Talk:Inherently funny word

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:

Contents

[edit] homunculus

Somehow, someway, the word "homunculus" needs to be worked into this article.Kevmitch 09:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Krusty the Clown: "Memorize these funny place names. Walla Walla. Keokuk. Seattle."

Maybe some links to other Wiki pages? Funny, Joke, Humor, etc... --Dante Alighieri

This actually works: I just subvocalised "sock", "pock", "kack", "kumquat", "rutabaga", "balloon", "bassoon", and found myself laughing involuntarily. -- Anon.

I've always thought that the sound of the word "potato" spoken slowly was hilarious. --Dante Alighieri
See for instance the dialogue between (IIRC) Sam and Gollum in the movie of The Two Towers ... the carefully enunciated "po-ta-toes" is worth a grin. --FOo 15:08 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Is there any physiological or linguistic reason known about why this works? Are the funny sounds the same in other languages? -- Anon.

I always thought any word with an "oo" sound in it was funny, food being an exception for being such a common word. But even the face one makes saying it is funnier than most vowels. This list confirms that suspicion, look how many of these have it. "Poop"... "Boob"... two of the same consonant surrounding the "oo" sound seem to make it even funnier. "Noon" would probably be hilarious if we didn't hear it so much.PJV

Hmmm. This article is highly idiosyncratic and POV at the moment, and really this belongs in the context of a wider article on comedy or humor IMHO. --Robert Merkel 00:35 Nov 28, 2002 (UTC)

The subject is highly idiosyncratic, and probably inextricably POV, too. Trying to NPOV everything is (arguably) scientific reductionism and a basic failure to appreciate when something has, by definition, a subjective nature.
Nuttyskin 00:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is slightly silly, but the phenomenon is real, and well-known to comedians. It also has potentially interesting avenues of serious inquiry: I would not be surprised if someone had made an academic study of this -- if not, they should. -- Anon.

See also "Proposed Research Topic #2: Funny Words" at http://www.metaphoricaldwelling.com/MetaDwelSite/Language/ and "The power of the plosive" at http://www.namingnewsletter.com/Plosives.html

The funniest sounding word I know in English (offhand) is scacchic. -phma

I am very confused. What is it that you are saying is funny about these words? You just have a list of words, informing the reader that they a funny! WTF? CGS 12:23 18 May 2003 (UTC)

This article is nonsense, I vote for deletion. Mintguy 12:27 18 May 2003 (UTC)

These words are hilarious ... well ... at least the idea that anyone could be so foolish to think they are "inherently funny" by some "law of nature" is hilarous. Don't delete!Move to "Deleted jokes and other nonsense" - this delightfully asinine silliness deserves to be preserved. Tannin

I don't think this should be deleted or removed. It's an interesting and real concept that comedians discuss and believe in. --The Cunctator

However, after reading the article I still don't understand. Are you saying that if I tell my mother that "I am missing a sock" she will laugh? If I say "there is a badger in the garden shed" will people laugh? I have never encountered this. CGS 18:09 18 May 2003 (UTC).

Well, I just laughed. Does that count -- Anonymous

  • Me too -- Thomas

"I am missing a sock"! Classic!! -- Liam

You missed the point; the article says "to enhance the humor of their comic routines". It doesn't mean that badgers are always funny, but it does mean that if you tell a joke about a smallish mammal in your shed, you'll want to use "badger", as the effect will be funnier than saying "cat". Also, a comedian who is talking about old U.S. presidents would never say "John Adams" when he has the chance to say "Millard Fillmore" or "Grover Cleveland". Deltabeignet 23:15, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does this article refer to funny strange or funny ha ha? What makes things funny ha ha is timing, not static letters. IMHO :) Kingturtle 19:10 18 May 2003 (UTC)

"SP" words such as "spoon", "Spork", and "Splint" are funny.

"aardvark" is funny because of the spelling and the double occuring "ard" sound mixed with the rhyming "ark" sound; also to a lesser degree the "v" in "vark" is funny.

Hmm. Maybe we need an article on comic timing, too. I vote to keep this: "sound" is definitely a real factor in comedy: silly names, for example. The Anome 19:18 18 May 2003 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with this concept (and it is funny ha ha). All words have connotations and denotations. Denotations are the "logical" meanings. Connotations are the "emotional" meanings. If a word has amusing connotations, it may be a funny word; if it has connotations of disgust, it may be a swear-word or an insult; if it is devoid of connotations, it may be used as technical jargon. Compare "poopie", "shit" and "faeces" for instance. Despite the fact that these all refer to the same thing, the connotations mean that one is funnier than the rest and one makes a better insult than the rest. -- Derek Ross 19:31 18 May 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Text moved from Votes for deletion

