explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2570: Captain Picard Tea Order

2022-01-20T01:00:30Z

Levininja: /* Filling out some more sections */

{{comic
| number = 2570
| date = January 19, 2022
| title = Captain Picard Tea Order
| image = captain_picard_tea_order.png
| titletext = We can ask the Earl for his order once he's fully extruded from the dispenser.
}}
*This was the fifth comic to come out after the [[Countdown in header text]] started.

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by EXTRUDED EARL GREY- Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Captain {{w|Jean-Luc Picard}} is the captain of the starship ''USS Enterprise'' in the TV series ''{{w|Star Trek: The Next Generation}}''. {{w|Earl Grey tea}} is a beverage that he requests many times in the series, with the exact phrase "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaAT6-dY1QI Tea. Earl Grey. Hot.]" Randall is parodying this expression with other words that could follow "Tea. Earl Grey.", from "most normal" to "least normal".

The machine that Picard is using is a {{w|Replicator (Star Trek)|replicator}}, which can create objects, such as Picard's requested Earl Grey tea. The title text refers to the last item, "Tea for him, too." which presumes that the replicator has produced a regular (unspecified) tea and "Earl Grey", a person (either one of the {{w|Earl Grey}}s or a person named Grey with the title of {{w|earl}}), and Picard has requested a tea for him. And so Picard also will ask the Earl for his exact order of tea after he is fully created.

{| border =1 width=100% cellpadding=1 class="wikitable"
! Word !! Explanation
|-
| Hot
| A fairly normal word to be used when ordering tea. Although that it even needs specifying is itself a clue that other variations (such as "Iced", below) are available.
The act of requesting this is illustrated, though not of the appearance of the tea itself.
|-
| Iced
| {{w|Iced Tea}} is a 'normal' variation of tea.
|-
| Decaf
| Traditional teas (from {{w|Camellia sinensis}}) tend to have caffeine in them. Asking for {{w|Decaffeination|decafeinated}} tea is not particularly uncommon if the drinker requires it.
|-
| Good
| A normal, subjective term. Most people drinking tea would want it to be good.
|-
| Lukewarm
| While this is a temperature that tea can be at, most people do not want their teas to be lukewarm.
|-
| Tasty
| Similar to good, most people would want their tea to be tasty.
|-
| Boiled
| Boiling tea is a common way to increase the flavor and nutrients extracted from the tea leaves.
|-
| Watery
| Tea is a drink that often involves water.
|-
| Sour
| Many people do not enjoy a sour taste, which can indicate rot and is a strange thing to specify when ordering Earl Grey tea.
|-
| Meaty
| Most teas are plant-based.
|-
| Solid
| Tea is usually drunk as a liquid. It would be strange to ask for solid tea.
|-
| Dry
| Tea is a liquid typically made with water and may have milk. A dry version might be either unmade (e.g. tea leaves in their un-infused form) or freeze-dried back into a dehydrated form.
("Dry" can also be used to describe {{w|Dryness (taste)|less-sweet varities of wine}} ''or'' {{w|Prohibition|enforced alcohol-free scenarios}}. For either option, it assumes a default serving with an {{w|Hot_toddy#Variations|alcoholic component}}, or an entirely {{w|Long Island iced tea|alternate basis}} for the beverage, which the request needs to be specify it is not.)
|-
| Raw
| This describes tea that has not been "cooked", so it would just be tea made with room-temperature water. This is {{w|Iced_tea#Sun_tea|possible}} but generally takes many hours.
|-
| Deep-fried
| Tea is not usually deep-fried.
|-
| Sticky
| Perhaps significantly dehydrated, or thickened with enough of a hydrophilic substance, this would produce something very unlike most teas that would usually be requested.
This scenario is illustrated to show a clearly messy product that awkwardly sticks to and drips from the replicator as well as Picard.
|-
| Grilled
| Tea is not usually grilled.
|-
| Fossilized
| Since tea is a liquid, it would be tricky to figure out how to fossilize it.
|-
| Magnetic
| Tea is not magnetic. Magnetic metals would have to be added to the tea, which would not be pleasant to drink.
|-
| Ballistic
| Usually, the replicated beverage is deposited in a stationary cup, but Picard could ask for it to be dropped or thrown out instead.
|-
| Unstable
| This word is often used to refer to radioactive materials, which hopefully is not a property that would apply to something meant to be ingested.
|-
| Blessed
| Tea is a beverage, and it may be strange to ask a machine to create 'blessed' tea.
In {{w|NetHack}}, various items can be Blessed, i.e. having greater positive or lesser negative effects. This includes potions, a class of drinks that do not include any teas but does contain the "potion of water", which may therefore be the basis of this blessed brew.
|-
| Blurry
| Being blurry is not a normal state for tea to have.
|-
| Loud
| While molecules in tea (especially hot tea, and vitally so in an {{w|The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (novel)|Infinite Improbability Drive}}) do move vigorously, this does not usually result in distinct audible effects.
However, as illustrated, it seems the requested cup of tea is produced capable of emitting a high-pitched, high-volume whining sound that entirely dominates the vicinity.
|-
| Virtual
| Virtual tea cannot be produced physically, so asking a physical tea machine for it would be very strange.
|-
| Intravenous
| This means the tea would be injected directly into the customer's veins, likely a very painful experience if the tea comes out boiling.
|-
| Expanding
| In a sense, most hot tea is expanding: as the water in the tea evaporates, it becomes much less dense, increasing in "size".

