I’m guessing that’s not part of any second grade vocabulary unit.
And if it were, the girl using it in this manner probably wouldn’t intimidate the teacher out of teaching it.
- Comment
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Comics I Don't Understand 
It’s not part of their vocabulary unit. The idea is to make Mrs. Olsen think that they already have too much vocabulary, and not give them any more.
(The comic doesn’t make a ton of sense with either interpretation, though.)
I don’t read Frazz that frequently but the times I have read it, I’ve gotten the impression that this girl using words incorrectly or mispronouncing things is a running (non)joke.
In my rather mean and uncharitable analysis, I think it works as a distractable riff when the main joke just isn’t funny enough.
I think this is the same girl who said when she had a sore throat “I’m like and expresso— I’m a little cough-y” . That’s way the real joke’s weakness “espresso = little coffee” can be down-played by having Frazz wink at the camera and roll his eyes at the misprononciation of “espresso” as “expresso”.
Here the joke is that the girl thinks if she demonstrates how much apple cider costs she can *proactively* prevent Mrs. Olsen giving her a word problem to figure it out. But this is such a weak joke it gets hidden with the spit-take inducing howler of mistaking “proactively* with *prophylactic*.
Which don’t sound that much alike but *that* gets compensated for by the age-inappropriateness of “prophylactic”.
(Yeah, I’m not very charitable today at all…..)
@ Woozy
When one points a finger, four are pointing back at oneself.
A) https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/espresso-vs-expresso-usage-history
There is a good case for “expresso” being connected to “espresso”. Regardless, usage is now widespread enough that it is wide use as a variant.
B) Her use of prophylactic is correct. Something to prevent or ward off something. Garlic is a prophylactic against vampires. Apples a prophylactic against word problems. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prophylactic
Fair enough. But then the fingers should (also) be pointing at Fraz who rolled his eyes at “expresso” and who didn’t know the usage of the word prophylactic.
“Regardless, usage is now widespread enough that it is wide use as a variant.” I realize the current trend is to actively resist the overbearing intolerant trend of our grandparents prescriptive stance of word usage with a more lax and tolerant stance where laxity and tolerance are almost seen as synonymous with worldliness. However the exact nature of the line when usage makes something a variant rather than simply wrong is not consistently agreed upon. “Over my dead body” still bears a little weight.
Good luck to you. Not the hill I’m willing to die on.
Geez, I remembered one comic and apparently it’s a thing with this cartoonist.
Apparently… well, he deserves the finger pointing as much as I do if you are going to consider expresso to be an acceptable variant.
https://www.gocomics.com/search/full_results?category=comic&short_name=frazz&terms=expresso
But then, again, it’s apparently not the same girl.
For what it’s worth, “p” is a plosive…
I’m glad you won’t be alone on your hill. Tell him I said he doesn’t know what a plosive is.
You know, I *did* say I thought his idea of defusing mediocre humor by drawing attention to a character misusing words was a cheap ploy. It seems a bit strange that you seem to think pointing out that the strip which I was critical of is incorrect is somehow a legitimate complaint of my criticism of the strip.
I never said I agree with the strip’s assessment of what is or is not correct. I said I thought the strip’s use of drawing attention to misuse was was an avoidance (and considering the misuse only exists because the cartoonist inserted in *on purpose* makes it all the more disingenuous). Pointing out you think the strip itself was incorrect can hardly refute my assessment that the strips us of pointing out misuse (whether it is or actually is not) was a cheap ploy. Does the fact that the strip was mistaken in its judgement mean its judgement was now legitimate? And I was wrong for saying it wasn’t. And it’s okay to be judgmental to make up for having weak joke, provided you are wrong in your judgement. That’s …. weird.
And you are right. P is a plosive and X is not so…. Frazz is an idiot.
woozy, I hadn’t known gocomics was searchable in that way. Thank you.
I don’t see any reason to think that Frazz doesn’t know the meaning of “prophylactic.” The girl is using it correctly with a meaning that’s unrelated to sex, but the word more often occurs nowadays in a context related to sex, which gives it a vaguely “naughty” feel. That’s the point of the joke, and Frazz’s reaction is consistent with him knowing both of the meanings.
Even though I have been reading Frazz every day for years, I cannot remember a name attached to any of the students other than Caulfield. As far as I can tell, the other kids are interchangable random supporting characters.
I was just about to write the same thing.
I wonder whether they’re literally interchangeable, or they actually are different but only the writer and people who care way too much know who is who (ie: B.C.)
I think the premise of the strip is that Frazz knows the meaning of everything.
In B.C. it might be hard to tell the characters apart, but it’s good if you can. They have very different personalities, and a joke that works for Peter might not work for Curls.
