(Bad)Joke Appreciation Corner


Confuzzled

Active Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Messages
99
What do you call a deer with no eyes? No idea (no-eye deer)

What do you call a deer with no eyes and no legs?
Still no idea.
What do you call a deer with no eyes and no legs and no ears?
Anything you like, it can't hear you.

(There is a version from the 'blue book', but I'm not posting that here)

Edit: dear -> deer.
 
Last edited:

λ the β-Redex Reducer

β-Redex Reducing Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2016
Messages
1,011
Age
51
Location
Lambda Centre
First the ele and then the phant.
First take out the elephant, then put in the Giraffe.
The giraffe, because he was in the refrigerator.
Just swim through it, the crocodiles are all at king lion's meeting.
 

λ the β-Redex Reducer

β-Redex Reducing Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2016
Messages
1,011
Age
51
Location
Lambda Centre
I refer the honourable gentleman to the Wikipedia article on typeface anatomy.
That article is about the anatomy of the symbols, not about their semantics. The P does not contain an I, it contains a stroke, just like the I does. But the I is more than just a stroke, it is a stroke with semantics added to it. It is like how x and × have the same anatomy but are very different thanks to their semantics. If the anatomy was all there is then x and × would have been the same. But they are not and people who use x instead of × are barbarians. Do not be like them, respect semantics.

And referring to the ghost of René Magritte, I will say that the name of the Pyra is not Pyra.
I do not understand this one at all. What do you mean?
 

Binky

Death's Steed
Staff member
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
6,971
Location
16A (TO)
notapipe.png
 

Confuzzled

Active Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Messages
99
Pyra is a good name. It starts with an I.
I agree that Pyra is a good name. It does start with a vertical stroke.
That article is about the anatomy of the symbols, not about their semantics. The P does not contain an I, it contains a stroke, just like the I does. But the I is more than just a stroke, it is a stroke with semantics added to it. It is like how x and × have the same anatomy but are very different thanks to their semantics. If the anatomy was all there is then x and × would have been the same. But they are not and people who use x instead of × are barbarians. Do not be like them, respect semantics.
If one assumes that the symbols/glyphs are read from left to right, then the first stroke of the first symbol/glyph of 'P' is a vertical stroke, and so is that of 'I'. It just so happens the last stroke of the symbol 'I' is the same vertical stroke that is the starting stroke. So in a sense, they both start with an example of the same type of thing. How you interpret the stroke is up to you.

Your joke was a variant of "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious is a very long word. Spell 'it'." beloved of a certain children, which is a joke because it plays with mixing up a reference to a thing with the thing itself - or as a programmer might say, treating a pointer as an absolute address or vice versa (Or, as I learned, the difference between passing an argument to a function by value or by reference).

And of course, 'Pyra' is not the name of the Pyra. 'Pyra' is simply a set of symbols, which could be executed as ink on paper, a lack of electrons hitting the phosphor on a cathode-ray tube, or chiselled out of/inscribed into a lump of granite. The idea of reading a set of symbols and understanding them to refer to an intangible thing is so natural and everyday, we are surprised when the magic of the process is exposed to our view again. Children have to work hard to learn it. Perhaps the 'name of the Pyra' is, in fact, a sound which a set of symbols allows us to approximate in our heads - but even here, we know that the sounds are ephemeral, and different people will produce subtly different versions, so the Platonic ideal of ' the name of the Pyra' is, in the end, intangible. It could even be like the secret names of cats [reference], known only to the Pyra itself, or perhaps, EvilDragon.

But, to come back to semantics, it is all based around playing with the referrer and referent and exploiting the ambiguities of language, topics playfully dealt with in passing by Douglas Hofstadter in GEB, and Raymond Smullyan in What is the Name of this Book? (both of which I thoroughly recommend).

pr
r

a
N5

Z1
C2
 
Top