Editing 1985: Meteorologist

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 28: Line 28:
 
===Questions from the linguist meteorologist===
 
===Questions from the linguist meteorologist===
  
When they get back on air, the new meteorologist [[Blondie]] steps in. The management enquires (on air) to make sure she is not also a mathematician. She denies this but adds that she does have a linguistics degree, which the management thinks is fine, and thus believes they have prevented the same problem. However, Blondie quickly proves them wrong, as she goes into a linguistic tangent about the true meaning of the word "it" as referring to the weather. After one panel of this the management calls for security again.
+
When they get back on air again a new meteorologist, [[Blondie]], steps in. The management enquires (on air) to make sure she is not also a mathematician. She states no, but tells that she has a linguistics degree, which the management thinks is fine, and thus believes they have prevented the problem with Cueball. However, this proves to be in vain, as Blondie goes into a tangent once more but from a linguistics standpoint, rather than a mathematical one, detailing the true meaning of the word "it" as referring to the weather. After one panel of this the management calls for security again.
  
While, at the most basic level, human speech is broken into subject, object, and verb; for some reason in English we are capable of producing and comprehending speech without objects or verbs, but there is a certain "resistance" to speech without a subject. If you were in the passenger seat of a car and spotted some deer nearby, you could simply say "Deer." rather than "There is a deer over there", deer being the subject of the sentence. However, if you noticed that it had begun to rain, you could not simply say "Raining." on its own. Feel how that sentence just seems weird? Hence we have developed the tendency to use the filler word "it"; despite the fact that when we say "It's raining.", the "it" is not a reference to the clouds producing the rain, but the general state of the rainfall around us. (McWhorter, John. Understanding Linguistics: The Science of Language. https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/understanding-linguistics-the-science-of-language.html)
+
While, at the most basic level, human speech is broken into subject, object, and verb; for some reason we are capable of producing and comprehending speech without both objects or verbs, but in English there is a certain "resistance" to speech without a subject. Thus if you are in the passenger seat of a car going down the highway and happened to see some deer in the trees nearby, you could simply say "Deer.", rather than "there is a deer over there", deer being the subject of the sentence. However, if you noticed that it had begun to rain, you could not simply say "Raining." on its own. Feel how that sentence just seems weird? Hence we have developed the tendency to use the filler word "it" despite the fact that when we say "It's raining." the "it" is not a reference to the clouds producing the rain, but the general state of the rainfall around us. (McWhorter, John. Understanding Linguistics: The Science of Language. https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/understanding-linguistics-the-science-of-language.html )
  
 
The first question is again quite harmless, and both possible answers ("it" being a {{w|dummy pronoun}} or referring to the weather) are valid answers, but the second question is much more disturbing.
 
The first question is again quite harmless, and both possible answers ("it" being a {{w|dummy pronoun}} or referring to the weather) are valid answers, but the second question is much more disturbing.

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)