I suppose that it’s fairly obvious to anyone who has read more than a few of these posts that I am frequently amused by the foibles of the English language and the many ways it is used and misused. In any event, I have decided to devote another one of them to this sort of thing. If that disturbs you, I’m sorry, but there’s no one MAKING you read my blather, so, I’m going to go ahead. Here goes.
As I see it, there are a lot of ways to find humor in English. For one thing, people have, over the centuries, applied various words to deal with what they, apparently, considered to be problems. For some reason, this seems to have been frequent when finding specific words for the names of groups of specific types of animals. A group of owls, for example, is a Parliament; Lapwings form a Deceit; woodpeckers a Descent; larks an Exaltation; Ravens a Constable; Lions, a Pride; hyenas, a Cackle; otters, a Raft; and so on. The one I find the most amusing is that a group of crows is called a “Murder,” which, I think, leads one to the obvious question posed by Skylar in this Shoe cartoon I ran across.
As I see it, there are a lot of ways to find humor in English. For one thing, people have, over the centuries, applied various words to deal with what they, apparently, considered to be problems. For some reason, this seems to have been frequent when finding specific words for the names of groups of specific types of animals. A group of owls, for example, is a Parliament; Lapwings form a Deceit; woodpeckers a Descent; larks an Exaltation; Ravens a Constable; Lions, a Pride; hyenas, a Cackle; otters, a Raft; and so on. The one I find the most amusing is that a group of crows is called a “Murder,” which, I think, leads one to the obvious question posed by Skylar in this Shoe cartoon I ran across.
Perhaps not an earth-shaking sort of question, but perfectly reasonable (and also amusing, at least to me).
It’s probably because I am male, that I am somewhat sensitive to this, next, sort of humor. In spite of all of my exposure to literature of many sorts and some (not very well developed) skills as an actor, I confess to being something of a stereotypical American male in not being all that comfortable in expressing the “softer” emotions. This, as the Zits cartoon below suggests, does not seem to be anything approaching much of a challenge for the stereotypical American female, or, at least it isn’t perceived as being much of a problem for that branch of the species. The MALE, however, rightly, or wrongly, is usually portrayed as indicated, and my own experience would tend more towards supporting that belief than disputing it.
It’s probably because I am male, that I am somewhat sensitive to this, next, sort of humor. In spite of all of my exposure to literature of many sorts and some (not very well developed) skills as an actor, I confess to being something of a stereotypical American male in not being all that comfortable in expressing the “softer” emotions. This, as the Zits cartoon below suggests, does not seem to be anything approaching much of a challenge for the stereotypical American female, or, at least it isn’t perceived as being much of a problem for that branch of the species. The MALE, however, rightly, or wrongly, is usually portrayed as indicated, and my own experience would tend more towards supporting that belief than disputing it.
This MAY be a bit of an exaggeration, but I think that there are a good many males who don’t think of themselves as being much more skilled in this area of language than Jeremy seems to be. In other words, not good at all.
I suspect that even those males whom we think of as being quite skilled in this area MIGHT not be all that successful 100% of the time, as is suggested in this cartoon I ran across a while back.
I suspect that even those males whom we think of as being quite skilled in this area MIGHT not be all that successful 100% of the time, as is suggested in this cartoon I ran across a while back.
One COULD suggest, I suppose, that at least SOME of the difficulty lies in the fact that words can (and do) change their meanings over time, so that, especially when the language is spoken, confusion (sometimes leading to humor) can occur. This seems most likely to occur in the spoken word because many (most?) people are not all that well versed in correct articulation and pronunciation, so there are a good many cases where words are confused simply because they are sloppily pronounced. An example of this sort of thing which I notice pretty frequently is what I call the “Cavalry/Calvary conundrum.” Yes, the words are, in fact, spelled very similarly, and the pronunciation is (reasonably) similar, as well. BUT, it isn’t the same. The fact is that, “Cavalry is, traditionally, a form of horse-mounted military unit.” On the other hand, “Calvary is a geographic location near Jerusalem associated with the crucifixion of Jesus.” Thus, wishing that there had been a unit of Roman Cavalry which had revolted against the orders to crucify Jesus on Calvary, makes some sort of sense, but wishing that a unit of Calvary would conquer Cavalry really does not make any real sense in ANY language!
There is, of course, the form of linguistic humor which one occasionally encounters where a group of letters form words which make some sort of sense when read normally, but can also be read in reverse to form an identical one. This is know as a “palindrome.” I am especially ford of THIS one: “My friend just got a PhD on the history of palindromes. We now call him Dr. Awkward.” Check it out, it works! Other examples include: Never a foot too far, even.; Red roses run no risk, sir, on Nurse’s order.; He lived as a devil, eh?; Ned, I am a maiden.; Now, sir, a war is won!; Dennis and Edna sinned.; Step on no pets!. There are certainly a lot more possibilities, but I’ll quit with these. (Thank the Lord, the reader thought.)