  • inherently funny word
    • This is just a list of words that the reader is told are funny. It's highly POV and less factual than a copy of The Sun (and about as funny as the latter). CGS 13:02 18 May 2003 (UTC). User:Mintguy also agrees.
    • User:Tannin suggests it is moved to Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
    • I disagree. It (or at belief in it) is a real concept. Kind of like God, except not so much. --The Cunctator
    • I disagree also. The article does focus on a longstanding debate in comedy. Is something inherently funny? Most comedians certainly believe that certain words, particularly in terms of their pronounciation and cultural context, are funny. This article needs a lot of work but it does have a basis behind it. But it needs to define context, comedic, traditional and cultural resonnances, etc. In some cultures, 'cack' means marbles and has no humour. Cack is also used as a colloquial meaning as 'fæces', which in some contexts touches on scatological humour and reduce an audience to hysterics. So this article definitely should not be deleted. FearÉÍREANN 05:34 19 May 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree with the above two comments. There is a real issue that this article discusses. It should not be deleted. --Dante Alighieri 04:05 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Me, too. This is a good article. Anybody who has ever played Cheddar Gorge knows that this is a real phenomenon. GrahamN 05:30 20 May 2003 (UTC)
      • Surely what makes that funny is the context or juxtaposition of the words. Mintguy
        • Actually, on reflection I was thinking of a different I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue round, the one where they take turns to say single words, the object being not to make the audience laugh. [What is that round called?] It is evident from listening to that that certain words are simply funnier than others. For example "glass" or "filed" are completely safe, whereas "theodolite" or "pustule" would be suicide. GrahamN 02:25 25 May 2003 (UTC)
          • But note the context in which the words are said, which is that everybody is silent and waiting for something funny to happen. Those same words said used properly in a phrase would not have a funny effect (like in "the geographer used a theodolite to find the height of the mountain"). Diego Moya
    • Don't delete it. The concept is well worth discussing. It's just that the current article needs to be replaced with something better. -- Derek Ross 20:06 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • I think this can stay. It's highly POV right now, but has potential to become a good article. It needs an expanded introduction and more on the psychology of the phenomenon, and hopefully someone will add that eventually. -- Minesweeper 21:49 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • I would be against deletion; however, I do doubt about the list of words, which seems POV to me.

[edit] funny

Okay, so the very existence of "inherently funny" words is POV... Should we move the article? Use of words for comedic effect, anyone? -- Oliver P. 11:02 21 May 2003 (UTC)

That sounds like a sensible suggestion. Mintguy
Karada has just moved the article to my proposed title. I didn't realise that was going to happen so quickly. Perhaps I should have put more thought into the wording... -- Oliver P. 11:30 21 May 2003 (UTC)
I'm moving it back. The article isn't about the use of words for comedic effect, it's about the concept of the inherently funny word. --The Cunctator

[edit] sock

This page still bemuses me. What pray tell is inherently funny about the word "sock" without context? (I'm sure I'll regret asking this). Mintguy 17:31 21 May 2003 (UTC)

I asked this before, but noone said anything: Are you saying that if I ask my mother "Have you seen the other sock of this pair?", she will burst out laughing at my funny question? Also, the article says that badger is funny because it's an unusual word. This is an example of the POV - where I live badgers are fairly common. I maintain that no word is inherently funny. CGS 17:42 21 May 2003 (UTC).

Yes CGS I noted that you got no reply, which is why I repeated it. It the word 'Jam' inherently funny? I would say no. But then Eddie Izzard uses the word when he can't think of something to say. It's all to do with context. Mintguy
CGS, I just want to let you know that when I read in your comment above, "where I live badgers are fairly common", I burst out laughing. Guppy 15:20, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
"Sock" is not supposed to be funny without context. Actually, I might not consider it inherently funny, unless said in a British accent with sharp emphasis. Few words are funny on their own (although there are many notable exceptions: rutabaga, belch, googol). The article says "to enhance the humor of their comic routines", which is entirely different. As I've noted already, this means that, for example, a joke about vegetables is inevitably going to be funnier when the teller says "rutabaga" instead of "celery". In a joke about mammals, "badger" will be funnier than "cat". "Millard Fillmore ate a rutabaga and badger muffaletta" vs. "James Madison ate a celery and fish sandwich"; you tell me which is funnier.

[edit] POV

It seems that my text at Votes for Deletion has been deleted during the move from that page to here. It is my opinion that while the page itself is ok, the list of funny words here is inherently POV and should therefore be removed. Andre Engels 08:55 22 May 2003 (UTC)

I don't think I lost anything in moving the text across. That last comment was you, wasn't it? "I would be against deletion; however, I do doubt about the list of words, which seems POV to me." If there was anything else that I did lose, I apologise. But anyway, I suppose if we are to keep the article at Inherently funny word, then we are facing a big NPOV problem, because the very existence of such a thing is a point of view. So we have to talk about what other people have claimed about such words. Of course we need examples, to illustrate the sorts of things we're talking about, but they have to be attributed, saying that so-and-so claimed that this word was funny, and so on. -- Oliver P. 19:42 23 May 2003 (UTC)

[edit] This discussion is fascinating

This discussion is fascinating. It strikes me this article may be the ultimate test of the [in my view dubious] concept of "neutral point of view". Some people are saying "We don't find the words in the list funny, therefore they are NOT funny, therefore they must be deleted." Others (including myself) are saying "We DO find these words funny, therefore they ARE funny, therefore they must be retained." Since humour is COMPLETELY subjective, there is no way of determining who is "right", so both points of view should be given equal weight. Therefore the list should be both deleted and retained. Get out of that! GrahamN 02:25 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Well the NPOV article tells us that where there is a dispute we should describe the dispute including what each side in the dispute says. So I would think that that means changing the article to discuss the worthiness of the concept of inherently funny words, if we take the NPOV article literally. Derek Ross 02:54 25 May 2003 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough. GrahamN 13:49 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] not funny

How come this article is inherently not funny? Kingturtle 06:59 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Because describing humour is one of the most humourless things anyone can do. A how to description is invariably never as good as actually doing it. But that doesn't mean it isn't useful knowing the 'how to' information. Many of these words are funny by the manner of their verbal usage, and that obviously cannot be conveyed in the spoken word. FearÉIREANN 07:13 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Because the tragedy of comedy is that one must eventually think about it. Tuf-Kat
The discussion of the effect and meaning of sounds is at least 2400 years old. And it is not confined to humor; but also rhetoric, word-magic, etc.... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 07:28 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I was reading all the above and came across - It is evident from listening to that that certain words are simply funnier than others. For example "glass" or "filed" are completely safe, whereas "theodolite" or "pustule" would be suicide. GrahamN 02:25 25 May 2003 (UTC)

And guess what? The moment I came across "pustule" I immediately and utterly unintentionally sniggered, not from its meaning, or from the way it was being said, but simply because of the word. In other words, it seems to prove the point by being an "inherently funny word." And when I take it further and imagine Walter Matthau saying it in his distinctive voice, forget the sniggering, I start laughing out loud. Even the thought of Tom Cruise saying it sounds funny. (Not to mention George W. Bush!!!) FearÉIREANN 07:24 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

See also: http://people.ucsc.edu/~mleyden/words.htm for someone else's list of "funny words": note the long vowels and K/C/plosive sounds. The Anome 17:32 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Okay.. personally, I think 'plosive' should be on the list. That's one of the funniest words I've seen reading the article. --Patteroast 17:36, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And this one: http://timschnabel.net/funny.htm The Anome

I removed the following: Nevertheless, the idea persists. The implication of the line is that the idea, contrary to all the evidence, persists. The implication of the line is a POV dismissal. FearÉIREANN 20:03 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Can people please stop moving this page around - it's moved twice today. It will be POV nonsense wherever you put it. CGS 20:27 24 Jun 2003 (UTC).

And, of course, a truly comprehensive list would have Triscuit on it somewhere. Koyaanis Qatsi

Isn't that a cookie with three sides? --Guaka 15:11 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

What was meant by 'inherently funny' is that it makes comedy more funny when used correctly. Why a deadly rabbit in The Holy Grail? Because it makes it funnier. It's a psychological phenomenon!

This article has twice been listed for deletion and twice kept for obvious reasons. Here is the second deletion debate:

Template:VfD-Inherently funny word

I'd like to include: Sponge pudding and spoon, but they're my own favourites.

Vivian Stanshall and other British comics have got a lot of mileage out of trousers.

Also, monkeys: can't decide if it's the animal the word or a combination of the two. But Alan Partridge's Monkey Tennis is a gem, and I've just had the new All Star Comedy Show on where Vic Reeves played a troubled man who could say nothing but Monkey trousers.

Perhaps if others share a fondness for these they can be included. At present I don't ahve solid enough references. --bodnotbod 22:44, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Spork

Does no-one else find this to be a very odd-sounding word. zoney ███ talk 15:32, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

-- Yes, Spork is indeed a funny word. Guppy 05:34, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Spork is funny on several counts. It's a short word, and short words tend in English to be A-vocabulary (the words of basic English we learn as children), which is where most of the common, colloquial words in speech come from, including sexual and toilet words (which are funny, let's face it); but it's also an unfamiliar-sounding word, and even though we've heard it before and seen sporks, used them in fast food, etc., it's still not a common word to use where you could use fork or spoon instead. So for a fraction of a moment you dither over what it might mean, and it does sound like a possible for a sexual or toilet word: pork, sperm, or something similar. Then, consider the fact that it actually is a portmanteau of fork and spoon, and such words always have comic potential anyway. Finally, it rhymes with dork.
Nuttyskin 00:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I have another one... well, two: gooey ooze, but maybe there are too many funny words in English to fit them all in this article. ;) Sabbut 09:30, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah but so are 'Neptune', 'rhododendron', and 'scrum'. Also, I believe David Letterman once gave someone advice to insert he word 'pants' when necessary, and the name of his produciton company, 'World Wide Pants' is based on that word. Seems that should earn some mention.

One point on this -- there are clearly certain words that, when used in a joke or other humourous bit, are funnier than others. For instance, the concept of putting a monitor in one's pants is somewhat funny, but it just sounds funnier when the word 'lizard' is used. 'Iguana' and 'Chamaeleon' are not bad either, but 'Haitian Curly-Tail' is just weird, and 'skink' might outdo them all.

But all in all, despite the relative equal potential for viciousness and pain, putting a weasel in your pants outdoes them all.

It's funnier for British viewers when David Letterman says pants, because he thinks he's talking about the leg-garments which match a suit jacket, but to speakers of British English, he's actually saying underpants.
Nuttyskin 00:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-reference

Great article! I see only one problem. The sentence

"The following English words are considered by various contributors to this article to be inherently funny"

is self-referential, which is to be avoided. I would fix it, but I don't know what to change it to. Perhaps someone else has an idea. Dbenbenn 04:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I worry that the list is POV in that it needlessly privledges contributors to the article as experts, when in fact they have no special qualifications. The result is that the article tracks the aggregate POV of the contributors, which is not NPOV, nor will it become NPOV no matter how many contributors there are. I propose that the list be trimmed to entries that can be attributed to known and important comedians. Snowspinner 19:29, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. For a word to be included here, it should be described as inherently funny by some expert. (And important comedians count as experts.) Cite your sources! And that would neatly solve my self-reference issue. Dbenbenn 20:06, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Moreover, unless someone starts doing this quickly, the situation will get out of hand. People are adding words left and right. I'd like to help but I hardly know where to find proper sources on this sort of thing. I was considering moving to a new article, but I think once we delete unverified entries it should shrink drastically. Deco 10:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I disagree: calm down - people who contribute words they consider to be inherently funny are experts in the inherently funny qualities of those words. This is verifiable: ask them if they find the words inherently funny, and if they say they do, it has been verified. Inherently funny words, once cited, do not cease to be funny just because another contributor happens not to find them funny.
Nuttyskin 00:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Title

Shouldn't the page title be "Inherently funny words"? I realize that most wikipedia articles are entitled by the singular of the noun, but this article is more of a list that about an "inherently funny word". If the article told us which word was the specific funny word that it was referring to, that would be one thing, but this is about numerous words. — Asbestos | Talk 18:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, the article Knife talks about many kinds of knives. The noun sort of defines the general subject area. I wouldn't be for a name change, although I might be for removing the list to List of inherently funny words. Deco 01:53, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I'd be for deleting the entire thing, but there's no point asking for for that. Moving to List of inherently funny words might also work, though it's not just a list page. I'm not sure, and don't really hold any strong feelings either way (just stumbled across this page by accident), but just feel tha the title is odd. No matter. — Asbestos | Talk 13:01, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


[edit] The list

I know that this has been discussed endlessly, but I dislike this list of funny words. Not only is it irrevocably POV, but at over two hundred words, it is mind-bogglingly long. Do we really need to list every single word that somebody somewhere might find funny? I'd personaly delete the list entirely, but in the interest of compromise, I'm willing to trim it down to maybe 10 entries. Or maybe keep only the words we have direct citations for, as suggested by snowspinner. If this change occurs, we can then remove the neutrality warning. On a less contentious note, I've deleted the rhetorical questions near the end, as rhetorical questions are not encyclopedic. DaveTheRed 01:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please do — potentially seek legitimate attributions for some of them. Deco 01:52, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You know, the more I look at it, the more I realize that the "list with citations" section we've been talking about already exists on this page. It's under the "Examples of References to the Concept" header. In which case, we can just eliminate the longer list entirely. I will do a quick check to verify the sourced examples, and if no one objects soon, I will make the changes. DaveTheRed 04:31, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like that would be a very good improvement to the article. — Asbestos | Talk 11:48, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moratorium on adding new words

Sigh. I just dramatically shortened the list, and already someone has added another word (at least this time there's a source). I suggest we hold a moratorium on adding new words to the list. The examples we have are sufficient, and if people keep adding new words, we'll just run into the same problem we had before. BTW, the new word that was added, was "gherkin", attributed to Irregular Webcomic. I did a google search for "Irregular webcomic" and gherkin, and found nothing. Ergo, it will be reverted. DaveTheRed 07:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Watch out — the text of webcomics often cannot be indexed because it is "hidden" in images. I'd try to get an explanation from the contributor first.
I would strongly argue against any policy of requiring prior agreement on adding words, but I think a friendly reminder about notability and citing sources in an HTML comment wouldn't hurt. Those who seem to be making things up can just continue to be reverted; this is innately the sort of list that people enjoy adding things to without evidence. The existing words are a good guide to what is appropriate. Deco 02:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Your points are well taken. If the original editor wants to add that webcomic thing back, I won't revert. I will post the HTML notice as you requested. DaveTheRed 21:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Monkey should be noted as a popular funny word.