But most people would probably argue that the evaporated water is no longer part of the tea. Water, like most materials, usually expands as it increases in temperature—except between freezing and about 4° C, where it has the unusual property of {{w|Water_%28molecule%29#Density_of_water_and_ice|''contracting slightly''}} as temperature increases. If tea behaves similarly despite the extra dissolved compounds, then "expanding tea" would describe any tea between 4° C and room temperature.
|-
| Ironic
| How tea could be ironic is a mystery.
|-
| Segmented
| Tea is usually served in a cup. It tends to stick together and form one liquid. Separating the tea into segments would not be possible.
|-
| Verbose
| This describes using lots of words and language, and would not likely be used for tea, because it cannot speak.{{citation needed}}
|-
| Cursed
| As with "Blessed", above, various items can be Cursed, in {{w|NetHack}}, i.e. having greater negative or lesser positive effects; while there are straegic uses for Cursed items, generally the player would prefer uncursed ones (neutral or a tually blessed). Amongst the cursable items are potions, a class of consumables that do not include any teas but does contain the "potion of water", which may therefore be the cause of this cursed cuppa.
|-
| Unexpected
| By definition, Picard is asking for tea, expecting it promptly. Perhaps the request for it to be "unexpected" would cause it to be delivered at an unknown time in the future, or to have some alteration.
|-
| Bipedal
| Tea does not walk.{{citation needed}} This would be a very strange term to use when describing tea.
|-
| Afraid
| Tea does not have feelings.
|-
| Infinite
| The scope of this request is unclear. It could mean endless production (a steady stream of tea, without obvious limits so long as servicing the request remains practical) or an instantaneous production of an infinite volume of tea (possibly more immediately shown to be flawed in its method of execution). Either could result in an infinitely ''dense'' tea (eventually?), but this may no longer be {{w|No-hair theorem|identifiable as tea}} so might be one of the less practical options, even amongst those on this list.
Indeed, Randall ranks it as the least 'normal', except for just ''one'' further named order.
|-
| Tea for him, too
| {{w|Earl Grey tea|Earl Grey}} is a tea blend.
Taken along with the context of the title text, this Replicator order is for "Tea" (not otherwise qualified), a replicated version ''of'' the Earl Grey (one or other of those {{w|Earl Grey|of that name}}, possibly the {{w|Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey|2<sup>nd</sup> Earl}} for whom the tea blend was supposedly named) and a second such beverage for him to later drink.
|-
! colspan="2" | Descriptions included in comic, but not on the line
|-
| Cold
| Like Iced tea, asking for cold tea is a relatively normal request.
|-
| Pink
| Earl grey is usually an orange-brown color, not pink.
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[There is a line going towards the bottom of the panel in a curve with marks and words next to them. Various pictures of Captain Picard, are displayed next to the curves.]
:[Caption at top of the panel:]
:Other words Captain Picard tried at the end of his tea order before settling on "hot"
:[Subtitle below the caption:]
:From most normal to least
:[Picard stands next to a machine labeled 'REPLICATOR', giving a command. Some options such as 'Good,' 'Cold,' 'Dry,' and 'Pink' are displayed perpendicularly adjacent to 'Hot', the latter clearly selected.]
:Picard: Tea. Earl Grey. Hot.
:[Below, another version of Picard standing next to the replicator is displayed. Picard is holding a cup, with sticky lines connecting his hands and the machine]
:Picard: Tea. Earl Grey. Sticky.
:[This time, Picard is holding a vibrating cup and large letters are displayed in the background to the exclusion of all else.]
:Picard: Tea. Earl Grey. Loud.
:Teacup: '''TEEEEEEEEEEEEEE'''
:[Words on the arrow from start to finish. The tail of the arrow is labeled 'Normal.' There is a parallel arrow pointing in the same direction labeled 'Less normal.']
:Hot
:Iced
:Decaf
:Good
:Lukewarm
:Tasty
:Boiled
:Watery
:Sour
:Meaty
:Solid
:Dry
:Raw
:Deep-fried
:Sticky
:Grilled
:Fossilized
:Magnetic
:Ballistic
:Unstable
:Blessed
:Blurry
:Loud
:Virtual
:Intravenous
:Expanding
:Ironic
:Segmented
:Verbose
:Cursed
:Unexpected
:Bipedal
:Afraid
:Infinite
:Tea for him, too

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Star Trek]]
[[Category:Food]]

2567: Language Development

2022-01-14T02:41:40Z

Levininja: /* Removed a mistaken word */

{{comic
| number = 2567
| date = January 12, 2022
| title = Language Development
| image = language_development.png
| titletext = The worst is the Terrible Twos, when they're always throwing things and shrieking, "forsooth, to bed thou shalt not take me, cur!"
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a AUTOMATON - What the baby hast sayeth? Forsooth change this scribbeth when editing this vellum. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.
[Nah, delete it. The use of archaic English for humorous purposes should be left to those actually conversant with archaic English. Never funny otherwise.]}}
[[Megan]] and [[Cueball]] are having what could appear to be a typical conversation about her child's ability to learn languages really fast. But the comic mixes up the concept of learning a language and the development of languages over time. The joke comes from the a conflation of two different things.

The conventional meaning of {{w|Language development}} is the process by which infants begin to talk, that is to understand and produce intelligible speech. The field of {{w|Language acquisition}} (sometimes called language development) seeks to understand how baby humans are able to rapidly comprehend, internalize, and begin producing a new language so rapidly.

Instead of starting with {{w|babbling}}, the first stage of normal language development, this baby's form of "language development" seems to be the linguistic form: going through all of the theoretical stages of the evolution of the English language, from Proto-Indo-European to Germanic to Old English.

In {{w|Comparative linguistics}} and {{w|Historical linguistics}}, {{w|Proto-Indo-European_language|Proto-Indo-European}} is a theorized common ancestor of the Indo-European language family. {{w|Proto-Germanic_language|Proto-Germanic}} is a reconstructed language formerly spoken in Iron Age Scandinavia. It developed out of Proto-Indo-European and is the proposed common ancestor for all {{w|Germanic languages}}. {{w|Old English}} would have developed out of Proto-Germanic. Modern English developed out of Old English with many additions from French (which comes from a different branch of the Indo-European language family). This parody of language development parallels the discredited {{w|theory of recapitulation}} in embryo development, sometimes expressed as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", in which a developing animal embryo (ontogeny) was once thought to go through stages resembling successive adult stages in the evolution of the animal's remote ancestors (phylogeny).

In linguistics, reconstructed words from proto-languages are commonly marked with an asterisk (*) to show that the word forms are not attested by any historical sources but created as a proposed ancestor word. The baby says the Proto-Indo-European roots that the words "milk" and "please" are derived from. Obviously, the speakers of Proto-Indo-European did not speak in roots, but used words made from the roots, so the way the baby talks does not reflect any stage of development of the proto-language.

Some sounds babies make are hard to interpret.{{citation needed}} However, humans have a tendency to recognize known things and patterns. They see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. Thus, a parent familiar with Proto-Indo-European may falsely hear their baby speak Proto-Indo-European by misinterpreting unintelligible sounds.

Perhaps this is an alternate universe where every baby has to gradually develop their language skills along a historical path rather than a child-developmental one, until they reach the ultimately developed modern language of their parents (in this case Modern English).

There have been alleged {{w|language deprivation experiments}} where newborn infants were not exposed to any spoken language in order to find the "natural human language", in the days before ethics review boards would have forbidden such cruel treatments. Such experiments are known today to be a source for psychological problems at least. Alleged outcomes in the apocryphal sources range from the deprived children imitating other sounds in their environment, to them dying.

