Cidu Bill on Sep 21st 2017


Filed in Bill Bickel, CIDU, F-Minus, Tony Carrillo, comic strips, comics, humor | 24 responses so far

24 Responses to “Slap”

  1. Stan Sep 21st 2017 at 12:06 am 1

    No idea about the comic, but is there an apostrophe missing?

    Grammar always seems to set off a lively debate around here.

  2. billybob Sep 21st 2017 at 12:48 am 2

    The restaurant only has two regulars.
    Calling it a “regular discount” would be confusing. Adding an extra S adds clarification, adding an unnecessary apostrophe adds nothing.

  3. Stan Sep 21st 2017 at 01:37 am 3

    “adding an unnecessary apostrophe adds nothing.”

    Doesn’t the discount ‘belong’ to the regulars, like “clowns’ shoes” (shoes of the clowns), or “buyers’ option” (option of the buyers)? So, you know, “regulars’ discount” (discount of the regulars)…you can ‘have’ it if you’re a regular, it’s ‘yours’ if your a regular, it ‘belongs’ to you if you’re a regular. I’m not entirely sure it’s “unnecessary”.

    Did we get into this before? This is sounding familiar to me.

  4. Arthur Sep 21st 2017 at 01:54 am 4

    Whether an apostrophe is appropriate depends on the usage. If
    it’s purely descriptive, then perhaps it should be a “regulars’
    discount”. But if it’s the name of the special deal, it would
    not have one, just as there’s no possessive in an “early bird

  5. Olivier Sep 21st 2017 at 04:49 am 5

    I think the joke is about the fact that if you’re a regular, you can’t post a bad review because the reviewee will get mad at you.
    It’s also funny because if you are a regular, why would you post a review ? Just tell the guy what’s wrong.
    So maybe a non-regular posted a bad review about the regulars discount to mess things up.

  6. James Pollock Sep 21st 2017 at 05:25 am 6

    Many people misunderstand the use of the apostrophe, and use it (inocrrectly) with an “S” to make a word plural. Those apostrophe’s are incorrect and unnecessary.

    In “regulars’ discount”, however, it is NOT being used to form a plural. It is being used to indicate a possessive, the discount belongs to the regulars, therefore it is the regulars’ discount.

    There isn’t an apostrophe in “early bird discount” because it isn’t plural. If the discount were offered to early birds, it would be the early birds’ discount. I don’t know why this discount is offered in the singular rather than the plural.

    If the apostrophe discussion dries up, we can move on to talk about the “early bird discount” as opposed to the “early-bird discount”, and which one is available to Tippi Hedron and Carol Spinney, and which one only applies to the chicken dishes.

  7. James Pollock Sep 21st 2017 at 05:29 am 7

    Also, I agree that the joke is that, instead of posting a review somewhere online, the proprietor of the establishment expected his regulars (whichever of the two it was) to ask directly for a discount, (which is kind of passive aggressive.)

  8. Stan Sep 21st 2017 at 07:22 am 8

    “There isn’t an apostrophe in “early bird discount” because it isn’t plural.”

    Hey JP, I’m on your side with what you’re saying here for the most part, but wouldn’t the singular form be the “early bird’s discount”? Wouldn’t it also need an apostrophe to indicate the possessive?

    Also, I’d love to heat up “early bird discount” as opposed to the “early-bird discount”. I believe the latter is a compound adjective describing what sort of discount it is. But the former is far more interesting. It seems to me that it would be a ‘bird discount’ that is happening sooner than expected.

    “Cheap birds, everyone! Come and git ‘em!”

    “Cool! We usually have to wait until November. I love early bird discounts!”

  9. Olivier Sep 21st 2017 at 07:28 am 9

    Early birds don’t get discounts, early birds get worms.

  10. Terrence Feenstra Sep 21st 2017 at 07:43 am 10

    “The New York Times At Special Bargain Rates” Stephen King short story. One of the best things I have ever read.

  11. James Pollock Sep 21st 2017 at 07:49 am 11

    “wouldn’t the singular form be the “early bird’s discount”?”

    I would. But the discount is offered to ALL the early birds, and not to just THE early bird. As I said, I don’t know why the “early bird discount” isn’t plural.
    Having sat up for a while in the middle of the night thinking about it, I don’t think discounts are possessed, so possessive punctuation doesn’t seem right to me. So, as far as I’m concerned, this is an “Oxford apostrophe”. Put it in, leave it out, I don’t care.

