WARNING: This post is about to destroy a popular joke. My excuse for this act of killjoy vandalism is that it will open a window on the fascinating workings of the word Why.
WARNING (2):
Later on in this article, I'm going to use the word teleological. This isn't a word that many people know or use, unless they're involved in theology or philosophy. But it's a useful word if we're looking at the way Why? questions work, and the different ways we can answer them, or re-phrase them. Here is a definition that I found as soon as I Googled it – it's as good as any:
Teleological (adj.): relating to or involving the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise.
If someone answers a why question – say, "Why do you work so hard?" – with an infinitive of purpose, they're giving a teleological answer:
"To earn money." or "To satisfy my ambition." or "To give me an excuse not to see my family."
Of course there are other ways of starting a teleogical answer, like "So that.." or "For..."
"So that I can retire at 50." or "For fun."
But there are also non-teleological, causal, answers which usually start with "Because..."
"Because I don't know how to relax." "Because my boss told me to."
OK. Ready? Here's the joke:
"What's ET short for?"
"Because he's got little legs!"
Now, maybe you find this joke very funny. In which case, I'm sorry for everything that follows.
Then again, maybe you don't get it. In which case, allow me to help you out:
Like a lot of question-and-answer jokes in English, this derives humour from the existence of 2 possible meanings of a word or phrase, and a surprising mismatch between a question and response, based on a confusion between the 2 meanings.
Meaning one
What is .... short for? is a way of asking for the explanation of an abbreviation.
What's BBC short for? It's short for "British Broadcasting Corporation"
Whats "Vlog" short for? It's short for "Video Log" (log=diary)
What's ET short for? = What words does ET (the two-initial abbreviation) represent?
The expected response to the question in the joke is thus: It's short for "Extra-Terrestrial".
But the joke wrong-foots us, by switching meanings. The imagined answerer of the question has applied Meaning two:
Meaning two
What ... for? is also another way of asking "Why?"
"What are you learning English for?" "So that I can work in New Zealand.
"What is ET short for" = "Why is ET (the alien himself) short?"
The humour is in the transformation of the question from (intended) Meaning one to (understood )
Meaning two.
But I don't think the joke works. And here's why:
Remember how I said that the question "Why?" has 2 dimensions?
the causal - "As a result of what circumstances?"
and the teleological - "To what end?"/"For what purpose". And remember how a teleological "Why?" can be answered with "So that.." or an infinitive of purpose (The paradigmatic teleological reply to an unanswerable "Why?" is "To make the children ask!"), while a causal "Why?" question is more likely to be answered with a "Because..."?
Well, as you might guess, "What [...] for?" is synonymous with teleogical "Why?":
"The exam has been cancelled! What are you studying for? " "I'm studying so that I'll be better informed."
"What did you come here for?" "I came here to shoot Donald Trump."
It implies an ulterior purpose towards which an action is directed. Admittedly,
"What did you throw my goldfish out the window for?"
while on the surface seeming to relate to purpose, may also be an enquiry into cause, but this is because an enquiry into motivation easily mixes up the two. But no one would ask "What are you tired for?"
So, although the enquiry
"Why do people have hands?"
might be answered teleologically – "To pray to the Lord with" (or "To slap fundamentalists with"),
OR causally – "Because they evolved from flippers",
"What do people have hands for?" limits replies to the former (the praying or slapping answer).
This is why the above joke always makes my teeth slightly itch.
The exchange, in terms of Meaning two, doesn't make sense.
"What's ET short for?" [teleological enquiry]
"Because he's got little legs." [causal response]
If we're asking the reason why a situation exists, we don't use "what...for".
We use "what...for" to ask for a motivation or purpose.
All we need to do to make the joke work is to make the response teleological:
"What's ET short for?"
"So that he doesn't get all cramped in that little spaceship."
Or even better:
"What's ET short for?"
"So children will still find him cute and unthreatening despite his repulsive appearance."
Now, in case you were wondering, yes there is also a useful causal Why?" alternative:
How come...?
Here are three things to know about How come...?
Its use is generally informal and colloquial. A lot of people will be suspicious about allowing it into the realms of standard English, although it's very long-established and widely understood, and so very useful.
It is causal by its very nature - "How does/did it come to be that...?"
Here's the best thing: because it contains in its invisible bones the above question clause, it doesn't require another question inversion!
Remember question inversions? If English isn't your first language, you'll have to.
Why is one of those question words that cannot be followed directly by a subject, if the question has a verb in it. (No verb? No Problem! - "Why me?", "Why The Democratic Republic of Congo?", "Why mayonnaise?")
It is one of those question words that triggers the peculiar question word-order that has evolved out of two weird, seemingly contradictory neuroses of modern English:
A: Questions need to be signalled by a verb before the subject.
B: The subject must always go before the verb (unless the verb is be), EVEN IN QUESTIONS.
The only way of squaring the circle of these, clearly insane, twin obsessions, has been to make sure that there is always an extra ("auxiliary") verb in a question, that can go before the subject, which is then followed by the main verb.
So Why triggers the classic Q-A-S-V? word order (or Q-V-S? with the verb be): What for does too, but for gets sent to the end.
Question word Auxiliary Subject Verb
Why do politicians lie?
Why did we choose Inverness for our summer holiday?
What have you brought your gun for?
There can only ever be one QASV inversion in a sentence, and How come, as I said, has already swallowed and digested that inversion:
How (does it) come (to be that) we're wearing tutus?
So you can start a question with How come and not have to worry about weird English question word order - no inversion necessary!
Why don't we use this expression more often?
How come we don't use this expression more often?
Why didn't I know about this?
How come I didn't know about this?
Why is ET short
How come ET is short?
And here's your homework. Only one of these 6 questions doesn't work. Which one, and why?
Why did you phone home? What did you phone home for? How come you phoned home?
Why didn't you phone home? What didn't you phone home for? How come you didn't phone home?
Kommentare