You know what… if it helps the strip to tell the characters apart, its creators have had more than half a century to make it less difficult.
4 fingers pointing back at oneself? I suppose… if you’re pointing with your thumb.
“In B.C. it might be hard to tell the characters apart,”
I honestly don’t see it. The characters look entirely different.
B.C. is short. Peter has a blonde coif and a finer nose. Curls is swarthy and has … curly hair. Thor (arguable the least distinctive) is taller and blunter features … but the only one he can be confused with is BC (and vice versa) but Thor’s hair goes straight back and is longer… and he is taller. Clumsy Carp has straight black hair and glasses, Wiley has a peg leg, is older and unkempt and grizzled. The Fat Broad is …. er…. a fat broad, and the Cute Chick is a cute chick.
Certainly easier to tell apart than those dang pirates on overboard. Or yet another squinty-eyed twenty-year old pretty boy in Luann.
“and people who care way too much know who is who” well, we can’t expect people who *don’t* care to tell the difference.. And do you think the Peanuts characters are distinguishable to people who don’t care.
As far as I know, most of the kids don’t have names, or if they do, the names are incidental and used only so someone can refer to someone else. They’re mostly just random kids, and I’m not even sure how many of them recur. I think the girl Mrs. Olsen saved from being run over a few years ago had a name.
“yet another squinty-eyed twenty-year old pretty boy in Luann”
As a daily ‘Luann’ reader, I have no clue what you’re talking about.
@ Woozy. Gee whiz, chill out. I never said that your assessment of what was happening in the strip was wrong. What I was pointing out is the supposed usage errors were not errors. You certainly did prove that this “humour” is commonly used in this strip, I’ll give you that. I even pointed out you won’t be dying alone on the “IT’S ESPRESSO, WITH AN S, GODDAMMIT!” hill because Mallett shares your view.
On a related note, now that you’ve pointed out that he’s repeatedly using the same type of “aren’t I clever” jokes, it really does diminish the strip.
I suppose recent roomies Les and Gunther are both sometimes rather squinty-eyed.
The thing that bugs me is that these ignoramuses are saying “expresso” only because the cartoonist *made* them say “expresso”. You don’t get to wryly roll your eyes and look superior at others ignorance if the only reason they are ignorant was that you made them so just so you could look superior.
I don’t care that much and to what degree I do care, I don’t really want to share my hill with the guy who makes people make the error just so he can correct them.
……
Although I do think “expresso” is “wrong” (within a certain degree of “wrong”). However it’s hardly an error I actually ever hear.
Okay, so “within a certain degree of wrong”: Half a decade ago there was a trend to kind of enjoy being a grammar nazi and now the trend is to disparage the grammar nazi.
The original idea half a decade ago being that “literally” means … literal, it says so right in the *word* it can’t mean anything else… and “your” is a possessive and “you’re” is a contraction of you are and “their” and “there” are two entirely different words, and “espresso” is from the italian “espresso”; that’s how it’s pronounced… those are *simple* rules and easy and unambiguous and to persist in making them can only be contributed to ignorance and a selfish lazy *refusal* to care. That’s very irritating. That’s why we become grammar nazis and declare lazy stupidity offends us.
Well, the trend now is… Jeboney Christov! those grammar nazis are self-righteous eye-holes! Language is an organic process and evolves and with usage is acceptable. This idea that language is “right” or “wrong” is self-righteous and elitist. And if you go to the origins these “rules” were arbitrary or “wrong” originally. And dang their smug sense of superiority just irks me. “literally” and “expresso” can become seen acceptable variations as the are currently used that way enough. And … okay, their and there, and your and you’re are wrong but who cares? Don’t you have more important things to do then make people feel stupid for simple errors? And it’s classist. Caring about something as irrelevant as grammar which doesn’t matter is a luxury only someone with no real problems can afford.
Okay, that has valid points but… it’s trading one extreme for another. I think the key word is “evolution” and “organic” ask any biologist and they will tell you “evolution” does not occur with the individual but with the population and “organ*ic*” is a holistic process (I think, “organism” seems to be individual but…) One can’t merely say “literally” means what I want it to and I’ll pronounce “espresso” as “biblee-boo” because I am too lazy to bother to learn what it actually does mean or is pronounce; the choice isn’t the individual’s.
So as for variations it becomes a matter of degree. Is a few million people saying “literally” to mean “very” and pronouncing it “expresso” a population? Or just a few million people being wrong.
Well, I think either is valid. But one is too weak to vilify the others. And the other doesn’t have any justification to self-righteous superiority. I can figure “expresso” is wrong and I can dismiss Mirriam-Webster with “I know, they say that but I disagree” but I can’t really get on my high-horse and declare people who say “expresso” should be thrown to the sharks (actually *does* anyone say “expresso”; I’ve never met anyone who does.)