    “Early birds don’t get discounts, early birds get worms.”

    These aren’t mutually exclusive. No reason the early birds can’t have both.

  12. Olivier Sep 21st 2017 at 08:43 am 12

    “No reason the early birds can’t have both”. Greedy lil’ varmints can never have enough, right ? ;)

  13. John Small Berries Sep 21st 2017 at 09:30 am 13

    “Those apostrophe’s are incorrect and unnecessary.”

    Can’t tell if trolling…

  14. Mark M Sep 21st 2017 at 10:07 am 14

    Like Arthur @4, I think it depends on usage. If I worked for a car wash and I’m in charge of washing the windows, I might be referred to as the windows guy. I’m not possessed by the windows. If regulars is being used as an adjective, then no apostrophe.

  15. Heather Sep 21st 2017 at 11:07 am 15

    Mark M is correct. I don’t think the usage here constitutes possession, but description. It’s a noun that has been adjectived (I just verbed ‘adjective’ heehee).

    The argument could be made either way. It depends on whether you’d ask “whose discount”, or “what kind of discount”. But I’d argue that the second is more correct. ‘What kind of discount’ could be answered in many ways that aren’t possessive… a discount for a holiday, for instance. Boxing Day discount. Storewide discount. Springwear discount. Similar, discounts that refer to people wouldn’t necessarily be possessive — some are obvious. Friends and family discount. Military discount. They don’t call it “friends’ and family’s discount” or “military’s discount”. It’s a description of the TYPE of discount, not an indicator of who it “belongs” to. Therefore, “seniors discount” is a discount FOR seniors, rather than a discount ‘belonging to’ seniors. Etc.

  16. Winter Wallaby Sep 21st 2017 at 11:49 am 16

    JSB #13: I also cant tell…

  17. James Pollock Sep 21st 2017 at 12:03 pm 17

    The reason you don’t get a “friends’ and family’s” discount is, against, because “family” is left singular, and the reason you don’t get a “military’s” discount is because the discount doesn’t belong to the military, it belongs to the “serviceman” or “servicewoman”, and I think if it were framed that way, it’d be apostropheed.

    Yes, you can argue it both ways. Well, I can, anyway.

  18. Carolyn Sep 21st 2017 at 04:09 pm 18

    Terrence @ 10 - Thanks! I had never heard of that story and just read it and loved it!

  19. fleabane Sep 22nd 2017 at 12:31 am 19

    I think the joke is that the place has two regulars, they don’t get discounts and are miffed by that, so one of them wrote a bad yelp review, and the owner knows it has to be one of them because they are the only two regulars, and the cartoonist thinks that’s enough to be funny, and somehow editors thought this cartoonist was worthy of syndication.

  20. Kilby Sep 22nd 2017 at 04:21 am 20

    @ JSB (13) & WW (16) - One particular advantage of being able to argue both ways (@17) is that it makes it possible to bait a hook for any particular fish.

  21. guero Sep 22nd 2017 at 06:17 pm 21

    …aaaand, we’re back to trolling. ;-)

  22. James Pollock Sep 22nd 2017 at 06:52 pm 22

    “Can’t tell if trolling…”

    It’s called an “illustration”.

    Like this one:
    There are 10 kinds of people:
    Those who understand binary, and those who don’t.


    Asking theological questions always seems to get me into arguments.
    How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? And if they take their clothes off, do I have to give each one of them a dollar?

  23. mitch4 Sep 23rd 2017 at 09:43 pm 23

    OT - There was apparently a novel called “The Slap” that was popular in Australia, from which an Australian TV miniseries was made, from which in turn an American miniseries was made. (Though I suppose the standard claim is that the 2nd TV series is another adaptation from the novel.)

    Maybe a year or so ago, I watched the American miniseries. Meh, I would say (now that I’ve learned to spell a shrug that way), but I did stick with it to get the ending.

    Now I’ve run across the Australian series on a streaming service. Is anyone familiar with this work (as either the book or the Australian TV miniseries) and can say whether the earlier series is good enough to be worth it to someone who was left largely unimpressed by the American one? (It won’t cost anything extra,… except time and attention.)


  24. Meryl A Sep 27th 2017 at 02:25 am 24

    The Wendys we go to would go out of business if they gave a discount to their regulars. There are a lot of us.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply