So that was a male chicken?

Thanks to The Daily Show I now have another example of a verbal stumble from our favorite filthy newsman. This one's not as bad as yesterday's (it all goes down in the first 30 seconds):



This helps to make my point from yesterday when I suggested that the error was perhaps not just an articulatory error. That is, perhaps the change from [pl] to [f] in the pronunciation of 'plucking' was not just a mix-up of meaningless sounds. There might also have been, for some odd reason, a looming influence of the word fuck complete with it's connotations.

The point is easier to make with today's clip.

If you want to log on to My Fox N-Y dot cock, you c— dong— dot com, click the Seen-on-TV tab for the link to the auction site.

His first stumble, saying cock instead of com is a pretty clear phonetic slip. Maybe the influence of a couple preceding velars in log and Fox and the pronunciation of dot is a little muddy. It almost sounds like he says don instead of dot. And if he has in fact said don there's some flipping around of segments, or even just features, possibly going on. The voiceless alveolar stop [t] is replaced by a nasal [n] (voiced), so the nasal at the end of com might be part of the switch, and it comes out as a voiceless velar stop. This is a little convoluted, and the pattern of flipping and flying segments isn't clear.

But what happens next is a pretty reasonable guess: when he catches it, and he tries to correct cock he goes way out of his way and says dong instead of com. Why dong? Influenced perhaps, not just by the mess of velars, alveolars, nasals and stops he's been spewing, but also by the semantics of the surprising naughty word that has suddenly gotten all of his attention.

Her reaction: priceless.

Turn down the sound if there are innocents within earshot.



What does he say to start off?

Takes a tough man to make a tender forecast.

Is that right?

But after that, he must have meant "keep plucking" right? 'Plucking' starts off with a voiceless bilabial stop [p] which must have been influenced by the voiceless labiodental fricative [f] both at the end of tough and the beginning of forecast, contributing to phonetic assimilation.

But that lovely taboo gravity has to have been at work there too. He's just got [fʌkɪn] on the mind.

If you missed his coanchor's reaction, watch again.

This is how Johnny 5 learned too

On a stupid stupid sitcom a character named Sheldon (with all the rights and responsibilities that go with that name) used two pronunciations that caught my attention.

"novice" pronounced ˈnoʊ.vɪs | NO-viss

"plebeian" pronounced pləˈbi.ən | ple-BEE-en

Sheldon's pronunciation of novice isn't attested anywhere. I've only ever heard the first vowel ɑ (as in father) except maaaybe from a highschooler reading the word aloud for the first time. Sheldon's an arrogant genius who's utterly socially inept so maybe it's a part of his character to overdo a pronunciation. Did the actor (Jim Parsons) put that in or did the writers? We may never know.

On the other hand, his pronunciation of plebeian is attested everywhere. In fact I couldn't find my pronunciation (ˈpli.bi.ən | PLEE-bee-en) anywhere. I'm an arrogant 'smart' guy who's wondering how orthoepically inept he (I) is (am). I'm guessing I've based my pronunciation on a preservation of the stress on monosyllabic plebe.

You don't have to admit that you use the same pronunciation I do (tho that'd be kind). But have you at least heard it? Have you been snickering behind my back every time I say it?

SNL sends viewers to Google: (we might have an answer)

Flurge? Flurj? Flerge? Flirge? Flirj? Anyone? (I'm going with <FLIRJ> though <flirge> looks like the most common search term. And a crass answer will be found at the end of the post.)

On the season premier of Saturday Night Live Tina Fey played the role she was born to play. And it was very funny in that 'oooh did that go too far? No absolutely not,' way that she does so well. (video below)

So what did everyone come away with? A question: What the hell is a [flɹ̩ʤ]?

I have to spell it phonetically because I didn't have the captions on and I only know what it sounds like. Amy Poehler (playing Hillary Clinton opposite Fey's Sarah Palin) uttered it in the following exchange (lines labeled with the initials of the character rather than the player).

HC: One thing that we can agree on is that sexism can never be allowed to permeate an American election.

SP: So please stop photoshopping my head on sexy bikini pictures.

HC: And stop saying I have cankles.

SP: Don't refer to me as a MILF

HC: And don't refer to me as a [flɹ̩ʤ]. I Googled what it stands for and I do not like it.

So what is it? And what do we look up? The line "I Googled what it stands for" is a clue that it's an acronym. On analogy with MILF it makes sense that FLI___ would be First Lady I'd___. So extending the analogy I'll spell it either FLIRJ or FLIRGE. Maybe not FLIRG unless the initial <g> of the last word is the voiced affricate or 'soft' <g> and the pronunciation of the acronym reflects that.