[edit] Bolshevik

I contend this is not an inherently funny word and she be removed from the list. Although I giggle a little myself when I see it it's mostly because it reminds me of bullshit, and I've heard it used to that effect several times. If no one disagrees I'll pull it down later. Vicarious 21:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

This is where deciding the validity, or otherwise, of inherently funny words becomes a minefield for the unwary. Vicarious contends this is not an inherently funny word, yet admits to finding it funny. I believe the word has been used in double-entendre for balls, as in "We struck out for freedom, but were seized by the Bolsheviks". It is not inherently funny, because it simply means a member of the majority, and the corresponding historical term for a member of the minority, Menshevik, is not particularly funny at all; so we must conclude that Bolshevik's claim to be funny is merely contingent upon it sounding like either bullshit or balls.
Nuttyskin 01:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not a joke

Not that absurd humor isn't right up my alley, but I'd just like to say that it's articles like this that will forever give fuel to Wikipedia's doubters and detractors. It seems to me to have a very childish aura to it all. Just look at the picture and its caption. And is "badger" really a funny word, or is it just so strongly associated with that tired meme?

is "badger" really a funny word...?
Not really. I suppose the badger itself might look slightly comical as an animal; and speaking personally and utterly subjectively, the fact that I know there are real people whose nicknames are Badger, Badger-Boy and Son-of-Badger, makes the word funny to me. But in terms of its wider comic appeal, I've always attributed it to being a lesser-known or purported euphemism for pubic hair. I suspect many so-called inherently funny words are either straight euphemisms or sound as if they might be.
Nuttyskin 01:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
'Badger' is actually a somewhat funny animal name, but nmot to the level of 'monkey' or 'weasel' or 'aardvark', and nowhere near the inherent hilarity of 'wombat'.207.126.230.225 19:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate to take such a negative tone, especially regarding Wikipedia, but I just know that we can do so much better. --BDD 21:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Because, of course, our first priority should be to preemptively appease every single one of our credits, not to give as much useful and relevant information as possible to our readers. Covering our ass comes before service.
Mu. -Silence 22:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Useful and relevant. Thank you. Pardon me if I'd rather see Wikipedia come to be widely respected than have it sink itself. --BDD 13:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I used to feel this way, but that's because I was thinking of wikipedia as the equivalent of a paper encyclopedia - in which you flip through pages looking for your article, so if you see a goofy article you think "what the ^%$?" ... but that's not how wikipedia works. Almost nobody is going to stumble across this article unless they're following a link, which indicates they're at least intrigued if not interested. Further, we have umpty-billion articles about Pokemon and unheard-of bands and every pixel that's ever appeared in The Simpsons, which are stupider than this (IMHO), and that doesn't make people say that our other articles are useless. I don't think the existence of this article harms other parts of wikipedia - DavidWBrooks 15:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that's how I feel (only I try not to use the "there are other ridiculously trivial articles, just look at pokemon!" argument as an excuse for doing something; the problem with blindly following precedent is that nothing's immune to being changed or deleted someday).
Oh, and sorry if I came off as too dismissive or irreverent in my response, BDD; when I'm sarcastic, it's purely for humorous value, not to try to offend or insult anyone. I certainly agree that there are articles and sections that are too ridiculous to merit inclusion on an actual Wikipedia article (there are parody pages on Wikipedia, and other humor-focused encyclopedias like Uncyclopedia, for that), and I agree that this article can be improved; I just don't think obsessing about what every critic thinks or may think in the future is what's best for Wikipedia. We don't need to be so defensive; they won't take Wikipedia away from us just because not every one of our articles is as stiff and academic as cardboard. -Silence 15:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
David, you make a good point that people won't read this unless they want to. And Silence, I did misinterpret your sarcasm, so thank you for clarifying. For now I am content to drop my argument, so long as we don't plaster links to the article everywhere so people do stumble upon it unwantedly. The safe margins by which the article cleared twin attempts at deletion compel me to defer to that previous judgment. --BDD 20:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Listen. I write jokes. I perform stand-up comedy. I read jokes and watch stand-up comedy and other comedy forms a great deal. Now let me tell you that this is, without any doubt, an absolutely real concept. There is nothing fake at all about this. Whenever I write a joke, I always go back and see if I can change the words to funnier words. And yes, "Badger" is a funny word, and was a funny word before weebl's flash ever showed up. Just because you can't understand the concept doesn't mean that it isn't true. If there is a quantifiable thing that makes a word funny, it's extremely hard to pick out and doesn't always follow an immediately visible pattern. But they do exist. The good news is that unless you write jokes, you'll never have to worry about this. This concept is for the people who produce the jokes, not those who consume the jokes. The people who consume them just enjoy the joke and don't need to understand why the words were funny. In fact, I myself couldn't tell you specifically why they're funny, it's just something I can feel. Glass, filled, light, envelop, lamp, container, card, reveal, these words aren't funny. Badger, sham, fork, impetuous, globule, shank, sponge, spleen, these are all funny. Can I give you a specific reason why? Not really. There's no all-governing pattern that I can find to it, but just because it's not yet solidly quantifiable doesn't mean it's false. That is all. --Elfer 03:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
For non-English natives (such as myself, Japanese), this article is very important because it lets one understand what in English language are considered funny. From my view, some in this article are instinctively funny ("Oy" is funny), some I "understand" from education to be funny ("duck"), and some I can't make out what the difference is ("underwear" and "underpants"). --Revth 09:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I just have to say, the article page is about as funny as a statistics lecture... but this Talk page did crack me up.--4.236.30.119 11:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Words that bear mentioning.

