In order for "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!" to be funny, you need to understand a) the perception that the preceding dialogue is indeed snippy, b) the understanding that the lead-up line is a gross exaggeration, and c) the knowledge of what the Spanish Inquisition was, and why they are, in fact, unexpected. The primary punch line relies on the knowledge of the fact that "I didn't expect the bloody Spanish Inquisition" is a snippy, commonplace response to somebody's becoming overreacted to something. Now, you couldn't quantify something like the humorous value inherent in the Spanish Inquisition Sketch, and here's why. So the joke is subjective in terms of who it appeals to. They and their fans showed that you can take something unexpected and, by repeating it, make it more expected and therefore less funny, subjectively, over time. Going along with your definition before, the one regarding that study, you need to realize that there is no way of quantifying the unexpected. So you're saying that something can be objective subject to its relationship with something else.
When I say something can be objectively funny, what I mean is that something can be objectively novel or broken in relation to an existing mental model, whether or not anyone else realizes it." "All humor comes from something being novel or broken relative to a set of existing mental models. But can it be objectively funny, in sort of a mathematical sense? I don't see why not. Is this funny? Clearly it can't be subjectively funny to anyone, because the humor is relative to a belief that no person holds. Imagine if you will something being novel or broken relative to a mental model that no one actually holds. So, can something be funny independently of humans? When I say something can be objectively funny, what I mean is that something can be objectively novel or broken in relation to an existing mental model, whether or not anyone else realizes it. funny? As in, if the entire human race disappeared and no other beings capable of abstract thought existed, certain things would have the qualities of funny?"Īll humor comes from something being novel or broken relative to a set of existing mental models. So our collective agreement on what the word means doesn't differ from the dictionary definition because it comes from some platonic ideal, but rather the definition in the dictionary is wrong because of a quirk in the way dictionaries are made. (For sufficiently large definitions of something.) And if I asked you whether or not a fact was the same as an idea, you would agree that it was not. But I think when we talk about, for example, an idea, there is some consensus that we are talking about a mental model of the way something works, the way something could work, or the way something has worked previously.
"Do words exist somewhere, true, pure, fixed in meaning, waiting to be used" However, your use of the word "funny" in the first paragraph to mean "humor," and then in the third paragraph to mean "a little off" is actually quite clever, as you were discussing novel breakages and the unexpected ways in which words acquire new meanings. Who tries to avoid argument on the internet? You are no sage. For example, I know the Mona Lisa is popularly meaningful, and I acknowledge that, but I in particular am unmoved. I think your distinction between objective and subjective is really the distinction between popular and particular. funny? As in, if the entire human race disappeared and no other beings capable of abstract thought existed, certain things would have the qualities of funny?Īlso, "there are certain words that are used differently than what they actually mean." Huh? What is the inherit meaning of a word? Do words exist somewhere, true, pure, fixed in meaning, waiting to be used- and they are used, horribly, by every passing stranger, growing uglier and more cynical each day as they begin to believe the lies about the true nature of their "meaning?" (Yes, I just conflated linguistics and prostitution.)
0 kommentar(er)