Most of what comes up in a search for any of these is other people online asking the same question and guessing at the answer. One site (www.youbemom.com) suggests that FLIRG stands for first lady I'd rather get elected. (If so then maybe it's spelled <FLIRGE>).

But that wouldn't make much sense given that the Clinton character in the sketch says that she doesn't like it. And it should be sexist to fit with the joke.

Did SNL knowingly create a definition gap here? Put the acronym out there and see what rushes in to fill it? If so then this could be an organic competition. What's the best meaning and how do you promote it? If the word is too specific and only means something about Clinton then I don't see the word taking root.

Or is there already a meaning out there that I just couldn't find? A spelling I didn't think of?

[Update: For now I'm going to accept this as the answer because it works perfectly. FLIRJ: First Lady I'd Rim Job.

Thanks anonymous
]

McCain: comedy killer

Grice's maxims focus on the pragmatics and semantics of an utterance. Some people believe that the potential for humor can be semantically mapped. So can we apply Grice's maxim of relation to the following exchange?

Leno: For one million dollars: how many houses do you [have]?

McCain: {laughs} You know I di… Could I just mention to you Jay that um-- at a moment of seriousness --I spent five and a half years in a prison cell without … I di… not a … I didn't have a house. I didn't have a kitchen table. I didn't have a table. I didn't have a chair. And I spent those five and a half years … uh … because … not because I wanted to get a house when I got out.

[A few readers might have access to the video on YouTube. Copyright issues have disabled embedding.]

Jay Leno has clearly established a context of facetious interaction. And there's sometimes a point in an interview where either party can introduce a change in tone. But that works best when there is a reasonable break in the topic. An elegant segue is both smooth and well-placed. The joke has to be over.

But this is of course not a true non-sequitur. McCain does laugh. And there is a conversational implicature. Leno has introduced a joke regarding McCain's inability to remember how many houses he owns. This lapse in memory has been used by some critics as evidence that McCain lives a privileged life. This then implicates the claim that he cannot understand the experience of many Americans. This is then used as a parallel contradiction of McCain's claims that he is not the type elitist he believes Barack Obama to be.

McCain's response to Leno's joke has processed that line of implicature and it introduces a new implication. He would rather talk about the time when he was a prisoner of war. During which time his concerns about a comfortable residence were irrelevant. Further implicature is hazy. Does his experience counter any claims that he is as much an elitist as Obama? Is he simply trying to remind us of his suffering because it made him the type of man that could be wealthy while staying in touch with those who are not?

Is it just an attempt to change the subject without saying something offensive to Jay Leno? Well it's not a real change of subject because he purposefully connects his new topic to the topic of houses and living quarters.

It's conversationally inelegant. And it sounds like a canned response. He was just waiting for a chance to respond to this topic wasn't he? Look at the "I di..." disfluencies. Was he was planning on the "I didn't have a___" lines early on? By the beginning of his statement it sounds like he's champing at the bit to get to his money shot. I have no political commentary because that's neither my task nor my skill. But this does remind me of a line from Seinfeld.

Priest: And this offends you as a Jewish person?

Jerry: No. It offends me as a comedian!

Voice. Over.

In a(n) X ...
The snowclone inspired by a voice. And it's one of the simplest snowclones imaginable. It's usually a bare prepositional phrase. Sometimes followed by a simple phrase like 'one man..' or 'a sole warrior...' No more. Often no complete sentence. Just enough for everyone to know you're doing your impression of the movie guy. Don LaFontaine: who died Monday. No impression was as good as the original.

He could sound young or old or fat or skinny or {come up with with your own binaries}. His voice was low but it didn't have that Barry White resonance. It was raspy. But brother it worked. Everyone loved his voice and after 3 decades of faceless work he was starting to get recognized on sight.

A lot of the people who wrote his copy trusted him to move us, just by timbre, into places times and minds that sounded like a good two-hour trip.



photo from here

What do you think...NOW?

Hugo: I'm with Jin. It's the monster
Sawyer: Yeah cause that makes the most sense.
Hugo: It does.

Sawyer's sarcasm comes from a rejection of evidence. Hugo's belief comes from acceptance of the same. They are both using logic. But take them out of Televisionia and Hugo is being irrational and is refusing to listen to reason.

But regular viewers of Lost accept that there are monsters on the island (at least black smoke) and Hugo's view seems well-founded and perhaps even more rational given the evidence we think he should be valuing. Ultimately that's science fiction. It's sometimes hard to hold science fiction to a standard. If anything can happen then the challenge of understanding is gone.

But I don't really believe that. Any story can give you a reference for understanding. Once you figure out the rules of the game you see how well the story plays by those rules. So we know that Superman can fly. That would ruin a lot of stories. But once we see that he has his weaknesses and we see that there are challenges that he can't meet so easily -- even with his x-ray vision and bulletproof chest -- we trust the story to give us surprising solutions.

