Editor for this issue: Ann Dizdar <ann
linguistlist.org>
On Sun, 13 Jul 1997 Bill Bennett wrote: If my language use sought conciseness >(implicitness), than in time it might be working at the well-known >"now for cocoa and I'll put the cat out" with one vocable, the >language might end as "ugh" (synethesis) - unless the language were to >be "saved" by a countering balance in explicitness. I've always enjoyed the verbal humor of the Marx Brothers, what with their puns and all (phonology is the beginning of humor), but only in my dotage am I beginning to understand the exquisite wit and profundity of Burns & Allens, e.g., what is going on in terms of expectations for the discourse management of information in the following exchange. Gracie: I cut myself with soup the other day. George: Hunh? Gracie: The other day I cut myself with soup. George: You cut yourself with soup? Gracie: Yeah, I was opening the can and... Keep it up with the implicit and the explicit and the concise and economy for the speaker vs. intelligibility for the addressee and-all-that. In the final analysis, it is such exchanges as Burns & Allens which ultimately explains why language will never reduce to UGH. Say goodnight...Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue