Can't read it wrong

[benhall.1]

I nearly said "just about everything" but then realised that that could provoke the response, "Oh? What didn't you agree with?"

Oh, my. First, that was very nice of you. Thank you. Second, at the risk of sounding ungrateful or perhaps even a little sarcastic (such is truly not my intent), what did you almost/sorta/maybe disagree with in a partial/momentary/unsure fashion?

And this is precisely why I changed what I had been planning to write. I don't rightly know the answer. There's nothing very concrete I can put my finger on. It's an interesting thing, but, despite your very clear writing, there are still areas which are open to interpretation. This leads me to think, for instance, that it may be that I don't quite agree with your last point. Sometimes interviewers are right to leave something go, and manage to do so in such a way that the listener can hear clearly that the politician concerned has not answered the question. Then people can make their own judgment.

Hmmm ... see, I'm not even sure that I agree with my own point there ...

[walrii]

I nearly said "just about everything" but then realised that that could provoke the response, "Oh? What didn't you agree with?"

Oh, my. First, that was very nice of you. Thank you. Second, at the risk of sounding ungrateful or perhaps even a little sarcastic (such is truly not my intent), what did you almost/sorta/maybe disagree with in a partial/momentary/unsure fashion?

And this is precisely why I changed what I had been planning to write. I don't rightly know the answer. There's nothing very concrete I can put my finger on. It's an interesting thing, but, despite your very clear writing, there are still areas which are open to interpretation. This leads me to think, for instance, that it may be that I don't quite agree with your last point. Sometimes interviewers are right to leave something go, and manage to do so in such a way that the listener can hear clearly that the politician concerned has not answered the question. Then people can make their own judgment.

Hmmm ... see, I'm not even sure that I agree with my own point there ...

No worries. I was actually just having a bit of fun with the words in my reply to your reply.

[benhall.1]

No worries. I was actually just having a bit of fun with the words in my reply to your reply.

I thought you were.

[benhall.1]

OK. Here's one from a current article on the BBC's main news website, talking about the use of humour in an office situation. Can anyone translate this for me? It is completely beyond me. I've copied and pasted, by the way, so it is exactly as written, apart from the two explanatory words from me in square brackets:

It [a study] found that a worker or boss who successfully use humour is seen as both confidence and competence, which in turn increases his or her status.

[walrii]

OK. Here's one from a current article on the BBC's main news website, talking about the use of humour in an office situation. Can anyone translate this for me? It is completely beyond me. I've copied and pasted, by the way, so it is exactly as written, apart from the two explanatory words from me in square brackets:

It [a study] found that a worker or boss who successfully use humour is seen as both confidence and competence, which in turn increases his or her status.

I'll take a stab at this: "A study has shown that a person, worker or boss, who successfully uses humour in the workplace ["successfully" is not defined] will be seen by others in the workplace as a confident and competent individual. According to the same study, being seen by others as confident and competent also raises one's status in the workplace." ["Status" is also undefined but I assume the author means social status. In retrospect, perhaps "success" is defined by the author as having "status" in the workplace.]

Tongue firmly in cheek: Since the author is talking about "humour" and not "humor," perhaps the difficulty arises from seeing what effect "humour" could possibly have in the workplace.

[benhall.1]

OK. Here's one from a current article on the BBC's main news website, talking about the use of humour in an office situation. Can anyone translate this for me? It is completely beyond me. I've copied and pasted, by the way, so it is exactly as written, apart from the two explanatory words from me in square brackets:

It [a study] found that a worker or boss who successfully use humour is seen as both confidence and competence, which in turn increases his or her status.

I'll take a stab at this: "A study has shown that a person, worker or boss, who successfully uses humour in the workplace ["successfully" is not defined] will be seen by others in the workplace as a confident and competent individual. According to the same study, being seen by others as confident and competent also raises one's status in the workplace." ["Status" is also undefined but I assume the author means social status. In retrospect, perhaps "success" is defined by the author as having "status" in the workplace.]

Tongue firmly in cheek: Since the author is talking about "humour" and not "humor," perhaps the difficulty arises from seeing what effect "humour" could possibly have in the workplace.

