… from yesterday:
(If you’re puzzled by the odd symbols in the cartoons — Dan Piraro says there are 3 in #1 and 5 in #2 — see this Page.)
Today’s Zippy takes us to the Providence RI area:
There are two Olneyville New York System Hot Weiners [so spelled on the signs] establishments in the Providence area. This one is the first, now on Plainfield St. in Providence. (The second is in Cranston RI.) And I have in fact posted on these places in this blog, in “Wieners” of 10/31/10, with no Zippy involvement.
From Ann Burlingham, this Scott Milburn cartoon from 2012, with a pun avalanche, or punvalanche for short, of bread-related vocabulary: breadwinner, the verb loaf, (slice of) toast, Melba (toast), sourdough.
Some highlights follow.
In another watching of the GEICO “Kraken” commercial (posting here), I caught a nice everyday example of the sort of conventionalized metonymy that I called in a 2008 LLog posting substance massification, a particular type of conversion of a C (count) noun to a M (mass) use.
In their in-play commentary on a golf game in progress, one reporter says to another, about a golfer attempting to cope with a sea-monster:
(X) Looks like he’s going to go with the 9 iron. That may not be enough club.
(Golf) club is C, but here is used with M syntax, according to this generalization (from the LLog posting):
C>M: substance massification. A C noun denoting an individual has a M use to denote a generic substance or totality, usually in construction with a quantity determiner (“That’s a lot of horse”, “That’s more elephant than we can handle”). [So: horse / elephant (roughly) ‘amount of horse / elephant material or substance’ (considered as a whole)]
Or in the case of (X), enough club, with club (roughly) ‘amount of club substance or material’.
A letter in the NYT Book Review on the 5th (from K. Margaret Schwarz of Hillsborough NJ):
Erica Wagner’s review of Jonathan Galassi’s “Muse” (June 21) praises Galassi’s cleverness in referring to Amazon as “Medusa.” But Alison Bechdel did so years ago in “Dykes to Watch Out For.”
Apparently Galassi’s metaphorical reference wasn’t actually clever, because he wasn’t the first person to use it; presumably, he should have searched for the metaphor before he used it in his book and then should have given Bechdel credit for it. (And, following that reasoning, Wagner should have done such a search herself and either cited Bechdel’s precedent or not mentioned the figure at all.)
This strikes me as loony.