An odd example of legalese (a criminal or a congressman, and an unwritten comma)

[Hunter, Lynne R CIV SPAWARSYSCEN-PACIFIC, 71700]

-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Brian Hitchcock
      Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:00
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: An odd example of legalese (a criminal or a congressman,
and an unwritten comma)

---------------------- Information from the mail header
-----------------------
     American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Poster:       Brian Hitchcock <brianhi at SKECHERS.COM>
Subject:      Re: An odd example of legalese  (a criminal or a
congressman,
              and an unwritten comma)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------

Lynne Hunter wrote:
This reminds me of the humorous exchange in which a mother, teacher, or
some such authority figure asks a disobedient child something like: "Do
you want to grow up to be a criminal or a Congressman?"
And the kid replies something like: "Sounds good to me!"  Does anybody
know the exact example?
---------------------------------------------------------
I never heard that joke before, but as I began reading it, I was
anticipating the punch line to be "Of course not!" (or maybe "Hell,
no!")
I could also imagine a punch line that construes the OR as disjunctive:
"What's the difference?"

I would like to point out that this joke actually works in print because
of the timing nuance of an omitted-from-print, but possibly voiced,
comma,
which, had it been printed, would have dulled the written joke, if not
spoiled it altogether:
.. Do you want to grow up to be a criminal, or a congressman?
This is the flipside to the superfluous presence of a written comma,
which
literally makes the joke in the story of the panda  who eats, shoots and
leaves  (kudos to another Lynne. Lynne Truss)

Brian Hitchcock
Torrance, CA

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

Right...to all the above. The original example---which I wish I could
remember---was rather more entertaining than my pale replica, and might
even have had a punch line of the "Of course not!" or "Hell, no!"
variety, although I do seem to recall that the retort was affirmative
rather than negative.

Yes, would-be wits (particularly in cases of pretended misunderstanding)
are constrained by the medium (oral or written) in which the straight
line is delivered. I'm sure I don't need to add---but will,
anyway---that it's not always the _written_ form of the language that
provides an advantage to the respondent. For example, just as the
writer's idiosyncrasies in punctuation, penmanship, word processing, or
spelling can benefit the wit, so, too, can the speaker's
mispronunciation, heavy accent, inadvertent pause to gasp for breath, or
vulnerability to being interrupted before the speaker's thought is
finished. What's clear in speech may be ambiguous in writing, and vice
versa. Of course the wag can also make use of the malapropisms and
grammatical errors that can occur in either medium, as well as the
ubiquitous vagueness and ambiguity of language in general.

Brief digression: Your discussion of commas and ambiguity brought to
mind Robert Thornton's _Lexicon of Intentionally Ambiguous
Recommendations (L.I.A.R.)_, in which the author introduces the
"quomma," a mark that leaves it up to the reader to decide whether it
was intended as a comma or is just a smudge on the page. The idea for
the (dated, but still hilarious) manual on the use of deliberate
ambiguity to couch disparagement as compliment purportedly arose from
the frustration Thornton had experienced in trying to respond truthfully
to requests from less-than-stellar students for letters of
recommendation.

Kudos for Lynne Truss seconded.

Lynne Hunter

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org