Syntactic Movement Puns

I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.

Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.

Do your worst!

I'm surprised it hasn't decade.

Here's what I kinda understand so far: Wh-words denote sets of individuals. Predicates denote sets of functions. Proper names are singleton sets. Using functional application, the sets are combined in a question and it results in a set of propositions, which is the meaning of the wh-question.

What I have trouble understanding is how this accounts for different questions. Say for example, the 2 questions "What did you do?" and "You did what?" (in a shocked context) - a syntactic analysis might explain this in terms of feature wh-feature movement, but how would alternative semantics explain this? Are these 2 questions base-generated with different sets of propositions or something?

For context I'm a Refuse Driver (Garbage man) & today I was on food waste. After I'd tipped I was checking the wagon for any defects when I spotted a lone pea balanced on the lifts.

I said "hey look, an escaPEA"

No one near me but it didn't half make me laugh for a good hour or so!

Edit: I can't believe how much this has blown up. Thank you everyone I've had a blast reading through the replies 😂

It really does, I swear!

Because she wanted to see the task manager.

Roland Barthes - Elements of Semiology - Chapter II - Notes

II. Signifier and Signified

II.1. the Sign

II.1.1. the classification of signs

We want to understand the meaning of the concept sign in the most unambiguous way possible. In order to do that, Barthes sets out to represent the notional field in which this word finds its place.

First, he provides us with a series of terms similar to sign. They all share in meaning in that they refer us to a relation between two relata (a stimulus and its response). These are the following words: signal, index, icon, symbol, allegory and sign.

The scholar then proceeds to present a comparison of these terms on five points as understood by four thinkers (Hegel, Peirce, Jung and Wallon). The five points in which the terms are compared are as follows:

(i) mental representation – the relation implies or does not imply the mental representation of one of the relata.

(ii) analogy – the relation implies or does not imply an analogy between the relata.

(iii) immediacy – the link between the two relata is immediate or is not.

(iv) adequacy – the relata exactly coincide or do not.

(v) existential aspect – the relation implies, or does not imply an existential connection with the user.

In this little exercise, Barthes showcases the economy of language (see ch.I.1.2), i.e. how a word carries a meaning (or value) not just in itself but also in relation to the words around it. At a certain level, we all have a notion of what sign means. It is, however, when we compare it and contrast it with terms similar to it that we can start fleshing out a more exact definition, gain a more precise understanding of what sign means.

II.1.2. the linguistic sign

Sign as understood within the context of linguistic theory is the compound of a signifier and a signified.

^(new linguistic term →) Martinet introduces the double articulation principle as the criterion which defines language. It helps us map out the two-level structure of a language and distinguish between (i) the primary articulation in which we look at language in terms of its significant units, i.e. meaningful elements such as words or monemes and (ii) the secondary articulation where we concern ourselves with language as a sum of distinctive units, i.e. distinct, yet meaningless sounds or phonemes which come together to form meaningful elements (e.g. two words such as *“dog” and “god” may contain the sa

They’re on standbi

It's ugly, but it could have been far worse. I wrote it to this instrumental: https://youtu.be/BLpJXY2IOxg. The format is shot to hell.

#WIDE AWAKE CRAY

Being long lost asleep

Nuzzling-rummaging

Through a pleasant

Pocket of thought

Caught in soft charm

Abrupt Stop.

Lost it

Some consciousness

Got the

Farm bought

Harm -drop

Kicked

With a hypnic jerk

n’ mincing nurds

Transfixing words

convincing herds

intristing swerves

incisions with chips

Hidden in wordless

winking birds

Drinking worlds

My head crash landed against the planet

like a comet

that's astronomical

not at all comical

if comics ain't got it

it's gotta be non-canonical

stomach rumbling from the oblongata

The vibranium cranium long shot is unstoppable

Inoperable

Gotta stop the shock of the

Alarm clock

Lodged in the head

That’s missing

Quick quit the reminiscing

Fuck,

-well now I’m up,

A satellite,

Swimming

Dancing in

A vast night

As time expands

Humanity’s last sight

Glimmering in the light

Of distant suns

Damn son.

A Shimmering expansive

Language manager

Answering -advancing

Enhancing entrancing viewing grid

Shooting cupid

Oh the hu-ma-manic tics

Yo, the race -Homosapians

Is an antic dancer - a hangman -languishing

Like the Titanic,

Commanded by

Angering romantic’s

Ununderstanding

No answerless answers

Go Unexamined

Unsubstantial semantic neuromancer

Supercomputing

Components

Blueprint opponent’s

Go’s losing

Tokamack attack

Stew of cold fusing

Neutron slew

Shooting through

Nucleus permuting

Using -rerouting -routing -reusing rerouting

Gluing & ungluing,

Losing...

-Regrouping.

Looper using

Free grooving

Needling through

Needless reproofing

A useless

foolish doofus.

Nothing doing:

Scoop.

Duping stupid

computing

into alley-ooping through hoops

Shoot -hissed

Super-computing

Humans is lilliputian

The engine is too swift

To fit into sixty-two Trillian

Computer chips

With width

Cray wades then fades into tidal waves smooth ∣
stark shocking in the unproved ocean of truth ∣
Pursuing Jacque Coustou’s scubas ∣
Darth Vader’s breath scarred & twisted ∣
As the emperor ∣
implicit head benderer ∣
Brutal risen chest moves. -How to best choose? ∣
Especially when entombed in the sitchiation room. ∣
Not lost in deep thought’s problems. ∣
To stop the clock, press the top block of ominous talk

Pilot on me!!

