July 21st, 2007


└ Tags: ,

Discussion (11)¬

  1. Eugene says:

    Heh, nothing like answering a rhetorical question to tick off a wombat.

  2. TekServer says:

    I cannot conceive of Digger soliciting the sale of unnatural acts. To do so would tear the fabric of both reality and unreality …


  3. BunnyRock says:

    We are of the opinion that is an individual is addressing them self in the third person then you should get as far away from them as possible. We are also of the opinion that unless they are the British Monarch and so more or less obliged to do so on certain occasions, they start addressing themselves as “we” , then you probably shouldn’t stop to pack.

  4. TekServer says:

    We concur …


  5. nils says:

    He might refer to the Veiled in general, not just himself. But yeah. You’re right.

  6. Tindi says:

    He might be doing both, just to annoy her. He seems the type.

  7. Trogdog says:

    lol. this is why I love this comic; Just when you least expect it, it blindsides you with a prostitution joke. 🙂
    …and yet it still manages to stay classy somehow.

  8. JET73L says:

    Ah, but who said the unnatural acts were of a sexual nature, hmm? *waggles eyebrows*

  9. TekServer says:

    I just corrected Sophist for this a few days ago (2 years after the fact), BR, so it’s only fair I mention it again here to you: “we” is not a third-person pronoun, it is a first-person plural pronoun. Third person would be “he”, “she”, or “it” (or “they” for plural”). Also, if Jhalm had referred to himself by name – “Jhalm is not amused” or some such” – that would be third person.

    Actually, it’s only just occurred to me that Ed constantly refers to himself in the third person, either by name or as “it”. So I must retract my former concurrence with your statement, or at least qualify it by saying it only applies to the spirit (first person plural) of your words and not their literal meaning.

    The Grammar Geek has spoken …

  10. TekServer says:

    It is totally fitting – and appropriately humbling – that I inadvertently put an extra set of quotation marks after “such” above. I’m sure some corollary of Murphy’s law made it nigh impossible for me to have ranted about grammar without making some grammatical error.


  11. westrider says:

    But it’s the second part of BunnyRock’s statement that applies here. He just put the first bit in because it looks weird to start a statement with an “also” clause.