Language desk
< January 14	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 15

"His face was drawn but the curtains were real"

What does it mean and what's funny in it? --Yashowardhani (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's playing on the double meaning of the word "drawn". Describing someone's face it means tired and anxious, but drawn also means sketched or illustrated, and therefore not real, unlike the curtains. (There might also be something about "drawing the curtains" in there as well.) As for what's funny about it, your guess is as good as mine. --Viennese Waltz 13:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pun suggested by the multiple meanings of "drawn", in this case at least 3 different meanings as noted by Viennese Waltz: A face which shows signs of being tired and weary is described as "drawn", a picture created by sketching is "drawn", and to curtains which are pulled tight to block the light are "drawn". In the sense of a picture, this is being contrasted with being "real" and not created as in a drawing. It should be noted that puns are an acquired taste, and have been described as the "lowest form of wit". --Jayron32 13:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could be multiple meanings of curtain as well. See curtained hair. Rmhermen (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am certain I have a recording somewhere of Spike Milligan saying "The curtains were drawn, but the furniture was real." I don't think it's Goon Show, but him reading some of his own writings, maybe Puckoon. That would date it to 1963. Milligan was a champion punster. HiLo48 (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi the line comes from The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time. Looie496 (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which obviously drew on both Arthur Conan Doyle and Milligan. (And I'm desperately trying to turn that usage of drew into a pun.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also paraprosdokian, and (somewhat related) syllepsis. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate word

Let's say that I read a comic strip, and I just "don't get it". That is, I do not understand what is funny about it. The same could be said, for example, about a scene in a television sitcom (or whatever). Is there a good word to describe this? I am aware of the phrase "it (the joke) went over my head". But are there any better words to describe this situation? Words like ignorance or naiveté don't seem quite right. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can say that it's "incomprehensible". This implies that it's incomprehensible to all. Say "it's incomprehensible to me" to restrict the meaning. StuRat (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I gave this question some more thought. I think a phrase like "I am stumped" is more along the lines of what I had in mind. But, I am open to others also. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The joke was lost on me." — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"What we have here is a failure to communicate". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That can only be said if you are wearing mirrored sunglasses and carrying a billy-club: [1] (although the original speaker of that line in Cool Hand Luke lacked the sunglasses, in that scene: [2], and also said "got" instead of "have"). :-) StuRat (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

What we've got here is failure to get the quote right. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also like "I can't wrap my brain around that". StuRat (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"bemused", "baffled," "nonplussed." -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find no humour in that of those pushing political lines I'm not a fan of. I call it dumb. More seriously, it's humour intended for an audience with pre-existing biases and prejudices. Maybe narrow is more helpful. HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've turned a comment on one's own inability to understand into a judgement on the intelligence of the party being misunderstood. That's a significant change of meaning, and it's not what the OP asked. And 'dumb' means 'unable to speak'. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I have twisted the topic around. Apologies. But I will defend the common, colloquial meaning of dumb, even if it didn't fit here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK - apology accepted. I'm not normally an asshole about words like 'dumb' - as someone with poor mental health who uses terms like 'crazy' pejoratively all the time, I'd be a hypocrite otherwise. It just seemed jarring in context. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, I'm not sure there is an adjective to describe that state. I think I see what HiLo was saying, in a way—the comic strip or sitcom scene you were watching may not have been funny in the first place. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AlexT, I believe it is politically incorrect in the US to use dumb when you can use mute, because of the other meaning of dumb. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo, did you see Mitt Romney at the Al Smith dinner a few months ago? Did you think he was funny? --108.45.72.196 (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I keep on saying around here, nothing is ever funny or unfunny in an absolute sense. It's completely subjective, and even the same person will have different responses to the same joke depending on their current moods and preoccupations. The joke hasn't changed from funny to unfunny or vice-versa, but the person's internal state and responses have changed. That's just one person. Introduce multiple people and you're on even shakier ground in describing a joke as "funny" or not. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that "nothing is ever funny or unfunny in an absolute sense". Disagree that "It's completely subjective". --108.45.72.196 (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I half-thank you for half-agreeing with me. But how could it not be subjective? People's senses of humour are as unique as everything else about them. Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there's a large component of subjectivity to it but don't think it's 100%. Human beings seem to be born with the ability to laugh (do you know anyone with no sense of humor?). Humor arises from recognizing an incongruity (like seeing someone slip on a banana peel) and there are lots of incongruities around. Many, many people find the same things funny. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking generalities, I'm talking specifics. Pick a joke at random, and ask the question: Is it funny? There's no possible correct answer to that. One person's experience of it is not true for all people. And as I said above, one person's experience of it on one occasion may be markedly different from the same person's experience of the same joke on another occasion. Has the joke changed? No. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There can be an inclination to laugh. A brooding frame of mind may predispose one to forego laughter although that person likely understands the funniness component of what they just heard. On the other hand a predisposition to uproarious laughter requires little more than a quiet elevator containing strangers on an interminable vertical journey in a high rise. Bus stop (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A joke involving dwarves might get lots of laughs at a party. Funny? Sure. Tell the same joke to an audience of small people and you'll be told you're being crass and insensitive, and the joke was decidedly "not funny". Has the joke changed? No. So, were the people at the party mistaken when they reacted with hilarity? No, not at all. It's not about whether it's funny or not; that's a complete distraction. It's about how the audience receives it, and that is governed by an infinitude of factors. I'm sure Bob Hope or Jerry Seinfeld never spent a second worrying about whether one of their jokes was funny or not. All they cared about was "Did they laugh?". You might say that means the same thing as "The joke was funny". It does not. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all. But as a point of clarification, I am not really referring to a joke being funny or not. I am referring more to the situation where the joke "goes over my head". That is, I just don't "get"/comprehend/understand what the joke or funny part or punch line is. For example, if a word has a double meaning that I am unaware of. The joke might indeed be funny. But only if I was aware of the word's double meaning. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some argument, which is over my head, going on as to whether HiLO's use of the term dumb was funny. In any case, "over my head" is perfectly fine unless we know further why it was over your head, in which case we could apply a more specific term. If not, the idiomatic "over my head" (or perhaps "beyond me", or the like) is fine as is. μηδείς (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology of "dumb" may be of interest.[3] As to the OP's question, "over my head" is good, especially when accompanied by, or even replaced by, the comment gesture of swiping your palm over your scalp, accompanied by an appropriate "whoosh" vocalization. And although that description doesn't sound funny, the gesture actually is funny (and often funnier than the original joke was). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e.c. with Bugs) HiLo wasn't making a joke when she said "dumb", Medeis. Maybe the inability to get a joke most your peers would get is a "deficit" like color-blindness. Maybe we're not looking for an adjective or phrase but a medico-psychological term for Joe's condition. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about "I fail to see in 'Entity ABC' the significance others see in it" or "Most people seem able to grasp the significance of 'Entity ABC' but I am out of the loop on its importance"? Bus stop (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about "What's 'Entity ABC'"? --108.45.72.196 (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's good too. Bus stop (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again to all. Here's an example that I just encountered. Someone said something to the effect of: "Huh, I guess he just pulled a Ryan Lochte". Apparently (this is news to me), the term "Ryan Lochte" is nowadays (perhaps with the younger generation?) a synonym for "having a one-night-stand". So, if you are aware of that, umm, "fact" ... then you understand the joke/comment ... and you can assess that it is / is not funny. But, if you are unaware of the double meaning of the words "Ryan Lochte", then you don't get the joke ... and therefore cannot assess if it is / is not funny. That's just an example that came to mind. I am sure there are millions. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Ryan Lochte example, maybe a younger twenty-something would "get" the joke and find it funny. While a middle-aged person or a senior citizen in their 80's would have no idea who or what "Ryan Lochte" is (even in its first meaning) ... much less understand the double / second meaning. And while a specific example may be generational (like this one), another might also be regional. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, how about "momentary (or temporary) cluelessness"? (because when you do get the missing clue or clues, you understand why someone might think it's funny). --108.45.72.196 (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one could respond, "the reference is lost on me" or "the reference to 'Ryan Lochte' is lost on me." Bus stop (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say I lack the context to understand this.Hotclaws (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collective nouns

What is the collective noun for years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.72.102.191 (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that any given common noun has an attendant collective noun is a myth. What are you actually trying to say about some number of years? AlexTiefling (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, apparently, the collective noun for a group of years is a myth? μηδείς (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! I propose a field of cryptolexicography, dedicated to searching for words which only exist in the minds of people who prefer 'An Exaltation of Larks' or 'Schott's Original Miscellany' to the OED. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A decade, a generation, a century, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are numerical bases used for years, not collective nouns. μηδείς (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you mean like "pride of lions", "gaggle of geese" and "bunch of years"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a numerical base stands for a standardized unit usable in counting (one dozen, two dozen, four score, a peck) while a collective noun simply implies a group as a group, but not an amount. The term "generation" would be a border-line example of a base, since it means a range, if not a well-defined one, but not any group of years. (Bunch is a borderline concept obviously much closer to a collective noun than a numerical base--etymologically it applies to bundles, not flocks, or the like.) I only just became aware of the term numerical base after I read the source recommended to me when I posted the sheep counting question last year. Very interesting. μηδείς (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time imagining any situation where years are ever grouped in any way other than consecutively in decades, centuries and millennia. If it's not a convenient time span, we might say "the period 1954-1978". We sometimes talk of the discrete occasions when something like Halley's Comet returns. If we were interested in returns in the past 500 years, we'd enumerate them as 1531, 1607, 1682, 1759, 1835, 1910 and 1986. If we really had to refer to those years as a collective group, we'd just make up something, like "the set of years" or "the group of years".

I'll just conclude by letting you know that, according to James Lipton's An Exaltation of Larks, a collection of experts is "a discord of experts", so that means you may prefer the word of your own expert. Do so at your own risk, is all I'll say. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the most frequent collective noun "number", as in "a number of years"? --Lgriot (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's usually used to express the magnitude of a period of time, as a contrast to some other period of time. For example: "The construction of the house took a number of years, rather than the expected 6 months". I wouldn't call that a collective noun for years. "A number of ..." usually means more than an expected number of anything: "I didn't just tell him once, I told him a number of times, but he still didn't get it". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's essentially a synonym for "a few", and implies more than one but not a "large" number... like maybe three or four or five. Maybe even two, but that would probably be expressed as a "couple" of years. As to other groups, two of the best I've heard (as jokes) are an absence of technical experts, and a bleat of users. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Number", "bunch", "group" and "few, etc., differ from the typical collective nouns applied to "flock" or "pride" in that they are not associated only with a specific type of animal or being. Also, "flock" and "pride" and such imply animacy and collective action. You wouldn't usually say there's a flock of dead birds lying scattered around the base of the windmill. μηδείς (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Birds and beasts actively and consciouly group themselves together. Measurement units don't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Major partial credit goes to User:Zoonoses in this thread for mentioning this source which was great reading. μηδείς (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yonks ?Hotclaws (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage related

As we can't help but notice the banner headline sending us to the newest branch of the project, here's my (sort of) related question.

My understanding of English tells me that a traveller can be found "at the departure gate", "on the platform", "in passport control". Is this true of other languages? Is the concept of being "on" a platform but "at" a gate different in other cultures? doktorb _words^deeds 16:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of using different prepositions for those examples certainly exists in many languages. An obvious reason is the fact that the traveller's position in relation to the objects mentioned is different. The traveller is on (as in on top of) the platform (Swedish på platformen). In the gate case, we can tell from the word gate that it refers to the doorway/portal leading to the tunnel. This means that the common position of the traveller is next to it, i.e. by or at (Swedish vid gaten). ~I.e. for your examples, the Swedish prepositions correspond to the English ones. /81.170.148.21 (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prepositions are grammatically nebulous concepts. While some uses are unambiguous (i.e. when something is actually above and in contact with something, "on" seems natural. When something is inside a defined space, "in" seems natural) it isn't always obvious or consistent which prepositions to use in which cases. For example, consider descriptions of street addresses: In American English, a person is described as living on a certain street (I live on Elm Street), while in British English, they can be described as living in the street, a usage never found in American English. Similarly, different dialects will describe a person as waiting "on line" or "in line", depending on the dialect of the speaker. The on/in interchangeability occurs in many other contexts; peculiarly they aren't usually interchangeable within one dialect, but different dialects will disagree on the correct usage (that is, one dialect will consistently use "in" for a certain context, and never "on", while another does the opposite all the time). Similar things happen with "of" and "from", or "out" and "off". --Jayron32 17:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advance This video to the 2:55 point and watch. It cleverly describes the conflict between usages of "in" and "on". --Jayron32 17:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly certain that it is only the greater NYC area that says "to wait on line" instead of to wait in line. Are there other areas that have adopted "on line"? μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, it is a known phrase in at least one dialect of English. The particular dialect itself is irrelevent to my point that there is a difference in usage between in and on in different dialects. --Jayron32 00:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not arguing with you Jayron, I simply want to know if it has a usage outside the NYC area. μηδείς (talk) 06:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In British English, you can "wait in a queue" (with an indefinite article) or you can just "queue". Alansplodge (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. 'Wait in line' sounds verbose next to 'queue', and 'on line' definitely suggests the use of a computer connection these days. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. But bringing up queue in no way addresses whether certain dialects outside the NYC area use "wait on line" for "wait in line". Had I been interested in queue I would have asked. μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not all about you. Please be just a bit more courteous. I am interested in what you have to say, but I tire of wading through so much irrelevant ad hominem remarks to find it. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice Alex, but I asked a very specific question, twice, and although you and Alan continued to indent under me you didn't answer it, but brought up a new subject entirely. That's not my fault, nor is expecting that the actual question I asked be answered ad hominem. The latter would be something like saying, "yours was a typical answer for someone like you." μηδείς (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In England, it seems, they even build houses in the middles of streets, which to an American would be madness. —Tamfang (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Polish, for example, we say (translating literally and omitting articles, which don't exist in Polish): at boarding gate, on platform, on passport control, on airport, on station, on street (meaning in the strret), at street (in an address), in queue, in house, and under house (meaning outside a house). — Kpalion^(talk) 05:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]