You may be right. But still I find myself puzzling. Why did the writer choose the multi-person "use"? Who are they talking about? Surely it can't be the "person, worker or boss," because that's just one person, not more than one. (Possibly one chosen out of sever, but still, one.) So I get stumped for a meaning straight away. And, if by some weird chance, they are talking about more than one person, how can these multiple persons apparently embody "confidence and competence" and what would it mean to embody those characteristics? But then, who is this apparently heretofore unmentioned person referred to in the phrase "his or her" at the end?

Honestly, although I can see that in some parallel universe, illiterate fools may have meant what you have interpreted, walrii, surely this could not be the case with the BBC? So what can they possibly mean?

Maybe you see my dilemma ...

[kkrell]

It [a study] found that a worker or boss who successfully use humour is seen as both confidence and competence, which in turn increases his or her status.

I'll take my own stab at that vague statement.

"It [a study] found that a person (a worker or a boss) who can successfully use humour, is seen as having both confidence and competence. This results in others perceiving that person's status as being higher than if they were seen to appear to be humousless duds."

Now I understand why many of the BBC articles on their website are videos only, because their "journalists" can no longer write to be understood. I dislike having to watch (sometimes lengthy) videos to extract what could be concisely presented information. My own preference is for concise text.

[walrii]

I dislike having to watch (sometimes lengthy) videos to extract what could be concisely presented information. My own preference is for concise text.

HEAR, HEAR! Well said, well said.

[kkrell]

HEAR, HEAR! Well said, well said.

Too wordy.

[walrii]

HEAR, HEAR! Well said, well said.

Too wordy.

Wait...give me a minute...there's a snappy comeback here somewhere...

[Nanohedron]

From an article on Ina Garten:

But it also looks like she enjoys the occasional Aperol sprtiz.

Up to now I had never heard of Aperol, much less a sprtiz. I'm such a peasant.

[walrii]

From an article on Ina Garten:

But it also looks like she enjoys the occasional Aperol sprtiz.

Up to now I had never heard of Aperol, much less a sprtiz. I'm such a peasant.

Sigh, I've never heard of Ina Garten. Does that make me a pheasant?

[Nanohedron]

I've never heard of Ina Garten. Does that make me a pheasant?

She's a regular on the cable Food Network with a show called The Barefoot Contessa. Think Martha Stewart without the aggression. But where a nice Jewish girl from Brooklyn gets off suggesting she's Italian nobility is beyond me.

You don't want to be a pheasant around her. She would grab you before you could squawk, chicken-fry a crust around you, braise you in sour cream, white wine and mushrooms, and then feed you to her husband. I don't really watch her much at all - too much in the way of twee flower arrangements and intimate party planning - but that gal can cook.

Aperol. Sounds like a hair product made from chimpanzee fat. And I still don't know what a sprtiz is. Sounds vaguely Croatian, though. Maybe it's a pastry.

[benhall.1]

I've never heard of Ina Garten. Does that make me a pheasant?

She's a regular on the cable Food Network with a show called The Barefoot Contessa. Think Martha Stewart without the aggression. But where a nice Jewish girl from Brooklyn gets off suggesting she's Italian nobility is beyond me.

You don't want to be a pheasant around her. She would grab you before you could squawk, chicken-fry a crust around you, braise you in sour cream, white wine and mushrooms, and then feed you to her husband. I don't really watch her much at all - too much in the way of twee flower arrangements and intimate party planning - but that gal can cook.

Aperol. Sounds like a hair product made from chimpanzee fat. And I still don't know what a sprtiz is. Sounds vaguely Croatian, though. Maybe it's a pastry.

As happens sometimes, I can't tell how serious you are. I guess the article mis-spelled "spritz", which has become a hugely popular drink here in the UK since Campari bought Aperol in 2003. I have a bottle of Aperol (and a bottle of Campari, as it happens) beside me as I write. It's not yet 6:30 in the morning here, so I won't be having a spritz just yet.

[walrii]

As happens sometimes, I can't tell how serious you are.

In the Poststructural Pub, I generally err towards "not serious at all" when assessing intent. Especially with Nano. BION, the word "pheasant" in my own post was a deliberate attempt to see what response I'd get. Nano rose to the bait in fine fashion with another enjoyable post. My spell checker kept screaming "but you're not a Bird! (yes, it capitalized bird), so I stuffed a sock in it and duct taped it to the wall. I hate ugly wall hangings.