They both work!

As we have asked before with Baldo, does the joke depend on language, and does it work in both the Spanish and the English versions of the strip?

Here there are two loci for our standard questions: In panel 2, the dialog from the second character (who I think must be Jake); and in panel 4, the second part of the dialog from the speaking character.

My take on those two, in short summary: The panel 2 pun works fine in English, and the Spanish also has something of a pun, by substituting a different statement instead of a translation. In panel 4, in the Spanish there seems to be an amusing equivocation, by virtue of a grammatical ambiguity; which does not carry over into English.

In some detail:

In the English, notice the emphasis given in the lettering to the word TIRED. And while Jake says that, he is all over a stack of TIRES; even seemingly pointing to them as though in a sort of illustration.

In the Spanish, Jake’s line translates according to Google as “Oh, so you roll out of here early?” (and I think the “you” is not the only choice — it’s more of an impersonal, and might amount to “we”). So it no longer mentions tires or tiredness, but with the mention of rolling still manages to indirectly bring in the tires and roughly complete a pun. (And as a noun instead of verb, rueda is rendered first off as wheel.)

OK, a bit of background. English (like, say, French) in simple sentences, in at least semi-formal speech or writing, requires an overt subject, even if a person and number could be inferred. Spanish (like many other European languages) allows skipping a subject pronoun if the verb form is enough to determine person and number. You can see this in both of Jake’s sentences in panel 3 — creo is 1st-person singular, but the sentence does not need to say yo creo; same for pienso not needing yo pienso.

Then in panel 4, the third character’s line Pero no creo que trabaje could be But I don’t think it works [it = the potential joke], or But I don’t think he works [he = Jake]. Which is a fairly good joke, or anyway language-amusement. [My point about not requiring overt subject pronoun turns out not crucial here, since if this sentence did use a subject pronoun, él for he or it would still be indeterminate.] But in English we get But I don’t think it works, and no secondary dig at lazy Jake.

Saturday Morning OYs – June 29th, 2024

And I still maintain that the ugly Internet phenomenon of “trolling” started being called that from a metaphor on the fishing practice (dragging a baited hook behind a quiet small boat), and not the Scandinavian bridge-dwelling threateners.


Are we done with Bizarro for this post? Never say so!



I was preparing to protest that the expression is traditionally “strait and narrow” — which would be preferable despite its redundancy. The pattern of redundancy in rhetorical pairs remains hale and hearty, though some may wish it null and void.

But no! The useful sources recognize only “straight and narrow”, with just a nod to the echoes of “strait”. Here’s Etymonline f’ristance [in entry for straight (adj.2) = “conventional,” especially “heterosexual,” 1941]:

probably suggested by the stock phrase straight and narrow path or way, “course of conventional morality and law-abiding behavior” (by 1842), which is based on a misreading of Matthew vii.14 (where the gate is actually strait); another influence seems to be strait-laced.

No, let’s not get started on straight-jacket!



Et tu, Jeremy?



Saturday Morning OYs – June 15th, 2024




Rather dumb word-argument. But it prompts memory of an assortment of senior-targeted advertising campaigns which for a while used the phrasing “age 50 or better” or “age seventy-and-a-half or better” etcetera. It was supposed to be obvious, yet a sort of joke, that better would mean older. At least one that I heard regularly for a while did change to older; but then later reverted to better ; so I guess there was some complaint but it got resolved, or just overruled.





Come to think of it, probably the word-level associations of squashing things must have played a role in my lifelong aversion to the vegetable of that name.



Chak notes “I’ve read En attendant Godot several times, and I still don’t have a clue.”

Could one expect Godot to comment? Waiting for your comments below.



Saturday Morning OYs – June 08th, 2024

Phew, a lot of work to get there!



Indeed, they are said to have a high turnover.

But Day by Dave wasn’t done with punning for the week yet.



Mary Ellen sent this one in. Why backpacking alpacas? Why does everyone look so miserable? And why are the men in what looks like monks’ robes while the alpacas are using folding maps and modern looking backpacks?

It’s somewhere between an OY (wordplay on alpacah and backpackah) and a CIDU.


Saturday Morning OYs – June 01st, 2024

My friends on road trips used to enjoy “What’s that up in the road? A head?”. (Oops, accidental repeat from 25 May.)

Also fun on road trips: Look out, there’s a fork in the road!


TBH, I’m not entirely sure if “branch” in the last panel is actually intended as a pun.




Saturday Morning OYs – May 25th, 2024



There is a rather old joke involving a misunderstanding of that kind of signage (and based on a now-possibly-objectionable euphemistic term) — but wait!, it turns out this Crabgrass is not using that joke, but rather one based on a different misunderstanding of it.


Picked up from Counterpoint

Is that an electric plug in her hand, at the end of a wire? So she has unplugged a phonograph from playing one of the objectionable original versions?


It’s very simple, but (therefore?) almost perfect.


(it was established in the previous days that these are temporary tattoos)