In the title text, Randall describes a 2 year old child as speaking in {{w|iambic pentameter}} and in Elizabethan English, a meter and dialect of modern English used by {{w|Shakespeare}} more than 400 years ago. The [https://www.verywellfamily.com/terrible-twos-and-your-toddler-2634394 Terrible Twos] are a colloquialism referring to the developmental tendency of two-year-olds to have more temperamental behavior, as the child's developing assertion of autonomy and self-identity clash with other expectations of behaviour, before hopefully acceptably balancing their assertiveness with social normatism.

==Transcript==
:[Megan and Cueball are looking to the left at a baby with dark hair. The baby sits on the left side of a table in an elevated baby chair.]
:Megan: He's only 1, so he still mostly speaks proto-Indo-European.
:Megan: But we've heard a few Germanic words already, so Old English can't be far off.
:Cueball: They progress so fast!
:Baby: *Melg-
:Baby: *Pl(e)hk-

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring babies]]

2390: Linguists

2022-01-13T01:03:51Z

Levininja: /* Unpacking the joke about linguists */

{{comic
| number = 2390
| date = November 25, 2020
| title = Linguists
| image = linguists.png
| titletext = "Do you feel like the answer depends on whether you're currently in the hole, versus when you refer to the events later after you get out? Assuming you get out."
}}

==Explanation==
Ponytail hears the cries of an unidentified person who has become trapped in a hole. She rushes over, but rather than helping the person out, she instead asks whether the trapped person's chosen phrasing for their predicament – "fell down a hole" – is equivalent to "fell in a hole."

To most people, the phrases "fell down a hole" and "fell in a hole" are paraphrases. To other people however, the two sentences have a subtle difference that implies slightly different things; for example, whether one has fully or only partially fallen down/in the hole, how big the hole is, or whether the person has exited out of the hole yet at the time of speaking (see the paragraph on the title text below). Ponytail is thus asking whether the person chose to use 'down' over 'in' for those reasons. In either case, the joke here is that this is probably not the best time for Ponytail to ask.

In the caption, Randall comments on the stereotype that linguists are obnoxious elitists who only love telling people how wrong they are ("{{w|Linguistic prescription|Grammar Nazi}}s"). A linguist might make a statement like this that ends with something like "linguists actually are only trying to describe existing grammar rules, not prescribe them." Instead, Randall takes the comment an unexpected direction by saying not that linguists are better than expected but actually worse. He claims that seeking to extract exact information is worse than if they were pedants browbeating their audience, possibly because a pedant could prioritize the elements of a situation better than Ponytail is doing here, or possibly referencing [[2421: Tower of Babel]].

This is similar to the viewpoint dedicated to scientists in comic [[877: Beauty]], as in studying that field seems to be a cold and sad way to analyze the thing, but instead is an extreme form of child-like awe and inspiration.

The title text sees Ponytail asking the person whether their answer is dependent on the current situation, or in technical terms, {{w|tense-aspect-mood}}. As noted above some people see the difference between 'fell down' and 'fell in' as whether the sentence still holds true at the time of speaking; this is called the {{w|perfective aspect}}. There are other variations, such as recent vs. remote past: "I ''just'' fell down a hole"; {{w|Perfect_(grammar)|the perfect}} (not to be confused with the first one - note the lack of ''-ive''): "I fell down a hole, and it has consequences relevant to our conversation"; {{w|Habitual_aspect|habitual}}: "I had previously fallen down a(nother?) hole, and I have fallen down this hole now", all of which can influence one to choose 'down' over 'in' or vice versa.

The last sentence “assuming you get out” drives home the point that Ponytail is concerning herself with linguistic matters over practical ones. Ponytail’s use of “assuming” rather than “when” suggests that Ponytail doesn’t have a plan to get the person out, or that she has a plan but isn’t confident in its success. The former interpretation, that Ponytail is thinking of the person getting out as abstract and unconnected with her, is funnier and more consistent with Ponytail’s actions so far.

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail is walking to the left. A voice calls out from behind her (at the right of the panel):]
:Off-panel voice: Help!
:Off-panel voice: I fell down a hole!

:[Ponytail runs to the right, toward the hole.]

:[Ponytail, kneeling down next to the hole, calls out:]
:Ponytail: Hey!
:Ponytail: Is "fell down a hole" exactly equivalent to "fell in a hole," in your usage? Or do they have slightly different implications?

:[Caption below the panel]
:There's a myth that linguists are pedants who love correcting people, but they're actually just enthusiastic about understanding language in all its infinite varieties, which is much worse.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Language]]

2390: Linguists

2022-01-13T01:00:49Z

Levininja: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2390
| date = November 25, 2020
| title = Linguists
| image = linguists.png
| titletext = "Do you feel like the answer depends on whether you're currently in the hole, versus when you refer to the events later after you get out? Assuming you get out."
}}

==Explanation==
Ponytail hears the cries of an unidentified person who has become trapped in a hole. She rushes over, but rather than helping the person out, she instead asks whether the trapped person's chosen phrasing for their predicament – "fell down a hole" – is equivalent to "fell in a hole."

To most people, the phrases "fell down a hole" and "fell in a hole" are paraphrases. To other people however, the two sentences have a subtle difference that implies slightly different things; for example, whether one has fully or only partially fallen down/in the hole, how big the hole is, or whether the person has exited out of the hole yet at the time of speaking (see the paragraph on the title text below). Ponytail is thus asking whether the person chose to use 'down' over 'in' for those reasons. In either case, the joke here is that this is probably not the best time for Ponytail to ask.

In the caption, Randall comments on the stereotype that linguists are obnoxious elitists who only love telling people how wrong they are ("{{w|Linguistic prescription|Grammar Nazi}}s"). A linguist might make a statement like this that ends with something like "linguists actually are only trying to describe existing grammar rules, not prescribe them." Instead, Randall takes the comment an unexpected direction; he claims the truth is much worse, that linguists' desire to extract exact meaning from phrases is done with the best of intentions. He also claims that this is worse than if they were pedants browbeating their audience, possibly because a pedant could prioritize the elements of a situation better than Ponytail is doing here, or possibly referencing [[2421: Tower of Babel]].

This is similar to the viewpoint dedicated to scientists in comic [[877: Beauty]], as in studying that field seems to be a cold and sad way to analyze the thing, but instead is an extreme form of child-like awe and inspiration.

