![]() |
||
BOOKS FOR SALE!!! |
“The only difference between a proctor and a proctologist is the degree of scrutiny.” “Does using a term again make it revocable?” Non Sequitur: It Doesn't Follow If a wit is one astute of judgment or perception, shouldn’t a half-wit be someone who is half astute or aware, instead of an imbecile? In fact, wouldn’t an idiot be more appropriately referred to as a “no-wit”? I classify jokes I find amusing in the following categories: → Clever-giddy As you might surmise by the names, “Clever-giddy” is reversed for those simple jokes where the humor is obvious, and anyone who enjoys a good pun might have thought of it, as well as those jokes where one might sometimes think, “I can’t believe I just laughed at that.” But laugh one did, and thus it must have been funny on some level! Clever-giddy also applies when the response evoked is a mere chortle, a snicker or a groan. “Clever-witty” is the classification for jokes that are more sophisticated, jokes that require one to think. The humor is not as obvious ab initio, so it takes a little more by both the teller and the recipient to convey and appreciate the humor. The response evoked is more of a guffaw (either inwardly or outwardly) or a silent sanctioning of the joke as “clever.” I will be the first to admit that Literally Speaking is, in large part, clever-giddy. But there are a few of them, particularly as the humor is elevated to a higher level with the definitions, which I would assert are clever-witty. Have fun exploring the levels of clever! (And if you're equal to the task, try saying "level of clever" ten times, really fast!)
|
FEELING FUNNY?™ |
|
||