Comments From a Simple Treedog

[Sycamore]

Had Liam's dialogue been WRITTEN correctly, and then Liam began his prattle about the usage of the words "your" and "you're," there would be no problem.  Having it written in that way was sloppy by the writer, which is why I commented.

A spoonerism is obvious in its written/spoken form.  If it is in a story, one can expand on it with the laughter of others or the speaker's discomfort when he realized his mistake.

But that's exactly what I did. Allow me to break this down.

?Your awake!?

It is Liam's unintention to speak with the possessive case, just as it was my unintention to say "flies are dericious."

The otter froze, immobilized by the hare?s apparent joy.

Does not pertain to discussion at paw.

?Well, I mean t?say, that you are awake, not ?you? possessive, that is, that just doesn?t make sense! Although, unless we?re talkin? ?bout your state of being awake. That would make sense, now wouldn?t it, wot??

Cairn, you wrote, "If it is in a story, one can expand on it with the laughter of others or the speaker's discomfort when he realized his mistake." This is exactly what Liam feels - discomfort, and therefore he feels it is necessary to correct his previous error.

One thing I can assure you is that it was anything but "sloppy". If you can convince me that I was incorrect, then it was ignorance, which, in my opinion, does not create slop.

[Damask the Minstrel]

Oooo... I can't resist.

"Flies are deriscious" is a verbal mistake. We can hear the error.

"Your awake" is a written mistake. You couldn't hear it. We couldn't hear it. Liam couldn't hear it -- unless he enunciates his 'your - you're' very carefully. Schoolmarm levels of enunciation. And hares aren't known for that, especially when they are excited.

Homophone mistakes don't make sense in a written environment. If I type 'Its windy out today.' Then it's funny. Ha, I slipped up. If I say, 'Its windy today,' no one hears the mistake, so no one laughs.

See what I mean?

[Sycamore]

I do not, because it's an implied intention that you are speaking in a certain way. The effect would be completely lost if Liam had said, "You're awake!" and then proceeded to correct himself, because hey, that's exactly how he spoke in the first place. What the heck is he doing fixing something that isn't broken?

Liam can't hear it, but he certainly knows what he is saying.

*edit - Let me clarify that this is an implied intention that is known only between you, the reader, the character that makes the mistake, and the author.

[Damask the Minstrel]

I see your point, I think.

I feel confident that the audience would get the pun from his explanation, but it certainly has more punch written out (though that comes with an obvious downside -- as we saw here).

[Balmafula]

I don't know about all that, but I thought it was funny just the way it is.  Just a fun bit of fourth-wall breaking.

[Sycamore]

It's obviously much deeper than anyone can fathom.

See what I did there?

...fathom...

[Damask the Minstrel]

Ye gods, you must watch a lot of Muppets, to inflict us with this punishment

[Balmafula]

Hardy har... very punny :P

[Cairn Destop]

It's obviously much deeper than anyone can fathom.

That isn't a pun or a spoonerism.  Since the word "fathom" can refer to an understanding, it makes sense as written.  It would also be a simile, if I remember the term correctly since the word "fathom" is also used as a measurement of depth, which is where the saying originated.

I'm inclined to think Balmafula is more accurate.  Again, breaking that fourth wall can jar the reader out of the "reality" of the story.  I know it is done as comedy in movies and plays.  (I'm thinking of the scene in "Blazing Saddles" where Harvy Korman asks a retorical question, looks directly at the camera and said something like "Why am I asking you?"

[Damask the Minstrel]

It's not a simile. That's a metaphorical comparison using 'like' or 'as'.

I'd classify it as a pun. Simply because the second usage of 'fathom' is of depth.

[Sparrowhawk]

I'm inclined to think Balmafula is more accurate.

But I just - that's what I - salsdfspluttergrumblesaiditfirst. ;P

Again, breaking that fourth wall can jar the reader out of the "reality" of the story.

Which is why it's generally reserved for comedic interludes, as in the case of Sycamore's example and/or off-the-wall, experimental fiction.

[Sycamore]

That's okay, Sparrow, WE LOVE YOU.

[Sycamore]

Throwing this out there - I don't think pregnant stomachs are flabby.

[Sparrowhawk]

Well, where do you think that age-old social gaffe of asking a non-pregnant woman when she's due originated?

Not that I've ever done that, of course...

[Balmafula]

Considering this whole post is pretty much to be seen through Eliza's eyes, and considering she doesn't know that Revel is pregnant and that she's also pretty clearly disgusted by her, I think it's safe to say that we're just getting an exaggerated take on the situation.