The title text sees Ponytail asking the person whether their answer is dependent on the current situation, or in technical terms, {{w|tense-aspect-mood}}. As noted above some people see the difference between 'fell down' and 'fell in' as whether the sentence still holds true at the time of speaking; this is called the {{w|perfective aspect}}. There are other variations, such as recent vs. remote past: "I ''just'' fell down a hole"; {{w|Perfect_(grammar)|the perfect}} (not to be confused with the first one - note the lack of ''-ive''): "I fell down a hole, and it has consequences relevant to our conversation"; {{w|Habitual_aspect|habitual}}: "I had previously fallen down a(nother?) hole, and I have fallen down this hole now", all of which can influence one to choose 'down' over 'in' or vice versa.

The last sentence “assuming you get out” drives home the point that Ponytail is concerning herself with linguistic matters over practical ones. Ponytail’s use of “assuming” rather than “when” suggests that Ponytail doesn’t have a plan to get the person out, or that she has a plan but isn’t confident in its success. The former interpretation, that Ponytail is thinking of the person getting out as abstract and unconnected with her, is funnier and more consistent with Ponytail’s actions so far.

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail is walking to the left. A voice calls out from behind her (at the right of the panel):]
:Off-panel voice: Help!
:Off-panel voice: I fell down a hole!

:[Ponytail runs to the right, toward the hole.]

:[Ponytail, kneeling down next to the hole, calls out:]
:Ponytail: Hey!
:Ponytail: Is "fell down a hole" exactly equivalent to "fell in a hole," in your usage? Or do they have slightly different implications?

:[Caption below the panel]
:There's a myth that linguists are pedants who love correcting people, but they're actually just enthusiastic about understanding language in all its infinite varieties, which is much worse.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Language]]

739: Malamanteau

2022-01-13T00:55:00Z

Levininja: /* Expanding on joke of making fun of linguists */

{{comic
| number = 739
| date = May 12, 2010
| title = Malamanteau
| image = malamanteau.png
| titletext = The article has twenty-three citations, one of which is an obscure manuscript from the 1490s and the other twenty-two are arguments on LanguageLog.
}}

==Explanation==
A {{w|malapropism}} is the use of an incorrect word in place of a word with a similar sound, resulting in a nonsensical utterance. An example of a {{w|malapropism}} is {{w|Yogi Berra}}'s statement: "Texas has a lot of electrical votes," rather than "electoral votes". A {{w|portmanteau}} is a word made up of two or more combined words. For example, motel is a portmanteau, from the words motor and hotel. A {{w|neologism}} is simply a newly coined word that is not yet in common use.

Here, Randall shows a hypothetical Wikipedia page of the word "malamanteau" which is both a portmanteau of "malapropism" and "portmanteau" and a neologism. The method used to create this new word is one of the very words used in the process. This is called a [[917|meta]] or "self-referential" joke.

By using many large obscure words in one sentence, Randall may also be picking on linguists, [[114|one]] [[1483|of]] his [[1602|favorite]] [[2390|subjects]], who are known for coining and using such words.

"Malamanteau" was originally coined in 2007, when it was proposed by user [http://www.metafilter.com/user/17900 ludwig_van] on [http://www.metafilter.com Metafilter] as a term for language errors like "flustrated" (flustered & frustrated) and "misconscrewed" (misconstrued & screwed).

The bottom line of the comic (Ever notice how Wikipedia has a few words it ''really'' likes?) is a reference to a large number of Wikipedia pages that start by labeling their subject matter as a malapropism, a portmanteau, or a neologism.

In response to this comic, editors at Wikipedia created a {{w|malamanteau}} page. It was deleted multiple times and eventually turned into a redirect to the Wikipedia page for {{w|xkcd}}. Malamanteau and the controversy at Wikipedia got coverage at ''The Economist'' and ''The Boston Globe''.

The title text refers to Wikipedia's requirements of citations for a page on there to exist. It also refers to the wide range of places citations can be obtained from, showing a direct opposition due to the use of very different citations (The Language Log arguments are modern and informal, whereas the obscure manuscript is formal and much older). The title text also refers to the fact that [http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/ Language Log] is frequently used for Wikipedia citations.

Language Log is a blog that posts content relating to language and linguistics, including things like malapropisms and portmanteaus. While an informal source, it has produced new linguistic terms before, such as {{w|eggcorn}}. Its comments sections frequently contain discussions and arguments about English, whose participants are probably the same people who write Wikipedia articles about linguistic phenomena like malamanteaus. In actual fact, [http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2758 Malamanteau] did not appear on Language Log until after this strip. Malamanteau has since been referenced on the Language Log website, with a link to the comic in question. Language Log has referenced xkcd many times before, reposting the comics and linking to the xkcd website.

The title text jokingly refers to the "malamanteau" citations being Language Log references and a document from the 1490s, in reference to the fact that linguists, like those who post on Language Log, often use old documents as evidence, possibly to prove that construction is a longstanding feature of the language. The joke is that the only references to this word or concept are a 500-year-old document and linguists informally arguing about what it means. In reality, if these citations were the only evidence of the term's use, then it would be unlikely to be a notable feature worthy of a Wikipedia article. Most articles that are only cited by a single website tend to get deleted unless the subject has achieved significant coverage in outside news media.

The comic shows Wikipedia as it would have looked at the beginning of May 2010, using its then-current logo and the then-default “Monobook” skin. Incidentally, just a day after the comic’s publication, a new version of the {{w|Wikipedia logo}} was published, and the default skin was [[mw:Special:Code/MediaWiki/66383|switched]] to the “Vector” skin. Both of these still define the look of Wikipedia as of 2021 (though Vector undergoes continuous updates).

==Transcript==
:[The strip is set up as the top of a Wikipedia page.]
:[The Wikipedia logo.]
:Wikipedia
:The free encyclopedia
:[Side navigation options.]
:Navigation
:-Main Page
:-Contents
:-Featured Content
:-Current Events
:[Wikipedia header options.]
:Article Discussion Edit this page History
:[The article itself.]
:Malamanteau
:From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
:A malamanteau is a neologism for a portmanteau created by incorrectly combining a malapropism with a neologism. It is itself a portmanteau of [...the article cuts off.]
:[Below the panel.]
:Ever notice how Wikipedia has a few words it ''really'' likes?

==External links==
*[http://wiki.xkcd.com/irc/Malamanteau Malamanteau] at the xkcd wiki
*[http://malamanteaus.blogspot.com/ Malamanteaus], a blog dedicated to the creation and proliferation of malamanteaux
*[http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Malamanteau Malamanteau] at urbandictionary.com
*[http://wordsquirt.com/Word/View/Malamanteau/dbb34d48-e565-4012-bcc8-56718f351712 Malamanteau] at wordsquirt.com
*[http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/index.php?s=malamanteau Entries referencing "malamanteau"] at LanguageLog.com
*Malamanteau Talk Page Archives {{w|Talk:Malamanteau/Archive 1|1}} and {{w|Talk:Malamanteau/Archive 2|2}} at Wikipedia.com
*{{w|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malamanteau}}
*{{w|File:Malamanteau page history.jpg|Screen capture}} of the deleted history for the "Malamanteau" page from Wikipedia
*[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Malamanteau Wikipedia Log for "Malamanteau"]
*Beutler, William (May 5, 2010) "[http://thewikipedian.net/2010/05/18/much-ado-about-malamanteau/ Much Ado About Malamanteau]". ''The Wikipedian''
*McKean, Erin (May 30, 2010) "[http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/05/30/one_day_wonder/ One Day Wonder]". ''The Boston Globe''
*R.L.G (Nov 4th 2010) "[http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2010/11/neologisms Eggcorn, mashup, malamanteau or other?]". ''The Economonist''
*July 17, 2007 "[http://ask.metafilter.com/67192/How-to-define-this-language-mistake How to define this language mistake?]" - MetaFilter thread with the first usage

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Wikipedia]]
[[Category:CC-BY-SA comics]]
[[Category:Portmanteau‏‎]]

2567: Language Development

2022-01-13T00:38:07Z

Levininja: /* Explaining Terrible Twos */

Talk:2567: Language Development

2022-01-13T00:34:07Z

Levininja:

Has a small, child-size, stick figure been used before? I did not find a category on explainxkcd. This might be an interesting trivia to add. --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.129|198.41.242.129]] 18:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

: There have definitely been kids on xkcd before. For example: [[1145: Sky Color]] (but I'm sure there are others). --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 20:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

:: Other examples are [[674: Natural Parenting]], [[441: Babies]] and [[1650: Baby]] [[User:Kvarts314|Kvarts314]] ([[User talk:Kvarts314|talk]])

Actually words linguists use when they try to talk in very old languages sometimes sound like the things my little son might say between his first perfectly pronounced single words.--[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 18:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Someone needs to say “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”
[[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.151|172.70.206.151]] 18:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking at Wiktionary, I believe the child is saying "[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/milk#Etymology_1 Milk] [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/please#Etymology_1 Please]" See also [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%82mel%C7%B5- Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₂melǵ-] [[User:Bpendragon|Bpendragon]] ([[User talk:Bpendragon|talk]]) 18:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully he won't say the proto-Indo-European word for "bear". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.26|162.158.74.26]] 19:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Pat
:You mean *hrktos? 20:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
:: Oops. I think a brown one ate my IP address.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.92|162.158.187.92]] 20:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The pace of early stage development isn't necessarily an indicator for continued development pacing. I didn't start Proto-Indo-European until I was almost 2, but had completed full vowel shift before second grade. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.73|108.162.237.73]] 21:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
:I corroborate this. I hadn't made many full sentences in Proto-Indo-European until around 4, but by 3rd grade I had fully changed to modern english. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.215|172.70.126.215]] 23:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Though the explanation eventually touches on this (perhaps multiple editors got in there and shuffled this nearer the end) I believe it should really have ''started'' with something about how Language Development (in a child) is being confused/conflated wifh Language Development (in human (pre)history). It would get straight to the point, I believe. It could then continue to go the further mile in getting into the deconstruction of it all. I'm leaving it unedited by myself, for now, because it deserves a lot more text-shuffling and refining than I can promise to do myself right now, but putting this idea out there to pique the interest of other possible editors. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.79|172.70.85.79]] 21:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
:I have done this now. Originally I and someone else both submitted a really long description at the same time and my "merge" in my limited time was just to put my text after his. Now that I have more time, I've gone through and tried to weave the two in a more logical way, and have it starting with the basic explanation of the joke. I'm new to contributing at this level so if someone wants to check it over to make sure it looks good, feel free. [[User:Levininja|Levininja]] ([[User talk:Levininja|talk]]) 00:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

2567: Language Development

2022-01-13T00:29:51Z

Levininja: /* Moving the main explanation of the joke to the beginning, concurring with suggestion made by 172.70.85.79, and then just merging everything in a better way */

2567: Language Development

2022-01-13T00:15:40Z

Levininja: /* Fixed so it no longer claims iambic pentameter is a dialect */

{{comic
| number = 2567
| date = January 12, 2022
| title = Language Development
| image = language_development.png
| titletext = The worst is the Terrible Twos, when they're always throwing things and shrieking, "forsooth, to bed thou shalt not take me, cur!"
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a AUTOMATON - What the baby hast sayeth? Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Rather than learning to speak normally{{citation needed}}, this baby is going through all of the theoretical stages of the evolution of the English language, from Proto-Indo-European to Germanic to Old English.
{{w|Proto-Indo-European_language|Proto-Indo-European}} is a theorized common ancestor of the Indo-European language family. {{w|Proto-Germanic_language|Proto-Germanic}} is a reconstructed language formerly spoken in Iron Age Scandinavia. It developed out of Proto-Indo-European and is the common ancestor for all {{w|Germanic languages}}. Old English developed out of Proto-Germanic. Modern English developed out of Old English with many additions from French (which comes from a different branch of the Indo-European language family).

In linguistics, reconstructed words from proto-languages are commonly marked with an asterisk (*) to show that the word forms are not attested by any historical sources but created as a proposed ancestor word. Somehow, the baby seems to actually pronounce these asterisks. The baby says the Proto-Indo-European roots that the words "milk" and "please" are derived from.

Some sounds babies make are hard to interpret.{{citation needed}} However, humans have a tendency to recognize known things and patterns. They see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. Thus, a parent familiar with Proto-Indo-European may falsely hear their baby speak Proto-Indo-European by misinterpreting unintelligible sounds.

The conventional meaning of {{w|Language development}} is the process by which infants begin to talk, that is to understand and produce intelligible speech. The field of {{w|Language acquisition}} seeks to understand how baby humans are able to rapidly comprehend, internalize, and begin producing a new language so rapidly.