And the available surprise is important. We suspend a lot when we appreciate a story that we know never happened. Even more when we know a story could never happen. My left brain might tell me that I can appreciate structure and technique and thematic behaviour even if I read the story from the last page to the front. But my right brain might want something more unknowable. Then again I should remember that while I have a left and right hemisphere in my brain, my mind is singular.

We love finding solutions. We also love working for solutions even if we never find them. (And by we I mean one of two things: either every single human being, or just those of us about whom these statements are true.)

But do we have to believe that a solution exists? And do we have to care how we find it and rationalize it? Is is important that I'll never prove that the writers of Lost were knowingly writing about an issue that matters to me and only to me? Do I care that some coincidences look too good to be true but they just keep showing up? This is meaningful! They have to know something about me to say these things! This is perhaps part of what Casey is getting at in his comment when he talks about knowledge. What proof do we need?

If Casey's lament is that no one appreciates or rewards right-brained thinking then I'm pretty sure he'll back down once we start looking at music and poetry and art and all the people who love it but have no idea how to produce it.

He might not back down from the statement that research and medicine and science in general value a predictable method and a conclusion that has been reached by a certain process. Actually we don't know what Science values. But we know what scientists value. Do they just value results? Well even if a result is reproducible it isn't worth much unless the method of reproducing it has been sanctioned.

A friend sent an email responding to the question of measured vs intuited knowledge. Jeff (another choral comrade) is a biologist teaching at what he calls "a smallish liberal Arts school in New York where research is viewed as an important teaching tool, but not to the exclusion of education." He focuses on ecology and entomology. He offered the following thoughts:

You need "logic" thought or "rational" thought, or however you want to label it for complex processing of multivariable information. For example, knowing that one must start storing food because last night it was light until 8:15 and tonight it was only light until 8:00.

On the other hand, instinctual or innate response is incredibly important, as without it you would be dead. In certain situations processing time is so exceedingly limited that logical thought would take too long and the consequences of inaction would be fatal.

Selection therefore favors an interplay between the two processes and how specific species, or even populations of a single species at different time points balance the two types of thought is environmentally controlled based on the predictability of the habitat and the overall contribution of long-term planning vs. quick response on survival rate.

All organisms do this. In fact, we can gain interesting insight on the matter from insects, which have a decentralized nervous system. In each body segment, there is a central processing unit of sorts which takes sensory information in and immediately responds to threats. That's why it's so hard to catch a fly in mid-air. On the other hand, the timing of reproduction and metamorphosis are exceedingly complicated and involve the integration of photo cues as well as temperature cues. These "upper level" processes are sent to the brain (yes, insects have brains, and they are even in their heads) for analysis.

The amusing uptake is that were one to decapitate a cockroach, until it starved it would remain alive and respond to threats just as quickly as when it was whole. It wouldn't be able to molt or mate, but almost everything else (well, anything it could handle with mechanoreceptors and chemoreceptors) still functions normally.

Jeff nicely establishes an important difference. Not so much between types of knowledge, but between responses to information. We see images and feel forces and develop an understanding of a situation through all of our senses. But the knowledge that comes not from our senses but from our memory and a slower analysis of data is usually considered the more rational. Not always because our senses are faulted for being incorrect but because they are considered to be incomplete.

But as Jeff reminds us we don't always have the luxury of verifying every one of our impressions. And his examples repeat the point that I have made previously: Our culture doesn't really privilege 'logic' and marginalize 'intuition'. It simply uses the analyses differently.

If we accuse Hugo of believing in a monster too quickly it is because of a skepticism that tells us not to change our assumptions too quickly. But again this skepticism is not categorical. Sometimes we change our minds very quickly on huge issues. Sometimes we change our minds based on very little evidence. Isn't this what you want Casey?

But beyond data and conclusion we have to look at analysis and explanation. If anyone thinks that linguists don't have enough faith in the unseen they haven't studied phonology. This post is long enough to end. I'll pick up the point on phonology later.

Just give me a reason

A short bit ago Mr. Verb mentioned Susan Jacoby's claim that linguists are to blame for the current plague of anti-rationalism and anti-intellectualism.

Not long after that I saw her on C-SPAN talking to Nick Gillespie for an hour.

I was waiting for her to start her argument but all she did was complain without reasoning her way to any conclusion. Along the way she tosses around premises and definitions that Gillespie challenges without pursuing them. Her views are full of contradictions.

She says that fundamentalism is a source of anti-rationalism granting that religion doesn't preclude a belief in evolution even tho it would preclude it for her. How does that work? If she doesn't think it's a necessary belief why would it be for her? But that's beside the main point.