There are other possibilities for “playing” with language, of course. Here are a couple of B.C. cartoons which I enjoyed that do just that:
There is, of course, the form of linguistic humor which one occasionally encounters where a group of letters form words which make some sort of sense when read normally, but can also be read in reverse to form an identical one. This is know as a “palindrome.” I am especially ford of THIS one: “My friend just got a PhD on the history of palindromes. We now call him Dr. Awkward.” Check it out, it works! Other examples include: Never a foot too far, even.; Red roses run no risk, sir, on Nurse’s order.; He lived as a devil, eh?; Ned, I am a maiden.; Now, sir, a war is won!; Dennis and Edna sinned.; Step on no pets!. There are certainly a lot more possibilities, but I’ll quit with these. (Thank the Lord, the reader thought.)
There are other possibilities for “playing” with language, of course. Here are a couple of B.C. cartoons which I enjoyed that do just that:
Of course, these take advantage of using words from various sorts of “jargon.” Now, “jargon” is the proper name for a specific technical language (the specialized terminology associated with a particular field or area of activity). And the humor in these cases seems to come from applying it somewhere else. Understanding how it works, however, doesn’t make it any less funny, at least to me.
Of course, being a theatre person, especially one who has been involved with several productions of Sheridan’s play, The Rivals, I can’t even touch on any discussion of language humor without mentioning the “malapropism.” This, of course, “… is the wrong use of a word that sounds similar to the correct one, resulting in a funny or nonsensical sentence.” It derives its name from one of the characters in Sheridan’s The Rivals, Mrs. Malaprop, who uses this form of humor (which she does NOT realize she is doing) constantly throughout the play, which is a major aspect of the comedy in the work.
In any event. the term has caught on for this sort of thing, as I was reminded a while back by this Frank and Ernest comic:
Of course, being a theatre person, especially one who has been involved with several productions of Sheridan’s play, The Rivals, I can’t even touch on any discussion of language humor without mentioning the “malapropism.” This, of course, “… is the wrong use of a word that sounds similar to the correct one, resulting in a funny or nonsensical sentence.” It derives its name from one of the characters in Sheridan’s The Rivals, Mrs. Malaprop, who uses this form of humor (which she does NOT realize she is doing) constantly throughout the play, which is a major aspect of the comedy in the work.
In any event. the term has caught on for this sort of thing, as I was reminded a while back by this Frank and Ernest comic:
Yes, the language we call English can be the basis of a good deal of humor (which is NOT unique to it, as humor is common in ALL languages, I believe). Which brings up my final point. (Are you glad I’m about through?)
While not, specifically referring just to English, I admit that I was quite taken by the image shown below which I ran across at some point after “emojis” started to become common. I confess that it did make me wonder if the modern emphasis on “advanced technology” was really a demonstration of PROGRESS as opposed to what some might think of as regression to a more primitive state. I won’t pretend to be smart enough to have an adequate response to that notion, but I do think it might be worth some consideration.
While not, specifically referring just to English, I admit that I was quite taken by the image shown below which I ran across at some point after “emojis” started to become common. I confess that it did make me wonder if the modern emphasis on “advanced technology” was really a demonstration of PROGRESS as opposed to what some might think of as regression to a more primitive state. I won’t pretend to be smart enough to have an adequate response to that notion, but I do think it might be worth some consideration.
It does give one pause, doesn't it? There seems to be more truth here than one would have imagined. Of course, the Egyptians were pretty advanced in many ways, but I thought that most of us (it WAS true in my case I know) were taught that we had advanced far beyond their “primitive” level. I guess that just MIGHT be another popular belief which doesn’t necessarily hold up.
No matter how one deals with these questions, though, I confess that I’m glad that I have achieved at least SOME mastery of the mysteries of English. I won’t go so far as to claim anything approaching real MASTERY, but I manage to get along reasonably well, which suggests to me that I should thank my parents and teachers for their assistance in assisting me to acquire whatever knowledge I have of the only language in which I claim to have any sort of fluency . I think this cartoon from The Family Circus expresses that idea pretty well.
No matter how one deals with these questions, though, I confess that I’m glad that I have achieved at least SOME mastery of the mysteries of English. I won’t go so far as to claim anything approaching real MASTERY, but I manage to get along reasonably well, which suggests to me that I should thank my parents and teachers for their assistance in assisting me to acquire whatever knowledge I have of the only language in which I claim to have any sort of fluency . I think this cartoon from The Family Circus expresses that idea pretty well.
Well, I suspect that I’ll continue to mull this over some, but I probably won’t come up with much of anything particularly profound to say about it, so I’ll quit now. I do expect, however, that I’ll be back in another couple of weeks getting my brain scrambled thinking about something else. Maybe you’ll be back, too. In the meantime, as the Romans are said to have said, “Illegitimi non carborundum.” Note: My mother taught me (not always successfully) to be polite in my language usage, so you’ll have to find your own translation of that phrase.
It also might be worth considering that if “pro” is the opposite of “con,” does that mean that Congress is the opposite of progress? Think about it!
🖖🏼 LLAP,
Dr. B
It also might be worth considering that if “pro” is the opposite of “con,” does that mean that Congress is the opposite of progress? Think about it!
🖖🏼 LLAP,
Dr. B
RSS Feed