Troll Dump thread

[The Charlatan]

:lol: FMD, things are dire if being identified as South African is preferable

Don't get me wrong, there's heaps of places where they do like Aussies as well (Irish Republic and northern France for example,) but we do have a notoriety in certain places for being uncouth and rowdy. They're generally the places where alcohol is ingrained in the culture. Australians are disliked in the US because some flagrantly disregard their custom of tipping. The whole "we don't do that where I come from" attitude is pretty well reviled over there, especially because it's a living for anyone in the services industries there and we expect people to do things our way when they're here.

We're certainly not the "universally loved and easy going" tourists some Australians like to believe we are.

 

[hineyrulz]

You really think that? :lol:

never had a problem overseas, yes there are Aussies that go overseas and make an absolute arse of themselves. Most people I've met have more a problems with yanks, French or Seff Efricans.

But go on tell us what the world thinks of Aussies from your insular chip on both shoulders shaky little isle.

 

[Pete Cash]

Don't get me wrong, there's heaps of places where they do like Aussies as well (Irish Republic and northern France for example,) but we do have a notoriety in certain places for being uncouth and rowdy. They're generally the places where alcohol is ingrained in the culture. Australians are disliked in the US because some flagrantly disregard their custom of tipping. The whole "we don't do that where I come from" attitude is pretty well reviled over there, especially because it's a living for anyone in the services industries there and we expect people to do things our way when they're here.

We're certainly not the "universally loved and easy going" tourists some Australians like to believe we are.

Any Australian who doesn't tip in the USA is pretty shit. Obviously it's a huge con where customers are blatantly subsidising wages but its the system over there and service industry people as you rightly point out require it to live

 

[ANTiLAG]

antilag the joke is kiwis say words funny as well as shagging sheep. ffs.

You are a genius.

You have a cute argument that may at first blush persuade fellow geniuss. But you have many logical hurdles to overcome before you persuade the logical.

Your first problem; - it does not match the original joke. You may suggest it’s an improvement. But it’s not. If the joke is written by El Diablo without a spelling mistake then the Kiwi has not misinterpreted the Australian. The Kiwi has merely replied accurately to the intended meaning of the Australian touring about “shearing”. Your suggestion is that the El Diablo intended to write the word deliberately incorrectly to demonstrate the ghastly kiwi accent. However, the meaning of the words as written is lost with the supposed El Diablo's "intended meaning". That makes it a piece of incredibly bad writing. There were no use of dashes, italics let alone inverted commas to convey to the reader that the word was being spelt "as mispronounced" by the character such as "s-h-e-a-r-i-n'” for example. The writer writes so they take ownership of any quote, be it oral or written because the quoted subject has not written the work. A subsequent re-written quote with a mistake should have [sic] inserted after it. This lets the reader know that the subsequent reader that the writer is aware of the mistake and that it is in fact a mistake. A writer if writing an oral quote can phonetically spell a mispronounced word, but should not for reasons of ambiguity use an accurate spelling of another word, especially that of the original misinterpreted word which is spelt accurately without using literary tools such as those of inverted commas, italics and/or dashes.

In El Diablo’s example the spelling matches the verb stem as used by the Australian tourist. The spelling does not match the clear and identifiable context of the Kiwi's meaning which matches the joke of sexual jealousy. The Kiwi's meaning is quite clear. That concludes that El Diablo has made a spelling mistake. Because here is the problem; if El Diablo has not made a spelling mistake, then the Kiwi has not misinterpreted the Australian tourist. There is no joke. The farmer is not sexually jealous towards the sheep. The joke may as well have been - "An Australian saw a Kiwi farmer shagging a sheep and told him that they shear sheep in Australia and the Kiw farmer replied that he was not going to shear his sheep with anyone assisting."

In sum – if El Diablo has not made a spelling mistake, then he has made a grammatical and literary mistake of not identifying the word “shearin” as being mispronounced version of “sharing” as well as creating the ambiguous strict interpretation of the writing which means that the farmer has not misinterpreted the Australian tourist as he has replied with the exact same word of "shearing". But we know from the context that that is utter rubbish. The Kiwi has indeed misinterpreted the Australian tourist. El Diablo has just made a stupid spelling mistake. But if you claim he has not, he has written in a geniused manner and not taken ownership of his written work.