Gillespie (agreeing that there is a decline in reason?) asks her why she says this is a key moment in intellectual decline rather than just part of a cycle. She only offers the 24/7 scourge of "infotainment" without answering how that makes it a crucial point. After arguing that the non-stop news cycle is a poor medium she complains that people don't spend enough time with their sources of information. She argues that a newspaper is permanent and stays put so the reader can revisit it if necessary. But so is the TV. The internet even more so.

She claims there is proof that we don't know as much as we did in 1980 because books and newspapers aren't read. There is no way that we don't know as much and I doubt that such a cause could be shown. Just how is any amount of information measured? Is this counting information such as computer skills and familiarity with technology? Is there some tally of the recognition of faces? Are politicians' faces worth more intelligence points than actors' and athletes'? What about statistics? Don't all sports fans have more data to memorize with each passing season?

When Jacoby objects that so much on the internet is junk Gillespie interjects that you could say that about books. She doesn't respond but continues with her point that people are watching junk. Then she backs up saying that the problem isn't just that people are watching TV or are on the internet. The problem is that it's all they do. She's jumping away from her argument that people only use it dabblingly -- and she agrees that's also a problem with books: if it's all you do it's a problem. But then why is she saying only that TV/internet is a problem. She agrees that it's a tool. But she hasn't argued that it is bringing about any result other than that people are not reading books. Another tool.

Gillespie poses the most important question. How can her claims be quantified? He rightly doubts that it can be measured by the number of books read. He believes for instance that people are more skeptical of leadership. Surely that's a good indication.

Her counter offers no rational argument or reason: "It seems to me we are not living in the same universe."

He cites other indicators: the decline of party affiliation as evidence of independent thought: bestseller lists showing "niche" discrimination.

Nowhere does she give a definition of intellectualism. No explanation of how it is measured. More importantly she can't even explain what would be measured.

She makes the undeveloped unsupported and unevaluated claim that there are things that "we all need to know" for some reason. She hasn't given a reason. This view has been out there for a long time but I'm still waiting for someone to give me a reason to buy it.

Then she jumps into that favorite mud pit of elitists -- colloquial language as an indication of intellectual poverty. She closes with this gem.

When you listen even to the way people speak I don't see how you can talk about us having reasonable discourse. I say this and I'll say it here: the word folks embodies -- which you haven't used once -- embodies everything I hate. No presidential speech before 1980 ever used that word. Imagine: We here highly resolve that these folks shall not have died in vain.

On 6 December 1904 in his Fourth Annual Message to the Senate and House of Representatives Theodore Roosevelt wrote:

Others, living in more remote regions, primitive, simple hunters and fisher folk, who know only the life of the woods and the waters, are daily being confronted with twentieth-century civilization with all of its complexities.

OK. So this State of the Union Address was actually written and submitted to congress rather than delivered as a speech. And Roosevelt says folk not folks. But Jacoby's point is just as ridiculous either way.

Her entire argument is maddening because of its vapid presumptions. She's making the old and familiar arguments that a canon of knowledge and the method of investigating it has been determined and must be protected -- but apparently she doesn't care to defend it rationally. The only argument she can come up with against the subject matter of the material in a class on the horror genre is that the movies are "crap". She hasn't defined crap but from hearing the views spewing out of her mouth I think she must assume we can all taste it too.

Liar's poker

I say it again: it's always fun to find willful violations of Grice's maxims of cooperative communication.

Today's violated maxim: In the category of Quantity -- give complete information.

Sometimes I feel comfortable giving information at the poker table. When I'm feeling cocky.

Well I will tell you this: my first bet was a bluff. Of course that leaves it open. My later bets might be backed up by what came on the flop, turn or river.

I was chasing a hand. And maybe I caught it. I haven't given all the information.

But those aren't violations. They're cheeky. They're transparently opaque. I'm not misleading you because it should be clear that while what I've said is true you don't have enough information to know how to bet.

Poker After Dark: Match 23 -- "Of Mouth and Men". Jamie Gold and Alan 'Boston' Dvorkis face each other on a hand.

Boston is holding queen-10 and Gold is holding a pair of kings. After Gold raises Boston's bet Boston reports that he has Queen high. Gold says that he has king high.

Boston shows a queen and Gold shows a king.

Gold: I don't have king-queen so I don't have any of your cards.

After thinking and mumbling about it Boston reveals suspicion.

Boston: If you got king-queen that's really sickening
Gold: I don't have king-queen.
Boston: well you'd want to tell me that to get me call this so that i'd really make a bad call
Gold (showing his card to Paul Wasicka): Do I have king-queen?
Paul: Nope.

Boston doesn't trust Gold and suspects that he might have ace-king. Apparently thinking he wouldn't lie about not having a queen but might lie about having king high.

Gold: I said I have king high. I don't have ace-king
Boston: You have king high? You have king high?
Gold: Yes.
Boston: And you're claiming not to have king-queen?
Gold: I do not--

At this point Jamie has already said that he doesn't have king-queen. But Boston's latest question isn't about Jamie's hand. It's about Jamie's claim. Even had Jamie not yet claimed to not have king-queen, if he answers 'yes' to Boston's question there would be an entailed null speech-act of claiming to have a hand by answering a question that asks if the claim is made. Boston pushes for another claim.

Boston: So you don't have kings you just have king high?

Aha! Now he has revealed that he understands "king high" to mean only one king and another lower and not equal card. This was of course known -- but he has now made it an explicit claim.

How does Jamie respond? Does he confirm Alan's definition?

Gold: You know what -- you make your own decision. What do you want me to tell you. I gave you enough information.

So here's where Boston probably should have noticed that Gold is unwilling to answer his question. What does Gold mean by "enough information"? Gold surely knows that Boston defines king high exclusively. But he's unwilling to give the relevant information when asked. Is that cooperative? It probably would be if he made it clear that he was unwilling to answer specifically because Boston asked about a pair. But it could also be that Boston has asked for reassurance too many times. Here Gold's refusal to answer (which is a response) might be violating the maxim of manner by being ambiguous. But is it a violation in a game in which ambiguous information is an agreed manner of conversation? The problem is the changing frames of expected cooperation. In poker it is perfectly acceptable not to give a single word in response. But once you create a more specific frame of cooperative agreement the edge of the frame becomes important. Gold, by deflecting the question makes that edge fuzzy. It blurs the line between conversational implicature (I've said enough ≅ I've already said so) and transparent opacity.

Boston calls the bet. Both players show their cards.

Gold: highest card in my hand is a king.

Boston: That's not king high.

Gold: Highest card I have is a king.

Boston: Yeah. That's kinda [bleep]. You got me.

There's an important distinction between the maxim of unambiguous information (category: Manner) and the maxim of sufficient information (category: Quantity): Violations of ambiguous information often leave the hearer feeling that information has been left out. Violations of sufficient information are likely to mislead because the hearer often believes that all information has been given.

Therapy is a verb

The reality of addiction is that you find yourself compromising in your demands for quality as you pursue a simple fix. As long as you get the hit you don't care if it's a good hit. That probably helps to explain the success of Night Train and Thunderbird. It explains why a great-uncle (that I never met) turned to rubbing alcohol.

My name is Michael. I watch Dr. Phil.

About a week ago (15 April 2008) McGraw teamed up with occasional advice collaborator T.D. Jakes to share opinions with a mother and daughter who wanted the world to know their issues. (episode page)

After asking several questions and redirecting a few arguments and clarifying some claims Dr Phil announced that he and Jakes were going to use a new strategy in their speech. His promise going into the commercial break:

The bishop and I are gonna try and put some verbs in our sentences when we come back.

I guess I hadn't been paying attention because it seems that McGraw and Jakes had been performing an impressive feat: they hadn't used any verbs in their sentences thus far.

This is similar to one of those linguification-esque rhetorical devices/snowclones that I don't quite understand: X is a verb. I don't know if this one qualifies as linguification because it isn't really a claim about the way people are thinking stated as an observation about their use of language. It's really just an odd distinction between advice and other statements.

So here's the meta-linguistic claim: speech that is intent on effecting a change in action and making necessary action clear is going to use verbs while speech that reports information or asks for information doesn't need them.

What I find most amusing is that McGraw isn't really sure he can use verbs. He only promises to try.

Now for some overkill. Evidence of what you already know. I've taken all the verbs out of some early quotes by Phil and T.D. just to make the point that should be clear: verbs are necessary in almost all sentences no matter what point is being made. No matter the mood or illocutionary point. [sentence fragments are a different matter.]

“Why [] she [], in your estimation?”

“[] she [] when she [] you [] her nonstop? That [] her quote.

“On that one isolated incident, [] you [] it and [] her unreasonably?”

“This [] on behind a lot of closed doors and [] a really bad message."

“Absolutely. I [] the really pervasive problem with your daughter [] that she really [] [] that you all [] [] a whole and wholesome relationship. It’[] difficult to [] her to [] that it [] possible to [] with you and [] happy.”

“[] that possible? If she [] home today, [] you [] right back where you []?”

“She [] otherwise.”

The Simpsons have me under their spell

I'm still here and I'm OK. You can call off the rescue St Bernard. Unless of course there really is brandy in the little keg. I could use some of that medicine.

Since I work with the television on, my study of Labov is blanketed with the occasional much more linguistically interesting jokes of The Simpsons.

