Don’t know much about the geezer tag

Cidu Bill on May 10th 2017

What say you?


Filed in Argyle Sweater, Bill Bickel, Hey Geezers! Comics!, Sam Cooke, Scott Hilburn, comic strips, comics, humor | 27 responses so far

27 Responses to “Don’t know much about the geezer tag”

  1. Cidu Bill May 10th 2017 at 05:47 pm 1

    I do have to point out that his teacher don’t know much about grammar or punctuation.

  2. James Pollock May 10th 2017 at 06:08 pm 2

    Bill? That’s not Sam’s teacher. That’s Sam’s dad. He brought his report card home.

  3. Winter Wallaby May 10th 2017 at 06:09 pm 3

    I think the song is a classic, so this is not a geezer.

    I also think the teacher’s grammar and punctuation is fine. It’s a list of information, so complete sentences aren’t called for. Also, the teacher knew that he/she had to write large enough that we, the reader, would be able to read the report card in the cartoon.

  4. Christine May 10th 2017 at 06:21 pm 4

    I think that the only thing that would make this a geezer reference is that most people my age aren’t necessarily going to know who did the song. But it’s really easy to figure out, given how well-known the song is.

  5. Cidu Bill May 10th 2017 at 06:22 pm 5

    Oh, you’re right, James. I knew that last night when I first saw this, but somehow my mind slipped this afternoon.

    Although Winter, I stand by what I said about punctuation: those aren’t complete sentences, and should have been separated by commas (and let’s not even get into the Oxford comma business).

    But since, as James reminded me, this is not a teacher, I’ll give Mr. Cooke a pass.

  6. Winter Wallaby May 10th 2017 at 06:44 pm 6

    Bill #5: I wrote my comment before I realized that you had confused the father and the teacher. I thought you were talking about the thing written by the teacher: the report card.

    However, switching to the dad: I think even most well-educated English speakers in informal settings at least sometimes feel comfortable not speaking in complete sentences, but to drop the subject as understood from the previous sentences. I certainly feel free to do that in spoken speech even when I wouldn’t in written speech. (And I have very little control over how the cartoonist punctuates my speech bubbles. Look what happened to this poor guy: comic.)

  7. Cidu Bill May 10th 2017 at 06:56 pm 7

    Also, the way Mr. Cooke said it just seemed to have a nice flow to it.

  8. Mark in Boston May 10th 2017 at 08:59 pm 8

    In many other languages it is not poor grammar to leave out the subject or even the verb. Don’t know why English so fussy.

  9. Winter Wallaby May 10th 2017 at 10:48 pm 9

    MiB #8: According to my Chinese textbook, not only can you leave out the subject or object when it’s understood from the context, but excessive repetition of the subject or object, while grammatically acceptable, is considered bad, Western-influenced style.

  10. ja May 10th 2017 at 11:01 pm 10

    Doesn’t Sam look a bit short for 15?

  11. Cidu Bill May 11th 2017 at 12:18 am 11

    Winter, even in English, excessive repetition of the subject or object is why God created editors.

  12. Winter Wallaby May 11th 2017 at 01:52 am 12

    Yeah, but my Chinese textbook means something different by “excessive repetition.” They mean including subjects in sentences that don’t really need it. I don’t think too many English editors complain that too many of your sentences have sentences.

  13. DemetriosX May 11th 2017 at 05:52 am 13

    To get back to Bill’s original question, I’m in agreement with WW @3. The song is classic enough that it crosses generations. It’s older than I am and I know it well. In Germany, when kids graduate from Gymnasium (the highest level of secondary education, required for university), they usually put on a big dinner and show, followed by dancing, and parents are expected to come. When my oldest daughter graduated in 2003, the really popular physics teacher and some of the more science-inclined students performed “Wonderful World” as The Singing Scientists. So I’d say the song is pretty universal.

  14. Winter Wallaby May 11th 2017 at 11:06 am 14

    WW#12: Ugh. Should read “… complain that too many of your sentences have subjects

  15. James Pollock May 11th 2017 at 11:57 am 15

    Well, yes. If all your sentences have sentences, you’re Dickens.

