Kilby is right. But even if the artist (or putative editor) knew that, they probably thought the average reader wouldn’t. CIDU readers aren’t average.
My problem is that it’s an old joke. I think I first saw “Wizard Parking Only. Violators will be toad” on the internet 30 years ago.
[OFF CATEGORY] While I think most of the Oy! panels are funnier than the Sunday LOLs, these 2 hit me as real Oy! candidates. (..and now I can laugh.)
That’s what he gets for confusing “grammar” with “spelling
>But even if the artist (or putative editor) knew that [“orthography”], they probably thought the average reader wouldn’t.
Or he could have use “spelling”
> I think I first saw “Wizard Parking Only. Violators will be toad” on the internet 30 years ago.
But 30 years ago they wouldn’t have thought you’d need a image for people to notice.
……
“Sole”????
Is that supposed to be “I told you so”. An double pun of two separate phrases? “I towed you” and “I told you so”. Pogo, aside (and he’s no Walt Kelly) that isn’t a standard recognized form of humor. And the first phrase “I towed you” needs something for the “sole”. Or is there something I’m missing?
50 years ago there way the Fireside Theater bit about the hymn “Toad Away” (where to go when you get Toad Away”)
But it actually is bad grammar. It should be “be a toad” or “become a toad.” (Unless “toad” has been verbified by the wizarding world.)
I saw the Reality Check and thought “Wait, didn’t I see another attempt to pun between ‘toad’ and ‘towed’ ?”. But when I re-found the Brevity, it wasn’t exactly that. But ‘toad’ for ‘told’ seemed close enough, and I sent it in.
The “told you so” has some problems, or un-realized opportunities. Drawing the suspect as a foot serves to justify the “sole”, but shows his toes and makes us look for a detour into “toed”.
Also, if cop #2 was the one tossing amphibians earlier, and that action is captured by the verb “to toad”, wouldn’t his past-tense admission be “Yes, I was the one who toaded you, Sole”, not simply toad ?
I missed WW’s comment while typing, but we both are considering a verb “toad”. I would agree with WW’s point that grammar is in question in the Reality Check. But as suggestion for the grammar-compliant wording, I would expect “… will be toaded”. (Of course, both that and WW’s “become a toad” would ruin the first-look joke.)
I missed WW’s comment while typing, but we both are considering a verb “toad”. I would agree with WW’s point that grammar is in question in the Reality Check. But as suggestion for the grammar-compliant wording, I would expect “… will be toaded”. (Of course, both that and WW’s “become a toad” would ruin the first-look joke.)
Mitch4: It could be that the RC guy understands that the car will be turned into a toad, and is correctly complaining about the grammar. That keeps the first-look joke, but then we need to ignore his surprised look in the second panel.
As someone said, “Verbing nouns weirds language.”
The second comic is just…weird. The punchline, the imagery, just weird.
The “will be toad” in the first one reminds me of a space-filling cartoon I might have seen in a major car magazine a few decades ago. I find those old cartoons more amusing than many of the modern newspaper or web comics. :-)
As someone said, “Verbing nouns weirds language.”
“Verbing weirds language.” Watterson in Calvin and Hobbes.
@ Brian – That “Calvin & Hobbes” was originally published on Mon-25-Jan-1993:
@ Brian – Not “what” but rather “who” ( guilty as Mitch charged, I am “somebody”).
Under normal circumstances, I would just have noted the repetition in the new post, and allowed those who wanted to look up the original conversation do that on their own. However, when I noticed that “imagur” had deleted the strip you linked (see four comments up), I decided to replace it with a link to the GoComics image of the same strip. That resulted in the new entry in “latest comments”.
Comics I Don't Understand 
The problem is not “grammar”, it’s “orthography”.
Kilby is right. But even if the artist (or putative editor) knew that, they probably thought the average reader wouldn’t. CIDU readers aren’t average.
My problem is that it’s an old joke. I think I first saw “Wizard Parking Only. Violators will be toad” on the internet 30 years ago.
[OFF CATEGORY] While I think most of the Oy! panels are funnier than the Sunday LOLs, these 2 hit me as real Oy! candidates. (..and now I can laugh.)
That’s what he gets for confusing “grammar” with “spelling
>But even if the artist (or putative editor) knew that [“orthography”], they probably thought the average reader wouldn’t.
Or he could have use “spelling”
> I think I first saw “Wizard Parking Only. Violators will be toad” on the internet 30 years ago.
But 30 years ago they wouldn’t have thought you’d need a image for people to notice.
……
“Sole”????
Is that supposed to be “I told you so”. An double pun of two separate phrases? “I towed you” and “I told you so”. Pogo, aside (and he’s no Walt Kelly) that isn’t a standard recognized form of humor. And the first phrase “I towed you” needs something for the “sole”. Or is there something I’m missing?
50 years ago there way the Fireside Theater bit about the hymn “Toad Away” (where to go when you get Toad Away”)
But it actually is bad grammar. It should be “be a toad” or “become a toad.” (Unless “toad” has been verbified by the wizarding world.)
I saw the Reality Check and thought “Wait, didn’t I see another attempt to pun between ‘toad’ and ‘towed’ ?”. But when I re-found the Brevity, it wasn’t exactly that. But ‘toad’ for ‘told’ seemed close enough, and I sent it in.
The “told you so” has some problems, or un-realized opportunities. Drawing the suspect as a foot serves to justify the “sole”, but shows his toes and makes us look for a detour into “toed”.
Also, if cop #2 was the one tossing amphibians earlier, and that action is captured by the verb “to toad”, wouldn’t his past-tense admission be “Yes, I was the one who toaded you, Sole”, not simply toad ?
I missed WW’s comment while typing, but we both are considering a verb “toad”. I would agree with WW’s point that grammar is in question in the Reality Check. But as suggestion for the grammar-compliant wording, I would expect “… will be toaded”. (Of course, both that and WW’s “become a toad” would ruin the first-look joke.)
I missed WW’s comment while typing, but we both are considering a verb “toad”. I would agree with WW’s point that grammar is in question in the Reality Check. But as suggestion for the grammar-compliant wording, I would expect “… will be toaded”. (Of course, both that and WW’s “become a toad” would ruin the first-look joke.)
Mitch4: It could be that the RC guy understands that the car will be turned into a toad, and is correctly complaining about the grammar. That keeps the first-look joke, but then we need to ignore his surprised look in the second panel.
As someone said, “Verbing nouns weirds language.”
The second comic is just…weird. The punchline, the imagery, just weird.
The “will be toad” in the first one reminds me of a space-filling cartoon I might have seen in a major car magazine a few decades ago. I find those old cartoons more amusing than many of the modern newspaper or web comics. :-)
As someone said, “Verbing nouns weirds language.”
“Verbing weirds language.” Watterson in Calvin and Hobbes.
@ Brian – That “Calvin & Hobbes” was originally published on Mon-25-Jan-1993:
What resurrected this?
The Reality Check also appeared in today’s OYs collection (https://cidu.info/2023/04/22/saturday-morning-oys-april-22nd-2023/) and somebody commented back here so as to tie them together.
@ Brian – Not “what” but rather “who” ( guilty as Mitch charged, I am “somebody”).
Under normal circumstances, I would just have noted the repetition in the new post, and allowed those who wanted to look up the original conversation do that on their own. However, when I noticed that “imagur” had deleted the strip you linked (see four comments up), I decided to replace it with a link to the GoComics image of the same strip. That resulted in the new entry in “latest comments”.
I was unaware of the repetition when I read this.