Just a minute ago Krusty learned how to manipulate congressmen and win a vote on a bill. After using alcohol and a paper clip to sneakily attach his own bill to a flags for orphans bill he proclaimed with relief:

"The system works! I've become enchanted and illusioned with Washington."

Nice. Neither is a true back formation because the forms with dis- are in fact based on these earlier morphemes.

But to say that one is disenchanted and disillusioned no longer presupposes that any faith or positive regard was the result of not seeing the true nature of the system. At least its not a very strong presupposition.

So to be disenchanted and disillusioned is not only to know the truth about something, but to be displeased with it. But using the earlier forms in a statement meaning roughly "I feel good about X" goes back to the sense that feeling good about something can only be the result of unclear thinking and foolishness. When Krusty says he's enchanted and illusioned with Washington he's at once expressing faith in a system and acknowledging that his faith is the result of being a fool.

Labov's graphs pale in comparison to this.

Not that I care about authorial intent...

Any writer who wants to establish the snobbery of a character has only to throw in a line in which the elitist corrects someone's grammar. It's quick realistic and obvious. But the characters aren't to blame. They were made that way. I'm not about to start tilting at fictional windbags.

And what television character is written to be more of a snob than Frasier Crane? Well maybe Diane Chambers...

One possibly nuanced exchange from season 9 of Frasier caught my attention. This was written into episode 12: Mother Load: Part 1.

Frasier and Martin commenting on Daphne's decision to move out of Frasier's home so she can live with Niles:

Martin  : Well I guess from now on it's just you and I.
Frasier : "You and me" Dad.
Martin  : [sarcastically] This is gonna be great.

Just how many characterizations did writer Lori Kirkland fold into this exchange?

1. Frasier is a snob.


2. He's a prescriptivist.


3. He's aware of hypercorrection -- specifically that the nominative I is often used when the dative/accusative me is the prescribed form.


4. He's so eager to make the distinction that he ignores an opportunity to connect with his father and instead remarks on his grammar.


5. He's so eager to show his knowledge that he offers an 'incorrection' to an utterance that he mistakenly thinks is a hypercorrection.

Frasier was one of those 'intelligent' award-winning shows, which I've come to think simply means that the critics think they caught a bunch of jokes that most viewers probably missed.

But a bit of dialogue like this in which the snob is left unchallenged --an unresolved fallibility in which a peevologist hamming it up could be hoist with his own petard but gets away with it -- might be a well-crafted portrait deserving of the praise usually slathered on tired literary references and bad puns.

Quiz show softballs

American Quiz shows are too easy. Jeopardy! pushes the level of obscurity to a decent level but I still occasionally throw my hands up in disbelief at the banality of the clues. At least the money on the show doesn't reach ridiculous levels.

The winnings on Who Wants to be a Millionaire don't go too high because so many contestants go for that one guess that knocks them back to $1000. But I just can't stomach the awful jokes that always sully option D of the first question.

1vs100 rewards a contestant for answering very easy questions -- but only if enough people in a group of 100 get the same question wrong. The show gives away a lot of money for pretty simple questions. And they're getting even easier.

The show used to ask questions that forced two levels of knowledge. All questions on the show are presented in multiple choice format. So the first level would come in the question section that asked something simple like 'which state comes first alphabetically?' The contestant would exhale with relief thinking Yes! I know the alphabet but then the 3 options would add a complicating second level.

A) the state whose capital is Columbia
B) the state whose capital is Augusta
C) the state whose capital is Frankfort

This format is especially tricky because at some point contestants are given the option of continuing or stopping after hearing a question.

But I haven't seen that question type used as much lately. Most questions now just involve one level and that level isn't all that difficult. Consider the following question from the most recent episode.

"In the play Cyrano de Bergerac what abnormally long body part did his peers marvel at?"

A) his nose
B) his toes
C) his fingers

First of all: there's almost a grammatical clue in there. The plural=singular mismatch does occur in native speech a lot. But in a written (and presumably carefully-crafted) question I suspect this was intended as a clue to influence even a baffled contestant to guess the right answer.

Second of all: who doesn't know that? How can knowing something like this be worth money?

Did you mean it or just say it?

Every once in a while the contestants on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire work as a team. Right now it's wedding week.

The couples usually work well together and the mutual respect is obvious. They talk it out -- they wonder out loud -- they ask each other questions like Have you heard of this? or Should we phone a friend? or Are you sure?

But one eager fellow earlier today kept jumping in and sealing his answer with the magic "final answer" phrase before his fiancée could say anything. I get nervous telling the waiter at a restaurant that I don't need anymore water before checking with Buffy (not because she tells me what to drink but because she commandeers my water and needs the refills even if I don't).

