I fix jokes
I'm sure we're all familiar with the joke about the man who goes to a café and orders a cup of coffee, with no milk. Not long after placing his order, the waiter returns to his table (for it's that kind of café) and, with downcast face, tells him that they're out of milk—would he accept his coffee with no cream?
Now, the first time I heard, or possibly read, this joke, the man at the cafe was identified as Jean-Paul Sartre. But this is ridiculous! The joke is clearly about determinate negation, and the patron ought, rightly, be G.W.F. Hegel, in search of his Tasse Kaffee.
Relatedly, the Mexican restaurant at the corner of San Antonio and California will serve one an insanely large quantity of pork confit for $7.50. My belief is that if a pig has led a virtuous life, its shoulder is made into carnitas.
Comments
on 2006-04-29 19:09:37.0, rone commented:
My belief is that if a pig has led a virtuous life, its shoulder is made into carnitas.
If you're starting a religion, i'll be your first convert.
and, further, on 2006-04-29 20:51:06.0, ben wolfson commented:
Misplaced modifier alert! Oh no!
Perhaps the sentence can be salvaged by claiming that the return of the waiter happened not long after the waiter placed the order with whomever with whom he would be in the business of placing orders.
and, further, on 2006-04-30 23:25:47.0, Saheli commented:
How about "after placing the order". . I mean, is any kind of modifier necessary? Only one order has been mentioned in the anecdote.
and, further, on 2006-04-30 23:40:20.0, ben wolfson commented:
That wouldn't change the misplacedness of the modifier (which is the whole phrase "after placing his/the order", though perhaps I have my terms wrong). The problem is that the sentence as written (or with your revision) would mean that the waiter, not the patron, had placed the order. My proposed reinterpretation would solve that problem, but it's an unnatural reading.
and, further, on 2006-05-01 6:21:06.0, The Modesto Kid commented:
Why would the man order his coffee without any milk, when he could more idiomatically order it black?
and, further, on 2006-05-01 18:06:05.0, Saheli commented:
would mean that the waiter, not the patron, had placed the order.
Oh dear, I guess that is a problem in that I actually thought that's what was going on--the waitstaff placing the order with the kitchenstaff.
and, further, on 2006-05-01 23:31:18.0, ben wolfson commented:
Well, see, that's the alternate interpretation I had intended to introduce with my comment. But it's not what I meant, initially, to say.
If that's what your first reaction really was, so much the better.
and, further, on 2006-05-01 23:31:55.0, ben wolfson commented:
Why would the man order his coffee without any milk, when he could more idiomatically order it black?
Plot.
and, further, on 2006-05-05 5:08:15.0, Standpipe Bridgeplate commented:
Ubi carnitas et amor, deus ibi est.
and, further, on 2006-05-05 5:44:37.0, The Modesto Kid commented:
Semper carnitas.
and, further, on 2006-05-06 11:26:41.0, Michael Roetzel commented:
Hegel just causes trouble.
But really, the second mention of placing the order is superfluous! You may skip it entirely, e.g.q.e.d.viz.: "After a short time, the waiter returns..."