Half-Baked Conversation

See it here.

Today, Marlene wonders aloud about the grammatical accuracy of a self-evident idiom as if it were a deep philosophical question worth pondering. In this case, the idiom under scrutiny--"(s)he's got brains"--is not one that you would imagine non-native speakers puzzling over, let alone a group of native-speakers. It's not like we're discussing idioms such as "freezing the balls off a brass monkey" or "chewed my head off" after all.

Burl's response is, to say the least, baffling. Not only does he eschew the obvious answer to this question-that-needn't-be-asked, but he embarks on a long, rambling, incoherent journey in which the English language is only a casual observer.

Start with the phrase "plural reference" which is not one you run into in every day conversation. I imagine you might run into it if you were involved in discussions with linguists, or perhaps mathematicians, but in either of those cases I doubt the phrase actually means what Burl thinks it means.

Even granting the probably-intended meaning of that phrase, following it with the preposition "of" rather than "to" ("reference of" vs. "reference to") creates an even greater grammatical faux pas than the one which set this train wreck in motion.

Next, Burl makes reference to an idiom for stupidity, "dumb as rocks," but muddles the entire exercise by applying the idiom in question to a caveman's brain, rather than the caveman himself. Yet another linguistic inconsistency, though in this case no doubt brought on by the fear that, after all of Burl's rambling incoherence, the reader will forget what he was talking about in the first place. So the word "brain" is dropped into the sentence in almost random fashion in a futile attempt to tie things together.

Finally, Burl adds cavemen into the equation for reasons passing understanding. While everyone is doubtless familiar with the phrase "dumb as rocks" in one guise or another, how often does Burl imagine people use it in specific reference to cavemen? The only people who might reasonably discuss cavemen's intelligence on a regular basis probably have jargon a bit more precise than "as rocks" to describe intelligence.

And, as if that were not enough, Dale provides the crowning glory to this passion play with the "Whoa!" of idiotic discovery.

To recap, we have a stupid question masquerading as a deep observation, we have a rambling and incoherent response, and we have someone illogically finding both question and response deeply interesting.

Clearly these folks are stoned.

Mary-ginalia:

• Hey, it's finger-quotin' Burl.
• Burl's man-nipples are a truly disturbing sight.