I don't have a good example offhand, but "unitard" is just a funny word out there all on its own. Really. Have you ever heard it used for something other than comedic effect?

That's probably because the word "unitard" is so close in sound to "retard." 63.23.42.197 23:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Only with a single horn extending from its head.207.126.230.225 19:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

One of these days I'll have something positive to contribute... ^_^;

Until recently, I thought that the entry on the Dirty Sanchez was the dumbest thing I'd seen here. Now, it's this page. It seems this stuff is just one person's idea of what is funny and is therefore original research. I think the humor is derived from the arbitrariness of the signifier used to describe the signified. Some people get a lot of laughs from mentally blocking out the signified and concentrating solely on the signifier. That's just my idea of how it works, but I still don't think this article is based on anything but opinion and feelings and therefore doesn't belong. I vote to DELETE this with EXTREME PREJUDICE. 63.23.42.197 23:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Googling "is a funny word" gives 32,100 hits, including several competitions to decide the funniest word. For what it's worth I find sausage, flannel and foyer funny. Flannel was asserted as a funny word on a British television programme back in the 70's, I think it was That's Life, but I am not certain. For several years any mention of the word foyer caused my wife to laugh uncontrollably. Inherently funny words are a subjective phenomenon, but a phenomenon nonetheless, albeit a rather trivial one.

I think that fetus is pretty hilarious. =D WhatTheFace? 19:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I've always had luck with "popemobile". Come on, you can't say it without laughing! -FrYGuY 08:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

I have no problem with this article... however, with sources like Dave Barry this isn't exactly the American Journal of Language we're using. This is, in fact, used to be funny. Many people talk about inherently funny words in an effort to be funny—not academic discourse. That seriously need to be clarified because otherwise it's misleading. gren グレン 18:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't get comments like yours: The article isn't supposed to be establishing that certain words are inherently funny; it's not an academic discourse about the effects of sounds on the inner ear, or something like that. Rather, it is presenting the belief that certain words are inherent funny, so the fact that professional humorists accept this belief as true and incorporate it into their acts is definitely relevant. I'm removing the vertifiable tag, if for no other reason than we're in the midst of an AFD debate. - DavidWBrooks 23:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Er, David? This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. Guy 23:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. A widely held belief that certain words are inherently funny - whether or not they are in any objective sense, whatever that means - is worthy of an encyclopedia article that discusses how people act on that belief (e.g., a Dave Barry routine). It's similar to the way the existence of the article Bigfoot doesn't say anything about the existence of Bigfoot. (This doesn't mean, by the way, that the article can't be greatly improved; obviously, work is needed.) - DavidWBrooks 01:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible rewrite

Maybe the reason some people hate this article is that the current introduction implies that some words are inherently funny in some objective sense. Perhaps it should be changed to something like this:

The belief that certain words are inherently funny, either because of their sound or meaning, is held by a number of people who work with humor.

That's not very well written, but the idea is to make the article about the belief in the existence of such words, rather that the words themselves. Any thoughts? - DavidWBrooks 00:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm strongly in favour of this rewrite. The bottom line is that as (most of) this article is not POV, it's a shame if it looks POV, especially in its very first line. -- Jao 10:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
It looks as if it will survive its second AFD, so when that's over we can give it a shot. - DavidWBrooks 14:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I just tried a first go-around. I'm not particularly happy with it, and there's still lots of unsupported crud, but it's a start. - DavidWBrooks 18:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] roflpops

I think roflpops is a very funny word. :D --84.249.252.211 21:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Methinks being an actual word would be required. --BDD 06:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rubbish

The article doesn't discuss enough why badgers and ducks are funny - it certainly isn't an inherent quality of the sound combination, it's probably what they stand for that's humorous. This article needs a severe re-write and MORE DOUBT ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THIS CONCEPT ACROSS ALL AUDIENCES AND LANGUAGES. Or deletion.

There's not doubt that it's a valid cultural concept in English, and my limited understanding of Danish is that there are certainly some words which, pronounced correctly or encountered unexpectedly out of context, provoke laughter. It's interesting that you doubt that it occurs across all audiences and cultures. What makes you think that? References, outside of the popular cultural ones, would certainly be useful. Perhaps Steven Pinker has written something about this. Try to limit screeds in capitals, it makes you appear desperate or deranged, and let's face it, this article really isn't worth getting in that much of a tizzy about. Daen 15:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duck. Duck. Duck. No really, duck.

Additionally, the meaning of the word certainly plays a factor. Duck is funny in nearly every language, presumably because ducks are seen as a silly animal.