Anyway my “over my dead body” was a tongue in cheek exaggeration. Just because a blogger at Merriam-Websters wants to “tsk-tsk” the grammar nazis doesn’t mean I have to accept their declaration.
….
On the other hand, I was wrong about the strip’s intended use of the word prophylactic being intended as an error. I assumed the (other) “expresso” girl’s error was so gratuitous and artificially contrived that I thought her word misuse was a recurring characteristic.
“I suppose recent roomies Les and Gunther are both sometimes rather squinty-eyed.”
Les is SOMETIMES squinty-eyed???? And TJ? Are they ever *not*? And whoever that dang acting intern was last summer…. Or the father of that ADD girl … or…
Anyway personality and looks they are certainly less distinguishable then “the caveman with the big teeth” and “the caveman with the glasses”.
” Language is an organic process and evolves and with usage is acceptable.”
They key point is functional. Language is “right” when the listener correctly interprets what the speaker was trying to communicate, and it is “wrong” when they do not.
Using this definition, it is entirely possible to be “wrong” while correctly using vocabulary, grammar, and punctuation correctly. This is what makes so much academic writing impenetrable… it is written for other academics and not a general audience, and therefore the general audience finds it annoying to read. Children’s literature is written with an 8-12-year-old’s vocabulary, and again, the general audience won’t invest the time and effort to read it.
Conversely, use of incorrect vocabulary, grammar, and punctuation can be “right”.
To pick literary examples, think of Mark Twain’s dialogue for Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer, which are extremely ungrammatical. At the other end, everything Dickens ever wrote is godawful dense, and still inflicted on innocent children in American public schools.
So, to loop back to “expresso”, if someone speaks of it thus to refer to tiny little cups of extremely concentrated coffee, and you get the idea that they meant to refer to tiny little cups of extremely concentrated coffee, then the word has been used “correctly”. If you then proceed to infer that the person who used the word “expresso” doesn’t know much about English vocabulary or Italian coffee, that would very likely ALSO be correct… but YMMV.
It’s also common for people to mimspronounce words if their vocabulary comes largely from reading. Seeing a word in print is usually a good guide to pronunciation, but… even before you take regional differences into account… is far from perfect. This is why children who have recently gained literacy often have trouble spelling words they know how to say, and saying words they recognize when they read but don’t use regularly.
“That’s glory for you!”
Not to start a new rant, but personally, I find “expresso” much less annoying than people who “axe” questions, probably because I hear the latter far more often. And AFAIK it’s not a regional thing like “warsh” for wash or “chowdah”. People everywhere seem to use it.
According to Futurama, in the 31th Century everyone will say “axe”. Also, Marmaduke will still be running.
@ Brian in StL – Did they say anything about “Garfield” or “B.C.”?
P.S. I think Bill’s problem with B.C. is one of erosion. In the very early strips, the faces of the characters were very easy to recognize. This has worn down somewhat, and the degradation of the writing and drawing style since Hart died hasn’t helped, either.
I read the various books of the encyclopedia as child. She must do the same with the dictionary. She has used the word correctly.
What other meaning would should know (and not end up with someone being arrested) – “we have to drive around and find a pharmacy that my parents don’t use and there is a male pharmacist working” ?
Expresso people can pretend they speak French: https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/expresso/32331
Espresso doesn’t turn up in the Larousse dictionary.
I must confess that I used to say expresso until my wife kindly pointed out the error of my ways. I now say espresso and expresso sounds to me like something you’d hear in a Jiffy Lube ad.
“@ Brian in StL – Did they say anything about “Garfield” or “B.C.”?”
In one early episode, the robot cop says, “Check out today’s Marmaduke. Solid.” That’s about all we know of comics in the future. Maybe for the sake of efficiency there’s only one.
To clarify Olivier’s point – it’s not pronounced with the same “eX” sound in French that it is in English. But that’s what I’ve always heard as the source of the mispronunciation in English.
@Christine: it is not ? French “eXpresso”, “eX” as in “eXcellent”. Do you mean that in English, eXpresso is pronounced eggs-presso ?
Thank you Olivier. I couldn’t figure out a good way to explain the difference in sounds, and how it’s less obtrusive in French.
‘The thing that bugs me is that these ignoramuses are saying “expresso” only because the cartoonist *made* them say “expresso”. ’
I don’t quite understand why you find that offensive. The only reason Mortimer Snerd was so stupid was because Edgar Bergen made him that way. The only reason Gracie Allen said all those ditzy things was because she, George Burns, and their writers wrote her that way. Why shouldn’t a comic strip writer be able to set up a joke?