One question asked about the lyrics to a song. I think it was (I've Got a Gal in) Kalamazoo. Because this fellow had played a videogame that mentioned several cities he vaguely remembered that Kalamazoo is in Michigan. His future wife asked skeptically if he was really going to risk the money by making a guess based on a videogame. He disregarded her incredulity and muttered something about learning a lot from them.

He then plowed forward and said "I would say Michigan final answer." The young woman kept smiling and just repeated his answer. Buffy would be stepping on my throat if I ignored her like that. And rightly so.

Well his answer was right and the game kept going. They'll be on again tomorrow. Here's what I wonder:

Saying 'Final' or 'Final answer' is the speech act that locks in the answer on the show. It's what keeps contestants from getting caught by a phrase like I think it might be 'C' when they're just thinking out loud.

When the contestant seems to settle on an answer and even says something as assured as Yes it's 'C'. I'm sure of it. It's definitely 'C' host Meredith Vieira still asks if the answer is final. I've often wondered if a response of Yes to her question would be enough to lock it in.

Usually the contestant just says 'Final' or 'Final answer' with a falling intonation that signifies completion. But what if it's a rising intonation?

Vieira: Is that your final answer?
Contestant: Final?

Or what about the incredulous high-falling intonation as if the suggestion is hard to believe

Final?!?

Would that count?

And what if the contestant says I think I should make that my final answer? Would that close probation? Because saying I think I should is not the same as making it so. Now this is starting to sound like the smart-ass complaints of quasi-peevologists who whenever a speaker says something like I'd like to welcome you all or I'd like to thank you for coming lean over and say nudgingly then why doesn't she?

But when it comes to the rules on a show these ambiguities regarding speech acts can be relevant concern. In everyday speech we communicate without evaluating every technicality. But when playing a game we expressly agree on certain technicalities. Consider the rule of a question form on Jeopardy! The point of the response isn't only to communicate that you know the answer or even prove that you know the answer. You agree to abide by a technical rule that really isn't about communicating anything new. It's not even about communicating that you know the expectations. It wouldn't be enough to say I know I'm supposed to answer in the form of a question but I'm just going to say 'Oberon' anyway.

Johnny-jump-in-there said "I would say Michigan final answer" and it could go either way depending on the scope of "final answer."

If he meant I would say Michigan. And that's my final answer he locked it in. He used the phrase "final answer." (The subjunctive is a common form on the show. For some reason contestants are regularly drawn to the phrase That would be...)

If he meant I would say "Michigan: final answer". He could still have the out because he merely mentioned the phrase "final answer" without using it. The use/mention distinction could be an important one unless the producers have made it clear that any mention will be counted as a use.

But such a rule could go even further. It could go even to phonetics. This would lock in the answer even if the contestant doesn't use or mention the word but articulates the same sounds in another phrase. If the contestant mentions "fine aluminum" the [ faɪnl̩ ] segments could equal a lock.

But that would be just evil.

Phenomenon -- do dooo de do do

I just finished watching the finale of NBC's magician edition of Star Search: Phenomenon. I haven't seen any of the previous episodes because I'm not that impressed by big magic acts. I like close-up magic -- the type of good ol' prestidigitation that's impressive even when you know that the cards are palmed, the quarters are held by the knuckles and the cups are switched deliberately. It's impressive because you see the skill on display.

But besides being mostly bored by the big magic acts I would have been annoyed by this show because the whole show was full of announcements like on the next...Phenomenon!; or who will be...the next...Phenomenon? or find out on the series finale of...Phenomenon! or a phenomenon that will blow your mind...on tonight's...Phenomenon!

...and I'm almost absolutely certain that if I had been watching the whole season I would have been singing this for the last month.

Snow mutation?

Jeopardy! is being coy with it's clues. It sounds like the clue writers have chosen to temper the popular claim of how many dozens or hundreds of Eskimo words there are for snow. Tonight's Tournament of Champions round included the following clue:

"Eskimos have words for different varieties of this. Api is when it's on the ground."

They just can't let go of the implication that the language is remarkable in this regard. But they've managed to be reasonable about how remarkable it is. The claim is exactly what you could say about English words for snow. There's more than one.

Pulling Punchlines

I recently wrote about an incongruity on The Simpsons between script as performed and script as...scripted. In a Monday evening rerun of the episode "Eight Misbehavin'" (production code BABF03) I heard Apu (voiced by Hank Azaria) utter the line "Pirates are wild!" while the subtitle showed "Pilots are wild!" This is just a misheard phoneme. And a reasonable one. The l~r alternation from one approximant to another makes perfect sense. The two sounds even occur as allophones in Korean.

But later in the show Apu expresses his appreciation for "the good folks at Sony" when he receives their generous gift of a large-screen television. The subtitle for the line read "the good folks at Ampyo." I can't think of any allophones that would explain that alternation.

It's another instance of an apparent script change that didn't make it to all terminal forms. Unlike the Spungoes/Cowbogs switch -- a choice between joke1 and joke2 -- this switch is between real brand and fake brand. And neither is a true punchline. Ampyo comes closer but it doesn't go beyond throwaway joke.

One possible factor: Sampyo is the name of a Korean construction group. Was it too close? The Simpsons is quite heavily linked to Korea--all the animation is done there. Such caution seems just as likely an explanation as does cutting "Ampyo" for calling too much attention to a flat throwaway.

Spungoes home: Cowbogs away

For some reason I usually watch television with the subtitles playing even when the volume is turned up. This yields some interesting incongruities between the two texts: written and spoken. Sometimes it's a simple little difference like "then what?" (written) and "then what happened"(spoken). Or "do we have a case?"(spoken) and "have we got a case?"(written). Or "Not while I'm running the show!" (written) and "Not as long as I'm running the show!" (spoken) (examples taken from Seinfeld episode 122: "The Caddy").

Those are understandable. It's the type of variation that occurs in almost every report of an exchange. We tend to overlook strict phrasing and syntax and we report the semantic equivalent. What was that? becomes what did you say? and I've got becomes I have.

In episode AABF08 ("Sunday, Cruddy Sunday") of The Simpsons Homer finds out his Super Bowl tickets are fake. One of the indications that they're counterfeit (besides the fact that they're printed on some sort of cracker) is the team name on the passes.

When the line about the team name was delivered I heard the character say "There's no such team as the 'Spungoes'" but the subtitle read "There's no such team as the 'Cowbogs'."

My guess is that a subtitle script is provided separate from the sound file and the two sometimes diverge when there is a late change to the dialogue. Any idea why this line changed? I think I like "Cowbogs" better than "Spungoes"--or is it possibly complicated by the argument that "Cowbogs" could just be a typo or a misreading; so "Spungoes" makes Homer (and his travel agent "Wally Kogen" voiced by Fred Willard) more obviously foolish?

What Isis is is not clear

And the post title is not Isis.

Extris or Isis formation is an incompletely understood phenomenon in English speech. The history of the form and the influencing structures are not yet fully revealed. Further confusion comes from the impression that two adjacent identical copula verbs are sufficient (or necessary) to identify the type.

This latter confusion has been addressed by both Arnold Zwicky and Mark Liberman in the posts I linked to above. (If there was no line break between that last sentence would I have to say "linked to atop"?) To make the distinction quickly I'll just say that the following are examples of Isis formation:

1. "what's funny is, is they're about the same person."


2. "The only thing is, is that nobody has noticed it yet!!"


3. "Now I feel that I must do something to help the cause and I feel the best way is, is to encourage everyone who reads this review to pick up the book and know the truth of the immense suffering of this peace-loving country that China is destroying."


4. "[so] my other question would be is...": (A call-in commenter on C-SPAN's Washington Journal)


5. "But the problem is, Charlie, is the U.S...": (Morgan Stanley's Stephen Roach--interviewed by Charlie Rose) Split Isis. Nice.

The following are not Isis, but standard English forms:

1. "They proudly call themselves egotists, when what they are is egomaniacs and megalomaniacs."


2. "But what it is is a rousing good read."


3. "What's weird is, is this new?": the second "is" is part of a question. Think of that question as the answer to another question 'What is weird?'


4. "the second 'is' is part of a question.": I had to include this one right?

The first two are standard pseudocleft sentences. Imagine them without one of the copula verbs: *what they are(,)egomaniacs or *What it is(,)a rousing good read.

Also dodging the Isis label are performance errors like stutters and other disfluent repetitions.

Listen closely around 4:36 into the following video



Conchata Ferrell says "See my problem is is that I'm a giver." Some questions here: Did the writers put that into the script or did Conchata Ferrell just utter it as a natural form because the script is just loosely followed and not strictly obeyed? Did she deliberately choose the form as a characterization of Berta? If so, what does she believe the form implies about the Berta's character?

Zwicky provides an example from the show Charmed: "The difference is is that I don't want him to find you." He writes that it "was surely not a scripted bit," but I say it is hard to know. He also suggests that it "was probably not noticed by anyone involved with the episode." True. These things easily go unnoticed.

The TV.com guide to this episode of Two and a Half Men quotes Berta's line as "See, my problem is that I'm a giver." Is this an oversight or a correction? We may never know. But I just asked Buffy to quote the clip and she said "See my problem is that I'm a giver." Of course Ferrell utters the line very quickly and I can imagine that Buffy noticed the trip and discounted it as disfluency. I'll ask her.

Nope. She says she didn't notice it at all. "But she talked so weird" she says.