A field that is normally only seen as tangentially related is {{w|Historical linguistics}}, which studies how languages evolved from each other throughout tens of thousands of years. The {{w|Proto-Indo-European language}} is the theorized common ancestor of all Indo-European languages. When linguists in the field of {{w|Comparative linguistics}} notice similarities in different languages (say English and German), they create theoretical ancestral proto-languages to theorize what common ancestor that the two languages had in common. For English, German, and other Teutonic languages, this would be "Proto-Germanic". Thus the proto-language of Proto-Indo-European has been proposed to explain the similarities between most of the languages in Europe as well as several languages spoken in the Middle East, India, and regions between.

When Megan describes her baby's speech as progressing from Proto-Indo-European to Germanic to Old English, she is describing the languages that are in the theoretical chain from Proto-Indo-European leading up to Modern English today, as if the baby is progressing through the history of language evolution. In doing so, Megan seems to be applying {{w|Recapitulation theory}} from biology to language development. In reality, babies develop their language faculties by mimicking what they hear around them, starting with {{w|Babbling}}.

Perhaps this is an alternate universe where every baby has to gradually develop their language skills along a historical path rather than a child-developmental one, until they reach the ultimately developed modern language of their parents (in this case of Modern English).

In the title text, Randall describes a 2 year old child as speaking in {{w|iambic pentameter}} and in Elizabethan English, a dialect of modern English used by Shakespeare more than 400 years ago.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Megan and Cueball stand to the right of the frame, discussing her baby. The baby has dark hair and sits on the left side of a table in an elevated baby chair.]
:Megan: He's only 1, so he still mostly speaks proto-Indo-European.
:Megan: But we've heard a few Germanic words already, so Old English can't be far off.
:Cueball: They progress so fast!
:Baby: *melg-
:Baby: *pl(e)hk-

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Language]]

2567: Language Development

2022-01-13T00:14:14Z

Levininja: /* Fixed one reference to proto-indo-european that should be indo-european. And fixed typos. */

{{comic
| number = 2567
| date = January 12, 2022
| title = Language Development
| image = language_development.png
| titletext = The worst is the Terrible Twos, when they're always throwing things and shrieking, "forsooth, to bed thou shalt not take me, cur!"
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a AUTOMATON - What the baby hast sayeth? Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Rather than learning to speak normally{{citation needed}}, this baby is going through all of the theoretical stages of the evolution of the English language, from Proto-Indo-European to Germanic to Old English.
{{w|Proto-Indo-European_language|Proto-Indo-European}} is a theorized common ancestor of the Indo-European language family. {{w|Proto-Germanic_language|Proto-Germanic}} is a reconstructed language formerly spoken in Iron Age Scandinavia. It developed out of Proto-Indo-European and is the common ancestor for all {{w|Germanic languages}}. Old English developed out of Proto-Germanic. Modern English developed out of Old English with many additions from French (which comes from a different branch of the Indo-European language family).

In linguistics, reconstructed words from proto-languages are commonly marked with an asterisk (*) to show that the word forms are not attested by any historical sources but created as a proposed ancestor word. Somehow, the baby seems to actually pronounce these asterisks. The baby says the Proto-Indo-European roots that the words "milk" and "please" are derived from.

Some sounds babies make are hard to interpret.{{citation needed}} However, humans have a tendency to recognize known things and patterns. They see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. Thus, a parent familiar with Proto-Indo-European may falsely hear their baby speak Proto-Indo-European by misinterpreting unintelligible sounds.

The conventional meaning of {{w|Language development}} is the process by which infants begin to talk, that is to understand and produce intelligible speech. The field of {{w|Language acquisition}} seeks to understand how baby humans are able to rapidly comprehend, internalize, and begin producing a new language so rapidly.

A field that is normally only seen as tangentially related is {{w|Historical linguistics}}, which studies how languages evolved from each other throughout tens of thousands of years. The {{w|Proto-Indo-European language}} is the theorized common ancestor of all Indo-European languages. When linguists in the field of {{w|Comparative linguistics}} notice similarities in different languages (say English and German), they create theoretical ancestral proto-languages to theorize what common ancestor that the two languages had in common. For English, German, and other Teutonic languages, this would be "Proto-Germanic". Thus the proto-language of Proto-Indo-European has been proposed to explain the similarities between most of the languages in Europe as well as several languages spoken in the Middle East, India, and regions between.

When Megan describes her baby's speech as progressing from Proto-Indo-European to Germanic to Old English, she is describing the languages that are in the theoretical chain from Proto-Indo-European leading up to Modern English today, as if the baby is progressing through the history of language evolution. In doing so, Megan seems to be applying {{w|Recapitulation theory}} from biology to language development. In reality, babies develop their language faculties by mimicking what they hear around them, starting with {{w|Babbling}}.

Perhaps this is an alternate universe where every baby has to gradually develop their language skills along a historical path rather than a child-developmental one, until they reach the ultimately developed modern language of their parents (in this case of Modern English).

In the title text, Randall describes a 2 year old child as speaking Elizabethan English in {{w|iambic pentameter}}, a dialect of modern English used by Shakespeare more than 400 years ago.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Megan and Cueball stand to the right of the frame, discussing her baby. The baby has dark hair and sits on the left side of a table in an elevated baby chair.]
:Megan: He's only 1, so he still mostly speaks proto-Indo-European.
:Megan: But we've heard a few Germanic words already, so Old English can't be far off.
:Cueball: They progress so fast!
:Baby: *melg-
:Baby: *pl(e)hk-

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Language]]

2567: Language Development

2022-01-12T18:59:37Z

Levininja: /* Explaining the two fields that are being conflated for comedic effect */

{{comic
| number = 2567
| date = January 12, 2022
| title = Language Development
| image = language_development.png
| titletext = The worst is the Terrible Twos, when they're always throwing things and shrieking, "forsooth, to bed thou shalt not take me, cur!"
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a AUTOMATON - What the baby hast sayeth? Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Rather than learning to speak normally, this baby is going through all of the stages of the evolution of the English language, from proto-Indo-European to Germanic to Old English.
{{w|Proto-Indo-European_language|Proto-Indo-European}} is a theorized common ancestor of the Indo-European language family. {{w|Proto-Germanic_language|Proto-Germanic}} is a reconstructed language formerly spoken in Iron Age Scandinaia. It developed out of proto-Indo-European and is the common ancestor for all {{w|Germanic languages}}. Old English and later English developed out of Germanic.

In writing, reconstructed words from the Proto-Indo-European language are commonly marked with an asterisk (*). Somehow, the baby seems to actually pronounce these asterisks. The baby says the Proto-Indo-European roots that the words "milk" and "please" are derived from.

Some sounds babies make are hard to interpret.{{citation needed}} However, humans have a tendency to recognize known things and patterns. They see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. Thus, a parent familiar with proto-Indo-European may falsely hear their baby speak proto-Indo-European by misinterpreting unintelligible sounds.

The conventional meaning of {{w|Language development}} is the process by which infants begin to talk, that is to understand and produce intelligible speech. The field of {{w|Language acquisition}} seeks to understand how baby humans are able to rapidly comprehend, internalize, and begin producing a new language so rapidly.

A field that is normally only seen as tangentially related is {{w|Historical linguistics}}, which studies how languages evolved from each other throughout tens of thousands of years. The {{w|Proto-Indo-European language}} is the theorized common ancestor of all Indo-European languages. When linguists in the field of {{w|Comparative linguistics}} notice similarities in different languages (say English and Germanic), they create theoretical ancestral proto-languages to theorize what common ancestor that the two languages English and German (for example) had in common. Thus the proto-language of Proto-Indo-European has been proposed to explain the similarities between most of the languages in Europe as well as several languages spoken in the Middle East, India, and regions between.

When Megan describes their baby's speech as progressing from Proto-indo-european to Germanic to Old English, she is describing the languages that in the theoretical chain from Proto-indo-european leading up to Modern English today, as if the baby is progressing through the history of language evolution. In reality, babies develop their language faculties by mimicking what they hear around them, starting with {{w|Babbling}}.

Perhaps this is an alternate universe where every baby has to gradually develop their language skills until they reach the ultimately developed language of Modern English, belying an ethnocentric implication that Modern English is somehow an intrinsically a natural end-point of linguistic evolution.

In the title text, Randall describes a 2 year old child as speaking Elizabethan English, a dialect of modern English used by Shakespeare more than 400 years ago.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Megan and Cueball stand to the right of the frame, discussing their baby, Hairy. Hairy sits on the left side of a table in an elevated baby chair.]
:Megan: He's only 1, so he still mostly speaks proto-Indo-European.
:Megan: But we've heard a few Germanic words already, so Old English can't be far off.
:Cueball: They progress so fast!
:Baby Hairy: *melg-
:Baby Hairy: *pl(e)hk-

{{comic discussion}}

2008: Irony Definition

2018-06-19T13:56:25Z

Levininja: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2008
| date = June 18, 2018
| title = Irony Definition
| image = irony_definition.png
| titletext = Can you stop glaring at me like that? It makes me feel really ironic.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|It may or may not be complete - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

People often misuse the word ironic. It's possible that [[Black Hat]] may have just done so, and [[Cueball]] corrected him by explaining the correct definition of ironic. To this, [[Black Hat]] replies that it's ironic how despite [[Cueball]] knowing the definition of ironic, [[Black Hat]] is the one who is happy--again not using the word ironic according to its definition, since being happy wouldn't be the expected result of knowing the definition of a word. Incidentally, it ''is'' somewhat ironic that [[Cueball]] correcting [[Black Hat]]'s behavior only resulted in [[Black Hat]] repeating the same behavior.

Irony is, to quote the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result.” It is often invoked to add intrigue to an otherwise dull anecdote of scenario. Once again quoting Merriam-Webster:

''“Considerable thought is given to what events constitute “true” irony, and the dictionary is often called upon to supply an answer. Here are the facts about how the word irony is used''.

''Irony has two formal uses that are not as common in general prose as its more casual uses. One refers to Socratic irony—a method of revealing an opponent’s ignorance by pretending to be ignorant yourself and asking probing questions. The other refers to dramatic irony or tragic irony—an incongruity between the situation in a drama and the words used by the characters that only the audience can see. Socratic irony is a tool used in debating; dramatic irony is what happens when the audience realizes that Romeo and Juliet’s plans will go awry.''

''The third, and debated, use of irony regards what’s called situational irony. Situational irony involves a striking reversal of what is expected or intended: a person sidesteps a pothole to avoid injury and in doing so steps into another pothole and injures themselves. Critics claim the word irony and ironic as they are generally used (as in, “Isn’t it ironic that you called just as I was planning to call you?”) can only apply to situational irony, and uses like the one above are more properly called coincidence.
''
''The historical record shows that irony and ironic have been used imprecisely for almost 100 years at least, and often to refer to coincidence. This 1939 quote from F. Scott Fitzgerald is typical: "It is an ironic thought that the last picture job I took—against my better judgment—yielded me five thousand dollars five hundred and cost over four thousand in medical attention." Is this true situational irony? It’s debatable.''

''The word irony has come to be applied to events that are merely curious or coincidental, and while some feel this is an incorrect use of the word, it is merely a new one.’''

While the modern use of the word (that is, the one ostensibly used to refer to situational irony but instead used for mere coincidences) may have robbed irony of its rich historical and literary undertones, irony is not a relevant concept to everyday life save for commenting glibly on an ironic situation. Lilliputian quibbles over the correct use of the word help no one.

At long last, after years, [[Black Hat]] expresses an opinion healthy for society, quipping gleefully that it is ironic that [[Cueball]] may have the definition of irony memorized, but Black Hat is happier for not knowing it. In the title text, Cueball is evidently not happy with Black Hat, but the latter responds in a typically victorious fashion, using either the verbal sense of irony (i.e. sarcasm) or the aforementioned incorrect use, which only underscores his point.

==Transcript==
:[Black Hat and Cueball are walking together, with Black Hat walking behind Cueball with his arms spread out. Cueball is visibly upset, as evidenced by the squiggle floating above his head and his balled up fists.]
:Black Hat: It's ironic how '''''you''''' know the definition of irony, yet '''''I'm''''' the one in this conversation who's happy.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

2008: Irony Definition

2018-06-19T13:53:52Z

Levininja: /* Forgot to edit the tag saying the page is incomplete */

{{comic
| number = 2008
| date = June 18, 2018
| title = Irony Definition
| image = irony_definition.png
| titletext = Can you stop glaring at me like that? It makes me feel really ironic.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|It may or may not be complete - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

People often misuse the word ironic. It's possible that [[Black Hat]] may have just done so, and [[Cueball]] corrected him by explaining the correct definition of ironic. To this, [[Black Hat]] replies that it's ironic how despite [[Cueball]] knowing the definition of ironic, [[Black Hat]] is the one who is happy--again not using the word ironic according to its definition, since whoever is happy wouldn't be the expected result of knowing the definition of a word. Incidentally, it ''is'' somewhat ironic that [[Cueball]] correcting [[Black Hat]]'s behavior only resulted in [[Black Hat]] repeating the same behavior.

Irony is, to quote the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result.” It is often invoked to add intrigue to an otherwise dull anecdote of scenario. Once again quoting Merriam-Webster:

''“Considerable thought is given to what events constitute “true” irony, and the dictionary is often called upon to supply an answer. Here are the facts about how the word irony is used''.

''Irony has two formal uses that are not as common in general prose as its more casual uses. One refers to Socratic irony—a method of revealing an opponent’s ignorance by pretending to be ignorant yourself and asking probing questions. The other refers to dramatic irony or tragic irony—an incongruity between the situation in a drama and the words used by the characters that only the audience can see. Socratic irony is a tool used in debating; dramatic irony is what happens when the audience realizes that Romeo and Juliet’s plans will go awry.''

''The third, and debated, use of irony regards what’s called situational irony. Situational irony involves a striking reversal of what is expected or intended: a person sidesteps a pothole to avoid injury and in doing so steps into another pothole and injures themselves. Critics claim the word irony and ironic as they are generally used (as in, “Isn’t it ironic that you called just as I was planning to call you?”) can only apply to situational irony, and uses like the one above are more properly called coincidence.
''
''The historical record shows that irony and ironic have been used imprecisely for almost 100 years at least, and often to refer to coincidence. This 1939 quote from F. Scott Fitzgerald is typical: "It is an ironic thought that the last picture job I took—against my better judgment—yielded me five thousand dollars five hundred and cost over four thousand in medical attention." Is this true situational irony? It’s debatable.''

''The word irony has come to be applied to events that are merely curious or coincidental, and while some feel this is an incorrect use of the word, it is merely a new one.’''

While the modern use of the word (that is, the one ostensibly used to refer to situational irony but instead used for mere coincidences) may have robbed irony of its rich historical and literary undertones, irony is not a relevant concept to everyday life save for commenting glibly on an ironic situation. Lilliputian quibbles over the correct use of the word help no one.

At long last, after years, [[Black Hat]] expresses an opinion healthy for society, quipping gleefully that it is ironic that [[Cueball]] may have the definition of irony memorized, but Black Hat is happier for not knowing it. In the title text, Cueball is evidently not happy with Black Hat, but the latter responds in a typically victorious fashion, using either the verbal sense of irony (i.e. sarcasm) or the aforementioned incorrect use, which only underscores his point.

==Transcript==
:[Black Hat and Cueball are walking together, with Black Hat walking behind Cueball with his arms spread out. Cueball is visibly upset, as evidenced by the squiggle floating above his head and his balled up fists.]
:Black Hat: It's ironic how '''''you''''' know the definition of irony, yet '''''I'm''''' the one in this conversation who's happy.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

2008: Irony Definition

2018-06-19T13:52:31Z

Levininja: /* I'm putting in what I think the most likely explanation is; which is that black hat is not using the word ironic correctly, cueball is correcting him, and he responds by again not using the word correctly. */

{{comic
| number = 2008
| date = June 18, 2018
| title = Irony Definition
| image = irony_definition.png
| titletext = Can you stop glaring at me like that? It makes me feel really ironic.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|It's IRONIC how incomplete this explanation is - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

People often misuse the word ironic. It's possible that [[Black Hat]] may have just done so, and [[Cueball]] corrected him by explaining the correct definition of ironic. To this, [[Black Hat]] replies that it's ironic how despite [[Cueball]] knowing the definition of ironic, [[Black Hat]] is the one who is happy--again not using the word ironic according to its definition, since whoever is happy wouldn't be the expected result of knowing the definition of a word. Incidentally, it ''is'' somewhat ironic that [[Cueball]] correcting [[Black Hat]]'s behavior only resulted in [[Black Hat]] repeating the same behavior.

Irony is, to quote the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result.” It is often invoked to add intrigue to an otherwise dull anecdote of scenario. Once again quoting Merriam-Webster:

''“Considerable thought is given to what events constitute “true” irony, and the dictionary is often called upon to supply an answer. Here are the facts about how the word irony is used''.

''Irony has two formal uses that are not as common in general prose as its more casual uses. One refers to Socratic irony—a method of revealing an opponent’s ignorance by pretending to be ignorant yourself and asking probing questions. The other refers to dramatic irony or tragic irony—an incongruity between the situation in a drama and the words used by the characters that only the audience can see. Socratic irony is a tool used in debating; dramatic irony is what happens when the audience realizes that Romeo and Juliet’s plans will go awry.''

''The third, and debated, use of irony regards what’s called situational irony. Situational irony involves a striking reversal of what is expected or intended: a person sidesteps a pothole to avoid injury and in doing so steps into another pothole and injures themselves. Critics claim the word irony and ironic as they are generally used (as in, “Isn’t it ironic that you called just as I was planning to call you?”) can only apply to situational irony, and uses like the one above are more properly called coincidence.
''
''The historical record shows that irony and ironic have been used imprecisely for almost 100 years at least, and often to refer to coincidence. This 1939 quote from F. Scott Fitzgerald is typical: "It is an ironic thought that the last picture job I took—against my better judgment—yielded me five thousand dollars five hundred and cost over four thousand in medical attention." Is this true situational irony? It’s debatable.''

''The word irony has come to be applied to events that are merely curious or coincidental, and while some feel this is an incorrect use of the word, it is merely a new one.’''

While the modern use of the word (that is, the one ostensibly used to refer to situational irony but instead used for mere coincidences) may have robbed irony of its rich historical and literary undertones, irony is not a relevant concept to everyday life save for commenting glibly on an ironic situation. Lilliputian quibbles over the correct use of the word help no one.

At long last, after years, [[Black Hat]] expresses an opinion healthy for society, quipping gleefully that it is ironic that [[Cueball]] may have the definition of irony memorized, but Black Hat is happier for not knowing it. In the title text, Cueball is evidently not happy with Black Hat, but the latter responds in a typically victorious fashion, using either the verbal sense of irony (i.e. sarcasm) or the aforementioned incorrect use, which only underscores his point.

==Transcript==
:[Black Hat and Cueball are walking together, with Black Hat walking behind Cueball with his arms spread out. Cueball is visibly upset, as evidenced by the squiggle floating above his head and his balled up fists.]
:Black Hat: It's ironic how '''''you''''' know the definition of irony, yet '''''I'm''''' the one in this conversation who's happy.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]