If statements like these are not impossible to prove, I daresay nobody has ever attempted to prove them. The Dutch word for duck is eend [eɪ̯nt]. That has to be one of the unfunniest words ever (it certainly doesn't get a giggle out of me as a native speaker, even if I try very hard), so I guess Dutch would be one of the languages not included in "nearly every language"? It eend necessarily so. (I do find mixing languages like this hilarious, but that's another matter).

The wish seems father to the thought, here. No matter how silly ducks may be, it doesn't make the word for them inherently funny in every language. Even if "duck" is a funny word in English (and let's assume for the sake of argument that that claim has been repeated enough for us to include, true or not), handing it and all its equivalents across languages the crown of inherently-funnyhood needs a good source. 82.92.119.11 23:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

well, the spanish word for duck is funny, especially "little duck" PATITO!

Actually, there has been a study done establishing that ducks are funny which is cited in the article (lower down, in the list). So yes, somebody has attempted to prove it. Deco 00:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Proving that ducks are funny is not the same thing as proving that the word "duck" is funny, so I don't think that study is really relevant to this article. 68.255.60.58 00:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Sniglets" lifted from "Not the Nine O'Clock News"

I see that Rich Hall's "Sniglets" has been added to the list. Rich lifted this concept directly from the British TV show Not the Nine O'Clock News which "Not Necessarily the News" was based upon. Although he can be funny I am still annoyed that the original show does not get credit in the U.S. for this concept. Rob Banzai 20:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, speaking as an American, I just had no idea. I will Be_bold_in_updating_pages and add it. Spalding 15:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
And I've undone it, but only because it doesn't belong in this article. It could - and hopefully is, I didn't check - be mentioned on the Sniglets page itself, or on Not Necessarily the News page. But not here - this page is already groaning under the load of semi-related material. - DavidWBrooks 15:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Have removed Sniglets from the page - they aren't an example of "inherently funny words" if their humour comes from their attached definition. --McGeddon 02:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Context Dependant Words

DragoonWraith 18:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC): This passage at the bottom is good, but I don't think the example is - "spoon" is a pretty funny word, methinks (as do several people above me in this talk page, I've seen it quite a few times reading this), even outside of the context of the Tick using it as a battlecry (which, by the way, is absolutely hysterical in my opinion, as a combination of a funny word and a very funny context). Try to find an example which uses a word that really isn't funny, but is funny in context.

I'm thinking "Bueller" could work, from Ferris Bueller's Day Off, as his name isn't really funny - but with his teacher repeating it, it's one of the most memorable and humorous scenes in the movie.

This page can hardly be called exact science, but I still think it's interesting. It reminds me of an old classmate of mine who would laugh uncontrollably at the mention of the word dobbeltbekkasin (Norwegian, meaning the bird Great Snipe in English). --Blue Elf 00:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 37 as funny number

I added 37 as a funny number, even including an example, but it was removed with a rather cryptic message. What sort of "backup", other than examples, is there that 37 is a funny number? If it appears in comedy routines, television shows and movies, what other backup is needed that it is a funny number? Robert 22:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously there's no objective cutoff, but if we included every joke that had a number as a punchline, this article would be even more endless than it is. A single joke that had 37 as a punchline doesn't seem to convey anything more than "sometimes an unexpectedly large number is funny". - DavidWBrooks 23:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Isn't 37 the gag in Steve Martin's joke: "Wow, look at the tits! There must be ... 37 of them!" ? --Scix 00:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recaller Joseph Heller in his introduction of a later edition of Catch-22 answering the question of, "Why 22?" I believe he said it was originally Catch-11, but he and his editor changed it because 22 was a much funnier number. I don't own a copy of the book, so I wouldn't feel comfortable adding this as it has been many years since I read the book. However, if someone does own a copy and feels liking going through the intro, it would probably make a nice edition to the Numbers section.

Just did some googling and found that it was originally 18 - not 11 - and that it was changed due to a similarity to another WWII book. But I still recall reading something to the effect of "I'm glad we changed it because 22 is a funnier number."

Since we're discussing funny numbers, I'd like to bring up 42, which in my opinion is the funniest number ever. All because of "The Hitchhiker's Guide..." obviously. -David 19:46 1 October 2006

42 is only funny in that context. It is tediously unfunny when repeated by wankers on the internet. -88.109.205.185 (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flange

Can we at least agree that Flange is an inherently funny word? Sam

Sure, but it's a slippery slope of subjectivity. How about phalanges? Just as funny, I think. Also a favorite of my high school biology teacher, external occipital protuberance. Spalding 15:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] time for a new crackdown?

Sometimes this is a great article. Sometimes it sucks. What makes it suck? Random people adding stuff without sources. I see that it is currently tagged with an unverified claims tag. If anyone wants to get bold and cut it down to just the referenced material, that would be grand, I think. I wish I had time. I love this article.--Jimbo Wales 23:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cahoots!

