I don't find this very funny. It says the big change is the pronoun, but their examples aren't really changing anything into a pronoun, they're just changing which pronouns are used. It makes it look like they think "I" is not a pronoun. Or maybe I'm overthinking it. :-/
I don't find it terribly funny either (this is Cathy, after all, a strip that makes annual unfunny forays into tax preparation). But I don't have a problem with "the big change" being "the pronoun." Surely that can mean a change from one pronoun to another, rather than a change from a non-pronoun to a pronoun. (Cf. Daffy Duck's memorable "pronoun trouble.")
Exactly. "The change is the form", "the change is the payment" – these don't mean there wasn't a form or payment before, but that the form or payment is what has changed.
Just as most British attempts at humor are all about vicarious embarrassment, Cathy is all about grimacing. If you grimace when you read her strip, Ms. Guisewite has done her job for the day, and can settle into a comfortable grimace as she plots out the next day's strip.
I do not understand the appeal of _Cathy_ in its normal presentation, but I was completely baffled when my local shopping mall started to use large posters of Cathy *to promote shopping*.
I'm somehow totally out of tune with this particular part of my world. I can't imagine why you would do that. I pretty much stopped shopping there, it made me feel so awful.
It's remarkable how many otherwise smart people don't get (admittedly) low brow humor. Cathy is not much of a reach Even the sign says "New" pronouns, not "Now" pronouns, meaning that the older pronouns have been replaced. It's not that hard, people. Sheesh!
Mr Fnortner: Nobody has trouble understanding the strip. It's just that it isn't actually funny, even though it starts with a guy preaching out of a microwave oven, dumbwaiter, or transom.
First comment out of the chute: "It says the big change is the pronoun, but their examples aren't really changing anything into a pronoun, they're just changing which pronouns are used. It makes it look like they think 'I' is not a pronoun. Or maybe I'm overthinking it." You reckon?
Second one: "But I don't have a problem with 'the big change' being 'the pronoun.' Surely that can mean a change from one pronoun to another, rather than a change from a non-pronoun to a pronoun." Getting warmer.
Third one tries to help: "Exactly. 'The change is the form', 'the change is the payment' – these don't mean there wasn't a form or payment before, but that the form or payment is what has changed." Ball three.
Fourth and fifth, clueless: "Is this another one of those cases of irregular verbs? I'm generous. You're a bit free with your money. He squanders." And "I guess the cartoonist wanted a fresh twist on the old active->passive blame-shift trope we know and love. Marks for effort, but it's not funny."
Then the insults fly. (But for the pathos, you guys would be funnier than Cathy.)
Mr. Fnortner: People posting here are starting with the assumption that something, somewhere, in a comic strip ought to be funny. The "I" -> "They" transition clumsily exposited in panel 2 obviously isn't funny, so they are casting about for something, anything, that might qualify. These are professionals, so they leave no stone unturned, howsoever far afield. Of course they come up dry, because the advent of actual humor in a Cathy strip would be world-shattering. What Cathy Guisewite might really mean, if she could be said to mean anything at all, is small potatoes. People posting comments in Language Log seek to shatter worlds.
I stopped reading Cathy several years ago ("stopped" is strong, having not been an avid reader originally) because it was weak, formulaic, and not very challenging. It is humorous, nonetheless, though it does't appeal to everyone, I'll grant you that.
What I find so remarkable in the posts above is the stunning failure to grasp the author's point by so many who chose to comment. The comic is essentially written at about the sixth grade level, and should not elude any college graduate. Why would anyone read the plain text of the dialog and believe that something changed into a pronoun? Then resort to accusations of lack of humor.
I say, Stop! Read the comic. See that the author wrote that taxpayers are now not blaming themselves, but others (the pronoun shift–the linguistic element–the source of the humor of whatever degree). Now say, Ahh, I didn't see that earlier because I was too quick to tell everyone that Cathy is for retards.
Mr Fnortner: What you are missing, and what I explained, is that people posting here have deliberately rejected your recommended course of action. They rejected it because it is as dull as Ms. Guisewite herself. They hope, in the absence of deliberate humor, to identify scraps of unintentional humor. Ms. Guisewite is too seasoned a professional, though, to allow any humor into her comic, whether deliberate, unintentional, arch, or even ironic. She has created a negative humor space that not only fails to radiate humor, but swallows up and deadens humor in its penumbra.
This is an achievement, of sorts, achieved primarily through use of language, and thus of potential interest here. The strips themselves are studiously, even diabolically, devoid of interest, but precisely that makes the phenomenon of the strips, individually devoid, interesting.
I see. Your explanation is eloquent. All along I thought it was a failure to comprehend the comic, rather than a refusal to comprehend. (Would that it were so, but I believe some among us actually did fail to comprehend it.) Let's move along.
kip said,
April 10, 2009 @ 9:57 am
I don't find this very funny. It says the big change is the pronoun, but their examples aren't really changing anything into a pronoun, they're just changing which pronouns are used. It makes it look like they think "I" is not a pronoun. Or maybe I'm overthinking it. :-/
Benjamin Zimmer said,
April 10, 2009 @ 10:14 am
I don't find it terribly funny either (this is Cathy, after all, a strip that makes annual unfunny forays into tax preparation). But I don't have a problem with "the big change" being "the pronoun." Surely that can mean a change from one pronoun to another, rather than a change from a non-pronoun to a pronoun. (Cf. Daffy Duck's memorable "pronoun trouble.")
Karen said,
April 10, 2009 @ 10:17 am
Exactly. "The change is the form", "the change is the payment" – these don't mean there wasn't a form or payment before, but that the form or payment is what has changed.
Sili said,
April 10, 2009 @ 10:19 am
Is this another one of those cases of irregular verbs?
I'm generous.
You're a bit free with your money.
He squanders.
mollymooly said,
April 10, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
I guess the cartoonist wanted a fresh twist on the old active->passive blame-shift trope we know and love. Marks for effort, but it's not funny.
John Cowan said,
April 10, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
Cathy, as Ben implies, is simply not about Teh Funny. Persons attempting to find humor in it, to paraphrase Mark Twain, will be prosecuted.
Nathan Myers said,
April 10, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
Just as most British attempts at humor are all about vicarious embarrassment, Cathy is all about grimacing. If you grimace when you read her strip, Ms. Guisewite has done her job for the day, and can settle into a comfortable grimace as she plots out the next day's strip.
Mary Kuhner said,
April 11, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
I do not understand the appeal of _Cathy_ in its normal presentation, but I was completely baffled when my local shopping mall started to use large posters of Cathy *to promote shopping*.
I'm somehow totally out of tune with this particular part of my world. I can't imagine why you would do that. I pretty much stopped shopping there, it made me feel so awful.
Nathan Myers said,
April 11, 2009 @ 10:03 pm
Mary: Evidently you're not especially fond of grimacing. It seems all the rage in certain circles.
Mr Fnortner said,
April 13, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
It's remarkable how many otherwise smart people don't get (admittedly) low brow humor. Cathy is not much of a reach Even the sign says "New" pronouns, not "Now" pronouns, meaning that the older pronouns have been replaced. It's not that hard, people. Sheesh!
Nathan Myers said,
April 13, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
Mr Fnortner: Nobody has trouble understanding the strip. It's just that it isn't actually funny, even though it starts with a guy preaching out of a microwave oven, dumbwaiter, or transom.
Mr Fnortner said,
April 14, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
First comment out of the chute: "It says the big change is the pronoun, but their examples aren't really changing anything into a pronoun, they're just changing which pronouns are used. It makes it look like they think 'I' is not a pronoun. Or maybe I'm overthinking it." You reckon?
Second one: "But I don't have a problem with 'the big change' being 'the pronoun.' Surely that can mean a change from one pronoun to another, rather than a change from a non-pronoun to a pronoun." Getting warmer.
Third one tries to help: "Exactly. 'The change is the form', 'the change is the payment' – these don't mean there wasn't a form or payment before, but that the form or payment is what has changed." Ball three.
Fourth and fifth, clueless: "Is this another one of those cases of irregular verbs? I'm generous. You're a bit free with your money. He squanders." And "I guess the cartoonist wanted a fresh twist on the old active->passive blame-shift trope we know and love. Marks for effort, but it's not funny."
Then the insults fly. (But for the pathos, you guys would be funnier than Cathy.)
Nathan Myers said,
April 14, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
Mr. Fnortner: People posting here are starting with the assumption that something, somewhere, in a comic strip ought to be funny. The "I" -> "They" transition clumsily exposited in panel 2 obviously isn't funny, so they are casting about for something, anything, that might qualify. These are professionals, so they leave no stone unturned, howsoever far afield. Of course they come up dry, because the advent of actual humor in a Cathy strip would be world-shattering. What Cathy Guisewite might really mean, if she could be said to mean anything at all, is small potatoes. People posting comments in Language Log seek to shatter worlds.
Mr Fnortner said,
April 15, 2009 @ 11:38 am
I stopped reading Cathy several years ago ("stopped" is strong, having not been an avid reader originally) because it was weak, formulaic, and not very challenging. It is humorous, nonetheless, though it does't appeal to everyone, I'll grant you that.
What I find so remarkable in the posts above is the stunning failure to grasp the author's point by so many who chose to comment. The comic is essentially written at about the sixth grade level, and should not elude any college graduate. Why would anyone read the plain text of the dialog and believe that something changed into a pronoun? Then resort to accusations of lack of humor.
I say, Stop! Read the comic. See that the author wrote that taxpayers are now not blaming themselves, but others (the pronoun shift–the linguistic element–the source of the humor of whatever degree). Now say, Ahh, I didn't see that earlier because I was too quick to tell everyone that Cathy is for retards.
Nathan Myers said,
April 15, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
Mr Fnortner: What you are missing, and what I explained, is that people posting here have deliberately rejected your recommended course of action. They rejected it because it is as dull as Ms. Guisewite herself. They hope, in the absence of deliberate humor, to identify scraps of unintentional humor. Ms. Guisewite is too seasoned a professional, though, to allow any humor into her comic, whether deliberate, unintentional, arch, or even ironic. She has created a negative humor space that not only fails to radiate humor, but swallows up and deadens humor in its penumbra.
This is an achievement, of sorts, achieved primarily through use of language, and thus of potential interest here. The strips themselves are studiously, even diabolically, devoid of interest, but precisely that makes the phenomenon of the strips, individually devoid, interesting.
Mr Fnortner said,
April 16, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
I see. Your explanation is eloquent. All along I thought it was a failure to comprehend the comic, rather than a refusal to comprehend. (Would that it were so, but I believe some among us actually did fail to comprehend it.) Let's move along.