Nothing, he was gladiator.

Dad jokes are supposed to be jokes you can tell a kid and they will understand it and find it funny.

This sub is mostly just NSFW puns now.

If it needs a NSFW tag it's not a dad joke. There should just be a NSFW puns subreddit for that.

Edit* I'm not replying any longer and turning off notifications but to all those that say "no one cares", there sure are a lot of you arguing about it. Maybe I'm wrong but you people don't need to be rude about it. If you really don't care, don't comment.

What did 0 say to 8 ?

" Nice Belt "

So What did 3 say to 8 ?

" Hey, you two stop making out "

When I got home, they were still there.

I won't be doing that today!

[Removed]

Where ever you left it 🤷‍♀️🤭

This morning, my 4 year old daughter.

Daughter: I'm hungry

Me: nerves building, smile widening

Me: Hi hungry, I'm dad.

She had no idea what was going on but I finally did it.

Thank you all for listening.

There hasn't been a post all year!

You take away their little brooms

It was about a weak back.

Why

It’s pronounced “Noel.”

After all his first name is No-vac

What, then, is Chinese rap?

Edit:

Notable mentions from the comments:

• Spanish/Swedish/Swiss/Serbian hits

• French/Finnish art

• Country/Canadian rap

• Chinese/Country/Canadian rock

• Turkish/Tunisian/Taiwanese rap

There hasn't been a single post this year!

(Happy 2022 from New Zealand)

This is Tswɔ́lɔ́ :) It's a conlang I've sketched for Speedlang Challenge 9, organised by /u/roipoiboy.

(Er, I'm also going to link to my grammar of Bbaniɟ, which I did for Speedlang 8.5, organised by /u/anhilare and which I never got around to posting about.)

Starting out with Tswɔ́lɔ́, I had two main goals: I wanted a focus system significantly different from anything I'm used to, and I wanted a tone system that would feel complex but not arbitrary. On both points I'm going to claim partial success. I haven't yet spent enough time with the language for its handling of focus to feel really intuitive to me, and I still have a lot to learn about tone.

I figure a pretty good way to introduce the language is by commenting some sentences, so here goes. It's a fairly long post, but it's more a collection of notes than an essay.

útá ɟablá kɛɛ́ ń lɔɔ
   ú=    ◌́- ta     ɟablá  kɛɛ́ń  lɔ  
WH.A= PRED- be_at  Ɉabla  here  PTCL
"ɈABLA is here!"

(The caps indicate narrow focus.)

The basic constituent order is SVO, but there's a dedicated focus position right after the verb, so when the subject is focused, like here, you get VS or VSO order.

There's a particle at the beginning of the verb complex that cross-references the subject; it shows up as a prefix or a clitic, depending on what it attaches to (there are phonological processes that occur with the first case but not the second, which is how you can tell the difference). Normally it encodes the person, number, and animacy of the subject. However, when the subject is focused, you get the invariant form ú.

(Not quite invariant. The pronominal markers come in two series, which I just call A and B, and which you get depends on the syntactic context. ú is the A series form; it's B series variant is u.)

I've glossed the ú as WH. That's roughly because many languages treat question words (like English wh words) in much the same way as they treat focused constituents. In Tswɔ́lɔ́, one similarity is that you get the same odd agreement with question words as you get when the subject is focused. So, wh agreement. (Similar patterns are sometimes also called anti-agreement.)

There are languages in which you always get an exhaustive interpretation when something gets moved to a dedicated focus p

Nothing, it just waved

Him: I can explain everything!

(It's his best joke yet I think)

Bob

So that I could frequently say, "I am going to walk 5 miles now."

Edit: My most popular post on Reddit! 😀 Thank you for the awards.

Click here for my notes on Chapter I

Roland Barthes - Elements of Semiology - Chapter II - Notes

II. Signifier and Signified

II.1. the Sign

II.1.1. the classification of signs

We want to understand the meaning of the concept sign in the most unambiguous way possible. In order to do that, Barthes sets out to represent the notional field in which this word finds its place.

First, he provides us with a series of terms similar to sign. They all share in meaning in that they refer us to a relation between two relata (a stimulus and its response). These are the following words: signal, index, icon, symbol, allegory and sign.

The scholar then proceeds to present a comparison of these terms on five points as understood by four thinkers (Hegel, Peirce, Jung and Wallon). The five points in which the terms are compared are as follows:

(i) mental representation – the relation implies or does not imply the mental representation of one of the relata.

(ii) analogy – the relation implies or does not imply an analogy between the relata.

(iii) immediacy – the link between the two relata is immediate or is not.

(iv) adequacy – the relata exactly coincide or do not.

(v) existential aspect – the relation implies, or does not imply an existential connection with the user.

In this little exercise, Barthes showcases the economy of language (see ch.I.1.2), i.e. how a word carries a meaning (or value) not just in itself but also in relation to the words around it. At a certain level, we all have a notion of what sign means. It is, however, when we compare it and contrast it with terms similar to it that we can start fleshing out a more exact definition, gain a more precise understanding of what sign means.

II.1.2. the linguistic sign

Sign as understood within the context of linguistic theory is the compound of a signifier and a signified.

new linguistic term → Martinet introduces the double articulation principle as the criterion which defines language. It helps us map out the two-level structure of a language and distinguish between (i) the primary articulation in which we look at language in terms of its significant units, i.e. meaningful elements such as words or monemes and (ii) the secondary articulation where we concern ourselves with language as a sum of distinctive units, i.e. distinct, yet mea