Second problem; even if the words are strict homophones in NZ, the common pronunciation is ‘sharing’ – not ‘shearing’. So there is not necessarily a funny pronunciation of Kiwis speaking the word “sharing”. It is the word “shearing” that is spoken “funny” if in fact either word is in that context. Then there are Kiwis who pronounce "sharing" as "shearing" - so on either mispronunciation, the words are homophonic.

It was too painful...how can anyone think sharing and shearing are homophones..
are they really in new zealand. What a ghastly accent.

You are being inconsistent. You state that the point of the spelling by El Diablo was to display the funny Kiwi mispronunciation of “sharing” as “shearing”– and yet now you question how anyone could think that the two words are homophones?
Further, the two words are near homophones on any pronunciation of English, before they are used in a homophonic pun as homophones to each other as a word pair. So to think that shearing and sharing are not homophones, you need to strictly define homophones as words that sound exactly the same only and excluding any wider definition of nearly the same. So if you do that, in the Queen’s English, “shearing” and “sharing” are not homophones. They are nevertheless and remain “near homophones”.

https://englishwithlinda.wordpress.com/english-is-funny/funny-and-punny-fun-with-homophones/

Funny and Punny – Fun with Homophones
Puns rely on the humorous use of a word (or phrase) so as to emphasize or suggest its different meanings or applications.
Here, are puns based on homophones: words that are alike (or nearly alike) in sound but different in spelling and meaning.
• A bicycle can’t stand on its own because it is two-tired.
• With her marriage she got a new name and a dress.

“a dress” and “address” have been used as homophones to each other. The word pairs are not strict homophones but the definition of homophone has been given a wider definition of sounding “nearly alike”. Perhaps I could have spoken of “near” homophones leading to “Near Homophonic Puns” – and people did early last century in England. But with Linda, and others I reference with regard Homophonic puns, the language has moved on. As it has with me. The same issue raises its head with the word “homonym” – which were words that were both homophones and homographs. But now a word being one or the other will suffice the Oxford dictionary definition. Word meanings in language evolvees over time.

http://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/homonym-homophone-homograph/

In the strictest sense, a homonym must be both a homograph and a homophone. So say many dictionaries. However, other dictionaries allow that a homonym can be a homograph or a homophone.

Whether the words on strict interpretation are homophones in New Zealand or not with correct pronunciation is besides the point. They are still “near” homophones in any version of spoken English and they're used as homophones for the purposes of a homophonic pun punchline for the joke, as the joke is a misinterpretation joke based on a homophonic pun of two (near) homophones that the joke uses like homophones. The similarly sounding word pair of "sharing" and "shearing" uses the homophonic qualities of the words for a funny misinterpretation by the Kiwi conveying sexual jealousy. For the purposes of the joke, a (near) homophonic pun, the two words are clear homophones to each other as a word pair. It is not a pseudo-homophone, as both words truly exist. Neither word is made up.

The pun, also called paronomasia, is a form of word play that suggests two or more meanings, by exploiting multiple meanings of words, or of similar-sounding words, for an intended humorous or rhetorical effect.[1][2] These ambiguities can arise from the intentional use of homophonic, homographic, metonymic, or figurative language. A pun differs from a malapropism in that a malapropism is an incorrect variation on a correct expression, while a pun involves expressions with multiple correct interpretations. Puns may be regarded as in-jokes or idiomatic constructions, as their usage and meaning are specific to a particular language and its culture.

Now it cannot be a malapropism by the Kiwi farmer, because the context of the joke, and the original version demonstrate, he clearly means he is not going to "share" his sheep, which conveys sexual jealousy towards the sheep and a misinterpretation by the Kiwi farmer of the Australian's question. Now if the Kiwi meant to say he was going to shear his sheep alone, this then means that he never misinterpreted the Australian tourist and that he is not conveying sexual jealousy towards the sheep.

This is a pun joke contingent on the homophonic qualities of "sharing" and "shearing". For the use of puns in literature you can use "sun" and "son" as word pair homophones or go even as far as "tuna" and "tune a" - where "tune a" is definitely not a single word so as to be a homophone, but nor is it a made up word. So these words are not strict homophones in isolation before a homophonic joke. But once they are used as a WORD PAIR for the literary purpose of a homophonic pun, the word pairs are used as homophones for the purposes of the joke. Now you can claim that the words should be considered near homophones and that it is a near homophonic pun. And you have an argument. Except there are plenty of literary writers who have taken a wider definition of the word homophones when it comes to homophonic puns of words that sound nearly alike.

http://www.literarydevices.com/pun/

Homophonic pun: This type of pun uses homonyms (words that sound the same) with different meanings. For example: “The wedding was so emotional that even the cake was in tiers.”

