker said...
Robbie Williams - I had to look him up."
He is beloved by the British gay community. Though he himself is straight. Said he "just couldn't get around the whole cock thing"
The silly avoidance is sometimes correct, and it’s easier to turn it into a rule than to apply judgment. Some critiquers and some editors like rules because they can apply them reflexively.
Many times when editors call out repeated words or phrases in my work, I’m crafting a parallel construction. I like parallel construction: it can be used both for emphasis and for contrast. It’s part of my intuitive style.
It was the best of times, it was the worst period. There! I eliminated the repeated words!
To be or not to exist.
Give me liberty, or just shoot me!
His figleaf is showing…
A male celebrity posting a picture of himself almost naked with another naked guy isn't going to dispel the gay rumors, even if both guys in the picture are the same guy. But maybe the rumors were just another publicity stunt.
Sometimes it can be fun and give writers a feeling of accomplishment if they don't repeat the same word. It shows the richness of our language. Sometimes it goes too far or the writers can't pull it off.
"Worldwide Pants" wasn't supposed to make any sense. That was the point. Call it surrealism or absurdity or zany madcap humor.
While it is certainly often abused by lousy writers, I call such writers "wordsmiths," varying the second mention reserves the power of repetition to emphasize for those times when it is called for.
"To be or not to exist"
That's my point.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा