A Bizarro replay

On Facebook recently, this Bizarro cartoon (from 1/29/07) passsed on by Grammarly:

 

Michael Siemon then asked if I was aware of this cartoon. As it turns out, I posted about it on Language Log on 1/30/07, under the heading “Pronouns: The early days” — but, unfortunately, because of changes in the LLog platforms, the cartoon itself has became unavailable in the LLog archives. So here’s a replay.

What I said back in 2007:

Back in the days when men hunted and women gathered, the parts of speech were thin on the ground.  Here’s a moment of discovery from Bizarro: [cartoon above]

Ok, Oogo is stuck using “woman”, having no pronoun “you”.  (On other fronts: he’s fine on extraction, at least within a clause, though he still doesn’t have auxiliary inversion down; but we’re talking about pronouns here).

What’s notable here is that Oogo DOES use a pronoun — but it’s an interrogative pronoun, “what” (which is grammatically indefinite), rather than an ordinary personal pronoun (all of which are grammatically definite), like Ooga’s “you” and “I”.  Apparently, “pronoun” here means ‘(definite) personal pronoun’.

In a tradition going back (at least) to the grammarians of Latin, Pronoun (the exemplars of which are definite personal pronouns) is a part of speech distinct from Noun.  Many modern scholars — notably Huddleston and Pullum in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language — dispute this (correctly, in my view), maintaining that, as far as their syntax goes, pronouns are just one of a number of somewhat idiosyncratic subtypes of the category Noun (they’re similar in a number of ways to proper names).  So maybe Ooga, with her adverbial subordinate clauses and progressive aspects and past/present tense distinctions and articles, not to mention discourse markers like “here”, is being somewhat unfair to Oogo: he’s clearly got nouns, but maybe he just hasn’t worked out all the subtypes (proper nouns, count vs. mass, collectives, etc.).

(Surely you can supply here the obvious references back to Brizendine and others on male/female differences.)  Me Tarzan, you Jane.  Why, Tarzan, I’m so delighted that you and I could meet!

Recent Facebook commenters have stressed Oogo’s deficiencies in the auxiliary verb department, rather than in the pronoun department. Fair enough.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: