Talk:1535: Words for Pets

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 19:00, 8 June 2015 by 108.162.210.138 (talk)
Jump to: navigation, search

I skipped the first step by naming my cat "Cat". On the plus side, even in the third year I was still mostly calling her by her name. --108.162.254.134 08:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

My cat is also named "Cat". Then again, I call all cats "Cat". 108.162.210.138 19:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure this is relevant enough to include, but there's a trope about that 188.114.111.224 11:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I interpreted this slightly differently. In the first year, the pet is fresh and new, and you put the effort in to call it by its name. As time goes on, you get sloppier about it. In addition, I believe he missed a ring from it: Expletives. Within a year of having a new cat, I was calling it more by expletives than its name. Drmouse (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the explanation. The comic is about words used to refer to the pet, i.e. to name the pet when talking to someone else, not to talk to the pet. For instance "I forgot to feed Lassie" might later become "I forgot to feed the dog", then "I forgot to feed the damn thing" or whatever. Am I the only one to understand "refer" like this? Zetfr 16:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

In my household at least, we use the animal's species as its name. For example, instead of "Have you fed Lassie?", we may say " Have you fed Dog?". I think is what Randall is implying. 141.101.98.29 17:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Since he begins to refer to the animal in the animals language, I would say that only makes sense if he talks to the animal. However the way the caption is phrased it could be understood the way he talks about the animal. So I think it is impossible to say that one explanation is correct and the other is wrong. Maybe that should be mentioned in explain. --Kynde (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)