Homographic pun: This type of pun uses words that are spelled the same but sound different. These puns are often written rather than spoken, as they briefly trick the reader into reading the “wrong” sound. For example, “You can tune a guitar, but you can’t tuna fish. Unless you play bass.” In this case, “tuna fish” is a homophonic pun because it is a homonym for “tune a.” The word “bass,” though, functions as a homographic pun in that the word “bass” pronounced with a long “a” refers to a type of instrument while “bass” pronounced with a short “a” is a type of fish.

Homonymic pun: A homonymic pun contains aspects of both the homophonic pun and the homographic pun. In this type of pun, the wordplay involves a word that is spelled and sounds the same, yet has different meanings. For example, “Two silk worms had a race and ended in a tie.” A “tie” can of course either be when neither party wins, but in this pun also refers to the piece of clothing usually made from silk.

In sum I subscribe to homophonic pun using homophones that encompasses what were previously known as “(near) homophonic Puns”. I make no apologies for this. Any confusion as to meaning, and an inability to comprehend the “near” homophone with “strict” homophone is due to geniusation of the reader. Nothing hinges on whether a strict and anrrow defintion or a wider definition of nearly alike is used for homophones when considering a homophonic pun.

El Diablo still spelt the word wrong. If it was deliberate as you suggest to be demonstrative of an accent, then he f**cked up the grammar by not including “inverted commas” and l-i-t-e-r-a-r-y devices to his deliberate misspelling while destroying the plain meaning of the joke with ambiguity. Cannot spell or cannot write. Either way. El Diablo has embarrassed himself. But lets be honest - he merely spelt the word wrong. That way the joke is not ambiguous and the kiwi farmer has minsterpreted the Australian tourist revealing sexual jealousy towards sheep. There is no second layer as written. The word is spelt wrong. Did El Diablo intend to spell it wrong? You think so, I think not. But it makes no difference. It is still spelt wrong. And he did not use any literary device he should have when deliberately misspelling a word. He is stupidly mistaken either way. He has stuffed up the spelling or stuffed up the grammar and it is still spelt wrong.

 

[Pete Cash]

Holy moly

 

[JJ]

never had a problem overseas, yes there are Aussies that go overseas and make an absolute arse of themselves. Most people I've met have more a problems with yanks, French or Seff Efricans.

But go on tell us what the world thinks of Aussies from your insular chip on both shoulders shaky little isle.

Never said you personally had problems, and I never compared Aussies to Americans, the French or South Africans - merely wondered about your delusion that Aussies are universally loved, that would make you kiwis, surely?

Charlatan pointed out the reality, some Aussies are pains in the arse, most are not

 

[The Charlatan]

Any Australian who doesn't tip in the USA is pretty shit. Obviously it's a huge con where customers are blatantly subsidising wages but its the system over there and service industry people as you rightly point out require it to live

One of my wife's friends was recounting a story when she refused to tip because it wasn't what we do here and wondered why the staff member got up her and virtually shouted her out of the shop. Asked her if her service was poor, and she said no, she was looked after better than most places here.

Silly bitch didn't realise they earn about $4 an hour and rely on that tip money to eke out a living. And she's very much one of those "you come here, you respect us." Was quick to point that out.

I personally didn't mind the tipping system. No one got less than 20% from us during our honeymoon there. All of the table service was outstanding. Even if it is only a put on for your money, it still improves your dining experience, and you're never left waiting.

 

[hineyrulz]

We've got a live one.

 

[JJ]

Silly bitch didn't realise they earn about $4 an hour and rely on that tip money to eke out a living. And she's very much one of those "you come here, you respect us." Was quick to point that out.

Funny how that's always the way, and they don't see the irony in their behaviour.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Don't get me wrong, there's heaps of places where they do like Aussies as well (Irish Republic and northern France for example,) but we do have a notoriety in certain places for being uncouth and rowdy. They're generally the places where alcohol is ingrained in the culture. Australians are disliked in the US because some flagrantly disregard their custom of tipping. The whole "we don't do that where I come from" attitude is pretty well reviled over there, especially because it's a living for anyone in the services industries there and we expect people to do things our way when they're here.

We're certainly not the "universally loved and easy going" tourists some Australians like to believe we are.

I love the irony. The expectation that those same people have to visitors and migrants in Australia to conform to Australian ways, are completely ignored when those same Australians are abroad. I personally think that tipping is loathsome and very very poor employment practice - but when in Rome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENoAlkvL8aE

 

[Twatface Magee]

You are a genius.

You have a cute argument that may at first blush persuade fellow geniuss. But you have many logical hurdles to overcome before you persuade the logical.

Your first problem; - it does not match the original joke. You may suggest it?s an improvement. But it?s not. If the joke is written by El Diablo without a spelling mistake then the Kiwi has not misinterpreted the Australian. The Kiwi has merely replied accurately to the intended meaning of the Australian touring about ?shearing?. Your suggestion is that the El Diablo intended to write the word deliberately incorrectly to demonstrate the ghastly kiwi accent. However, the meaning of the words as written is lost with the supposed El Diablo's "intended meaning". That makes it a piece of incredibly bad writing. There were no use of dashes, italics let alone inverted commas to convey to the reader that the word was being spelt "as mispronounced" by the character such as "s-h-e-a-r-i-n'? for example. The writer writes so they take ownership of any quote, be it oral or written because the quoted subject has not written the work. A subsequent re-written quote with a mistake should have [sic] inserted after it. This lets the reader know that the subsequent reader that the writer is aware of the mistake and that it is in fact a mistake. A writer if writing an oral quote can phonetically spell a mispronounced word, but should not for reasons of ambiguity use an accurate spelling of another word, especially that of the original misinterpreted word which is spelt accurately without using literary tools such as those of inverted commas, italics and/or dashes.

In El Diablo?s example the spelling matches the verb stem as used by the Australian tourist. The spelling does not match the clear and identifiable context of the Kiwi's meaning which matches the joke of sexual jealousy. The Kiwi's meaning is quite clear. That concludes that El Diablo has made a spelling mistake. Because here is the problem; if El Diablo has not made a spelling mistake, then the Kiwi has not misinterpreted the Australian tourist. There is no joke. The farmer is not sexually jealous towards the sheep. The joke may as well have been - "An Australian saw a Kiwi farmer shagging a sheep and told him that they shear sheep in Australia and the Kiw farmer replied that he was not going to shear his sheep with anyone assisting."

In sum ? if El Diablo has not made a spelling mistake, then he has made a grammatical and literary mistake of not identifying the word ?shearin? as being mispronounced version of ?sharing? as well as creating the ambiguous strict interpretation of the writing which means that the farmer has not misinterpreted the Australian tourist as he has replied with the exact same word of "shearing". But we know from the context that that is utter rubbish. The Kiwi has indeed misinterpreted the Australian tourist. El Diablo has just made a stupid spelling mistake. But if you claim he has not, he has written in a geniused manner and not taken ownership of his written work.

Second problem; even if the words are strict homophones in NZ, the common pronunciation is ?sharing? ? not ?shearing?. So there is no funny pronunciation of Kiwis speaking the word ?sharing? funny. It is the word ?shearing? that is spoken ?funny? if in fact either word is.



You are being inconsistent. You state that the point of the spelling by El Diablo was to display the funny Kiwi mispronunciation of ?sharing? as ?shearing?? and yet now you question how anyone could think that the two words are homophones?
Further, the two words are near homophones on any pronunciation of English, before they are used in a homophonic pun as homophones to each other as a word pair. So to think that shearing and sharing are not homophones, you need to strictly define homophones as words that sound exactly the same only and excluding any wider definition of nearly the same. So if you do that, in the Queen?s English, ?shearing? and ?sharing? are not homophones. They are nevertheless and remain ?near homophones?.

https://englishwithlinda.wordpress.com/english-is-funny/funny-and-punny-fun-with-homophones/



?a dress? and ?address? have been used as homophones to each other. The word pairs are not strict homophones but the definition of homophone has been given a wider definition of sounding ?nearly alike?. Perhaps I could have spoken of ?near? homophones leading to ?Near Homophonic Puns? ? and people did early last century in England. But with Linda, and others I reference with regard Homophonic puns, the language has moved on. As it has with me. The same issue raises its head with the word ?homonym? ? which were words that were both homophones and homographs. But now a word being one or the other will suffice the Oxford dictionary definition. Word meanings in language evolvees over time.

http://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/homonym-homophone-homograph/


Whether the words on strict interpretation are homophones in New Zealand or not with correct pronunciation is besides the point. They are still ?near? homophones in any version of spoken English and they're used as homophones for the purposes of a homophonic pun punchline for the joke, as the joke is a misinterpretation joke based on a homophonic pun of two (near) homophones that the joke uses like homophones. The similarly sounding word pair of "sharing" and "shearing" uses the homophonic qualities of the words for a funny misinterpretation by the Kiwi conveying sexual jealousy. For the purposes of the joke, a (near) homophonic pun, the two words are clear homophones to each other as a word pair. It is not a pseudo-homophone, as both words truly exist. Neither word is made up.



Now it cannot be a malapropism by the Kiwi farmer, because the context of the joke, and the original version demonstrate, he clearly means he is not going to "share" his sheep, which conveys sexual jealousy towards the sheep and a misinterpretation by the Kiwi farmer of the Australian's question. Now if the Kiwi meant to say he was going to shear his sheep alone, this then means that he never misinterpreted the Australian tourist and that he is not conveying sexual jealousy towards the sheep.

This is a pun joke contingent on the homophonic qualities of "sharing" and "shearing". For the use of puns in literature you can use "sun" and "son" as word pair homophones or go even as far as "tuna" and "tune a" - where "tune a" is definitely not a single word so as to be a homophone, but nor is it a made up word. So these words are not strict homophones in isolation before a homophonic joke. But once they are used as a WORD PAIR for the literary purpose of a homophonic pun, the word pairs are used as homophones for the purposes of the joke. Now you can claim that the words should be considered near homophones and that it is a near homophonic pun. And you have an argument. Except there are plenty of literary writers who have taken a wider definition of the word homophones when it comes to homophonic puns of words that sound nearly alike.

http://www.literarydevices.com/pun/



In sum I subscribe to homophonic pun using homophones that encompasses what were previously known as ?(near) homophonic Puns?. I make no apologies for this. Any confusion as to meaning, and an inability to comprehend the ?near? homophone with ?strict? homophone is due to geniusation of the reader. Nothing hinges on whether a strict and anrrow defintion or a wider definition of nearly alike is used for homophones when considering a homophonic pun.

El Diablo still spelt the word wrong. If it was deliberate as you suggest to be demonstrative of an accent, then he f**cked up the grammar by not including ?inverted commas? and l-i-t-e-r-a-r-y devices to his deliberate misspelling while destroying the plain meaning of the joke with ambiguity. Cannot spell or cannot write. Either way. El Diablo has embarrassed himself. But lets be honest - he merely spelt the word wrong. That way the joke is not ambiguous and the kiwi farmer has minsterpreted the Australian tourist revealing sexual jealousy towards sheep. There is no second layer as written. The word is spelt wrong. Did El Diablo intend to spell it wrong? You think so, I think not. But it makes no difference. It is still spelt wrong. And he did not use any literary device he should have when deliberately misspelling a word. He is stupidly mistaken either way. He has stuffed up the spelling or stuffed up the grammar.

You're a f**king idiot

 

[ANTiLAG]

You're a f**king idiot

An idiot has an iq under 25. That is a profound intellectual disability. Judging by your writing and lack of comprehension, you're a moron. That is much smarter than an idiot. But nevertheless still mildly geniused.

 

[Pete Cash]

A potplant has an IQ of 25

 

[Twatface Magee]

An idiot has an iq under 25. That is a profound intellectual disability. Judging by your writing and lack of comprehension, you're a moron. That is much smarter than an idiot. But nevertheless still mildly geniused.

Oh you definitely have an IQ under 25, don't worry.
How you couldn't tell that the joke was taking the piss out of the Kiwi accent is beyond me.

As I said, all you had to do to not look like you have the intelligence of a kumquat was to google the joke and you would have found this:

Some sheep jokes also take differences in the accent into account. In one example, a farmer who is having unnatural relations with a sheep is asked if he should rather be shearing the sheep, to which he replies "I'm not shearing this sheep with anyone!" Here shearing is taken have the same pronunciation as sharing, as it does in New Zealand English.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_humour

 

[ANTiLAG]

Oh you definitely have an IQ under 25, don't worry.
How you couldn't tell that the joke was taking the piss out of the Kiwi accent is beyond me.

As I said, all you had to do to not look like you have the intelligence of a kumquat was to google the joke and you would have found this:



[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_humour"][/url]

Some sheep jokes also take differences in the accent into account. In one example, a farmer who is having unnatural relations with a sheep is asked if he should rather be shearing the sheep, to which he replies "I'm not ' s-h-e- a-r-i-n-g ' this sheep with anyone!" Here shearing is taken have the same pronunciation as sharing, as it does in New Zealand English.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_humour

You'd best learn how to read and write good English before you take the mickey out of accents.

 

[Pete Cash]

No, no dig up stupid

 

[Bazal]

Actually this bloke is more like the Kiwi Razor....deadset

 

[ANTiLAG]

No, no dig up stupid

If you're going to write a mispronunciation, do it properly.

http://www.efrogpress.com/2014/02/11/mispronunciations-written-words-spoken-words/

I would have gone with "she-air-ring" myself. But "she-ear-ing" or "SHE air Ring" or even "s-h-e-a-r-i-n-g" or any host of literary devices would have worked to convey a mispronunciation of a word. But at the very least, the very very least, inverted commas were needed on "... 'shearing' ...".

But El Diablo did none of these when purporting to quote an oral speaker to demonstrate a phonetic spelling of a mispronounced word.

 

[El Diablo]

Well the gimp can spell financial....which puts him above 7 in my estimation

big financial news

You are a genius.

You have a cute argument that may at first blush persuade fellow geniuss. But you have many logical hurdles to overcome before you persuade the logical.

Your first problem; - it does not match the original joke. You may suggest it?s an improvement. But it?s not. If the joke is written by El Diablo without a spelling mistake then the Kiwi has not misinterpreted the Australian. The Kiwi has merely replied accurately to the intended meaning of the Australian touring about ?shearing?. Your suggestion is that the El Diablo intended to write the word deliberately incorrectly to demonstrate the ghastly kiwi accent. However, the meaning of the words as written is lost with the supposed El Diablo's "intended meaning". That makes it a piece of incredibly bad writing. There were no use of dashes, italics let alone inverted commas to convey to the reader that the word was being spelt "as mispronounced" by the character such as "s-h-e-a-r-i-n'? for example. The writer writes so they take ownership of any quote, be it oral or written because the quoted subject has not written the work. A subsequent re-written quote with a mistake should have [sic] inserted after it. This lets the reader know that the subsequent reader that the writer is aware of the mistake and that it is in fact a mistake. A writer if writing an oral quote can phonetically spell a mispronounced word, but should not for reasons of ambiguity use an accurate spelling of another word, especially that of the original misinterpreted word which is spelt accurately without using literary tools such as those of inverted commas, italics and/or dashes.

In El Diablo?s example the spelling matches the verb stem as used by the Australian tourist. The spelling does not match the clear and identifiable context of the Kiwi's meaning which matches the joke of sexual jealousy. The Kiwi's meaning is quite clear. That concludes that El Diablo has made a spelling mistake. Because here is the problem; if El Diablo has not made a spelling mistake, then the Kiwi has not misinterpreted the Australian tourist. There is no joke. The farmer is not sexually jealous towards the sheep. The joke may as well have been - "An Australian saw a Kiwi farmer shagging a sheep and told him that they shear sheep in Australia and the Kiw farmer replied that he was not going to shear his sheep with anyone assisting."

In sum ? if El Diablo has not made a spelling mistake, then he has made a grammatical and literary mistake of not identifying the word ?shearin? as being mispronounced version of ?sharing? as well as creating the ambiguous strict interpretation of the writing which means that the farmer has not misinterpreted the Australian tourist as he has replied with the exact same word of "shearing". But we know from the context that that is utter rubbish. The Kiwi has indeed misinterpreted the Australian tourist. El Diablo has just made a stupid spelling mistake. But if you claim he has not, he has written in a geniused manner and not taken ownership of his written work.

Second problem; even if the words are strict homophones in NZ, the common pronunciation is ?sharing? ? not ?shearing?. So there is no funny pronunciation of Kiwis speaking the word ?sharing? funny. It is the word ?shearing? that is spoken ?funny? if in fact either word is.



You are being inconsistent. You state that the point of the spelling by El Diablo was to display the funny Kiwi mispronunciation of ?sharing? as ?shearing?? and yet now you question how anyone could think that the two words are homophones?
Further, the two words are near homophones on any pronunciation of English, before they are used in a homophonic pun as homophones to each other as a word pair. So to think that shearing and sharing are not homophones, you need to strictly define homophones as words that sound exactly the same only and excluding any wider definition of nearly the same. So if you do that, in the Queen?s English, ?shearing? and ?sharing? are not homophones. They are nevertheless and remain ?near homophones?.

https://englishwithlinda.wordpress.com/english-is-funny/funny-and-punny-fun-with-homophones/



?a dress? and ?address? have been used as homophones to each other. The word pairs are not strict homophones but the definition of homophone has been given a wider definition of sounding ?nearly alike?. Perhaps I could have spoken of ?near? homophones leading to ?Near Homophonic Puns? ? and people did early last century in England. But with Linda, and others I reference with regard Homophonic puns, the language has moved on. As it has with me. The same issue raises its head with the word ?homonym? ? which were words that were both homophones and homographs. But now a word being one or the other will suffice the Oxford dictionary definition. Word meanings in language evolvees over time.

http://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/homonym-homophone-homograph/


Whether the words on strict interpretation are homophones in New Zealand or not with correct pronunciation is besides the point. They are still ?near? homophones in any version of spoken English and they're used as homophones for the purposes of a homophonic pun punchline for the joke, as the joke is a misinterpretation joke based on a homophonic pun of two (near) homophones that the joke uses like homophones. The similarly sounding word pair of "sharing" and "shearing" uses the homophonic qualities of the words for a funny misinterpretation by the Kiwi conveying sexual jealousy. For the purposes of the joke, a (near) homophonic pun, the two words are clear homophones to each other as a word pair. It is not a pseudo-homophone, as both words truly exist. Neither word is made up.



Now it cannot be a malapropism by the Kiwi farmer, because the context of the joke, and the original version demonstrate, he clearly means he is not going to "share" his sheep, which conveys sexual jealousy towards the sheep and a misinterpretation by the Kiwi farmer of the Australian's question. Now if the Kiwi meant to say he was going to shear his sheep alone, this then means that he never misinterpreted the Australian tourist and that he is not conveying sexual jealousy towards the sheep.

This is a pun joke contingent on the homophonic qualities of "sharing" and "shearing". For the use of puns in literature you can use "sun" and "son" as word pair homophones or go even as far as "tuna" and "tune a" - where "tune a" is definitely not a single word so as to be a homophone, but nor is it a made up word. So these words are not strict homophones in isolation before a homophonic joke. But once they are used as a WORD PAIR for the literary purpose of a homophonic pun, the word pairs are used as homophones for the purposes of the joke. Now you can claim that the words should be considered near homophones and that it is a near homophonic pun. And you have an argument. Except there are plenty of literary writers who have taken a wider definition of the word homophones when it comes to homophonic puns of words that sound nearly alike.

http://www.literarydevices.com/pun/



In sum I subscribe to homophonic pun using homophones that encompasses what were previously known as ?(near) homophonic Puns?. I make no apologies for this. Any confusion as to meaning, and an inability to comprehend the ?near? homophone with ?strict? homophone is due to geniusation of the reader. Nothing hinges on whether a strict and anrrow defintion or a wider definition of nearly alike is used for homophones when considering a homophonic pun.

El Diablo still spelt the word wrong. If it was deliberate as you suggest to be demonstrative of an accent, then he f**cked up the grammar by not including ?inverted commas? and l-i-t-e-r-a-r-y devices to his deliberate misspelling while destroying the plain meaning of the joke with ambiguity. Cannot spell or cannot write. Either way. El Diablo has embarrassed himself. But lets be honest - he merely spelt the word wrong. That way the joke is not ambiguous and the kiwi farmer has minsterpreted the Australian tourist revealing sexual jealousy towards sheep. There is no second layer as written. The word is spelt wrong. Did El Diablo intend to spell it wrong? You think so, I think not. But it makes no difference. It is still spelt wrong. And he did not use any literary device he should have when deliberately misspelling a word. He is stupidly mistaken either way. He has stuffed up the spelling or stuffed up the grammar and it is still spelt wrong.

tldr

 

[ANTiLAG]

Well the gimp can spell financial....which puts him above 7 in my estimation

I still don't have him pegging past 8, though.