Just because of the way it sounds, and the humour of a funny-sounding word for the far more sinister "conspiracy" AKismet 03:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense Words: Vogon Poetry

Maybe two Douglas Adams references is too many for one article, but I think that perhaps the Vogon poetry from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy deserves a mention; myself, I can't help but laugh: "gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee"? "foonting turlingdromes"? These are funny words.24.159.216.177 05:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Poles and Czechs

i live with one pole and three czechs. they often converse in their native languages and rarely do i see their sides 'split'.

this article is the absolute epithomy of non-NPOV 81.107.159.5 11:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the introduction says "there is no generally-agreed-upon list of funny words and some people consider it to be a meaningless or nonsensical concept," which seems pretty neutral to me, I assume you are reacting to the fact that people keep shoving in words that they think are funny, rather than reaction to the idea of this article as a whole. That's a common reaction, alas. - DavidWBrooks 13:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Being Polish myself i'll try to explain. Polish people find Slovak and Czech languages funny because a lot of words sound like a childish/softened version of a Polish word. For Slovaks Polish language might be funny because some words sounds for them the same but mean something completly different in their language. Fuutott 01:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] funny nonsense words++

please add "notlob" to funny nonsense words section (its a hilarious nonsensical word in context) (its from a monty python sketch .. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notlob )

[edit] Aesthetics of humor

As a long-time professional scholarly reference work editor and contributor, let me state for the record that this article is excellent work. We in reference probably ought to take it as an insult that so many innocent complaints in this discussion list could be paraphrased, "Real reference work is stodgy and dull, and this article isn't." I'm embarrassed to say we don't *try* to be stodgy and dull. It just happens. Wikipedia, by giving us serious competition, will make us improve. 70.231.252.115 13:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)George J. Leonard December 14, 2006

[edit] Beavis and Butthead

Titicaca. I would certainly perceive that as being an inherently funny word in the context of most Roamance/Germanic languages, however, there is a decided element which Beavis' performance as Cornholio simply elevated the humour of rendering the term. Could someone please include that, and any other Beavis and Butthead references, as I do not trust my ability to mesh with the prosodic style of the page as it currently stands. samwaltz 16:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Cultural Variation"

The entire first paragraph of the "Cultural Variation" section needs to be removed; it is unsubstantiated nonsense. Unless someone adds sources within the next few days, I plan to clean it up. Mabisa 00:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Gross Oversight

How are you going to have an entry about silly, inherently funny words, without any mention of Dr. Seuss? Just saying. O0drogue0o 11:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

He's much more about nonsense words and repetitive rhymes, isn't he? --McGeddon 11:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion

Guys, I'm sorry but I don't think this article is salvageable. Humor is just way too subjective. What kind of "sources" could you ever find to back up the claims made here? There is no authoritative source for what words are funny and what aren't. Funnyhat 20:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Until someone finds scientific evidence for inherently funny words this article should be deleted. The only argument for keeping this article is that it is an inherently funny article. Bus stop 20:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The article begins "The belief that certain words are inherently funny .... is widespread among people who work in humor" (not "Certain words are known to be inherently funny") and gives scads of references to that fact from comics and comic writers who believe in the concept, have written about it, and say they use it in their practice is more than enough sourcing. We don't need some polysyllabic academic paper to make this a legitimate topic; people who use the idea professionally are authoritative enough.
That's not to say the article can't be *improved*, of course - this sort of article attracts a lot of guff - but it's more than noteworthy enough to be the subject of an article. - DavidWBrooks 21:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
As I read the article, it indeed starts in that way, then presents some interesting material that's virtually unsourced (whether to academia or to comedians) suggesting that some kinds of words are funny (occasionally even that they're inherently funny) and then promptly turns into a set of mere lists. If the people who use the idea professionally are authoritative enough, where does any of them discourse upon this matter at any length?
As for what's listed, a lot of it's worthless. Just two randomly chosen examples:
  • David Letterman has frequently used pants as a subject of humor, from screaming out "I am not wearing pants!" over a megahorn [sic] during the Today Show to naming his production company Worldwide Pants Incorporated. Ah. Change "pants" to "jockstrap", and what do we find? What's funny, I'd guess (and I'd be the first to admit that it's only a guess and thus worthless) is the association with his private parts.
  • In a sketch on The O'Franken Factor (now The Al Franken Show) Al plays an "outsourced" version of himself with an exaggerated Indian accent, who remarks that "All of my material is in my native language, Urdu. And most of it is wordplay that would not translate. Hard k's and p's, though, such as 'hockeypuck,' are always funny, just as 'Don Rickles, the king of the put-down.'" So this isn't really Franken talking; it's a fictional character. What's funny, I'd guess (see disclaimer above) is the notion that humor can be produced by simple recipe, and also the innocent unawareness of the suggestion of the word "fuck" (cf hucklebuck).
Suggestion: Though it's imaginable that there's something to this notion (see sound symbolism for inspiration), what we have here is mostly worthless as an article (as opposed to somebody's private blog). Cut it ruthlessly and see if anything worthwhile is left. If not, send it to AfD. -- Hoary 09:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I move for the deletion of this article. It is entirely subjective.82.41.10.26 (talk) 01:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)