  16. Bob May 11th 2017 at 12:43 pm 16

    JP - LoL.

  17. Brian in STL May 11th 2017 at 01:27 pm 17

    These sentences HAVE to have subjects, that’s what’s being discussed.

  18. Mark M May 11th 2017 at 03:04 pm 18

    Learning moment for me. Apparently I’m enough of a geezer to know the song but not enough of one to know that Herman’s Hermits didn’t sing the original version.

  19. James Pollock May 11th 2017 at 03:19 pm 19

    On the other hand, I didn’t know there was a Herman’s Hermits cover, and, I’m pretty sure, having just listened on Youtube, that I’ve never even heard the cover version.

  20. Hank G. May 11th 2017 at 07:19 pm 20

    #3: Not only is the song a classic, it was used recently in the popular film “Witness”, which was only um, 32 years ago. Maybe a geezer tag is appropriate.

  21. Treesong May 11th 2017 at 08:50 pm 21

    I agree with WW@6. I think omitted subjects are perfectly natural–correct–in speech. In fact, with the pronoun right there in the first sentence, repeating it would sound strange to me except to show emphasis. And this is clearly transcribed speech.
    Actually, I would have no qualms about writing that in a letter, except to someone who could hurt me.

  22. ja May 11th 2017 at 11:26 pm 22

    The version of the song in Witness is a cover by Greg Chapman. Don’t know why they didn’t use Cooke’s or Herman’s Hermits’ version.

    Art Garfunkle (Ft. Paul Simon and James Taylor) also did a fairly successful cover.

  23. r2t May 12th 2017 at 01:43 am 23

    ive heard this song quite a number of times over the years. it is old but its famous enough to not be geezer material.

  24. Boise Ed May 12th 2017 at 02:32 pm 24

    ja [22]: The Chapman chap was probably cheaper.

    James [15]: Good one!

  25. Hank G. May 12th 2017 at 03:26 pm 25

    #22 ja:

    The version of the song in Witness is a cover by Greg Chapman.

    I never knew that. I guess I was too busy watching Kelly McGillis get hot and bothered to notice.

  26. ja May 16th 2017 at 01:04 am 26

    >> I was too busy watching Kelly McGillis get hot and bothered to notice. (Boise Ed)

    LOL… Apparently I was, too, at least on the big screen. I didn’t notice until I looked up the clip on youtube in response to see this here the other day.

    >>The Chapman chap was probably cheaper.

    I wondered about that too… But the Lou Adler has a cowrite on the song and probably controls publishing rights, and probably produced the Cooke recording as well. As publisher and songwriter, I think he (or his designated person) would have to approve movie usage no matter what recorded version was chosen (I do not believe that there is any sort of compulsory licensing for inclusion in a film), so why would he approve an option that reduces his revenues?

  27. Meryl A May 16th 2017 at 02:53 am 27

    What is wrong with the scene in “Witness” is that it is the type of music - not that there is music. The Amish allow music.

    We go to a couple of farmer’s markets in the Lancaster area. There was a fellow who had an “auction” at both markets. He mostly sold sort of like the shopping channels with a minimum of items actually being bid. Husband loved this as entertainment and we would even make special trips down for the evening for his Christmas auctions (I have lots of Christmas ornaments and small decorations from him).

    We were at one of the markets (Green Dragon) once and while walking around I said to Robert that I had seen a man who should be Harrison Ford’s father. Later at the auction we kept looking at an Amish couple who just did not look right. (He had household items so Amish people at auction were not unusual.) Well, “Witness” comes out - the couple are in the movie, so we are presuming that “Harrison Ford’s father” was probably actually him. It is a good place to get a feel for the area (although more “English” these days) and we can see them going there - especially the couple - to try to blend in and see what it is like. There is a woman and a man in the movie who are local who we recognized. She used to be in the play (varied year to year) at the Kutztown Folk Festival and he drove the buggy ride at Kitchen Kettle back then. While they both wore Amish clothing for these positions, we are not sure they normally did.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply