Paru's Graffiti - Vol. 1 Ch. 11 - You're a Pretty Funny Gal

[MangaDex]

 

[viewers101]

This is mood af

 

[justforthelulz]

Difficult-to-cleanly-remove stickers are the work of Satan.

 

[kirbee]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GkCJmzXyJA Relevant video

 

[Oeconomist]

There is no good reason to put an apostrophe in front of “gal”. If one were to ignore that “gal” is long established, and see it as just a slurring of “girl”, then there might be a basis for writing “ga'l”; but even that would be strange.

Stickers are hard to remove primarily as a measure against shoplifting; that's also why they are sometimes cross-cut. When shoplifting was more rare, stickers were almost always easy to remove. Of course, often that modern difficulty seems like over-kill.

@kirbee—

Too video; will not watch.

 

[SuMeBe]

@Oeconomist Ty!!! Even now, I am still learning English, so I'm glad I know for the future!! (Fixed!)

 

[Oeconomist]

@SuMeBe—

On the Internet, there are a lot of people who don't know how to use an apostrophe appropriately, so I'll explain it here.

The apostrophe has two uses, one evolved from the other.

The first use is to indicate the omission of a letter or letters, where the omission occurs. For example, the contraction “don't” indicates the omission of an ‘o’ in “do not”, and one should not write “do'nt”. The word “'tis” omits the first ‘i’ in “it is”; that's why there is an apostrophe at the start. In the case of “li'l”, one indicates the omission of “tt” in “little”; the omission of ‘e’ is ignored because it was silent in the uncontracted form. One should not write this as “lil'” or as “'lil” (unless one is referring to the nickname of an ignorant rapper). In old-fashioned spellings in which a letter was sometimes pronounced and sometimes silent, it might be spelled with an apostrophe in the second case. When “damned” started to be pronounced /dæmd/ instead of /ˈdæməd/, it often was written “damn'd”.

The second use is in genitives. Originally, many of these were actually written with “es” instead of with “'s”, and the apostrophe indicated that the ‘e’ was being omitted. Then, even when there hadn't been an ‘e’, the genitive was formed with “'s” just to be more regular. And, when a genitive was formed from a word already ending in ‘s’, and an extra /əs/ sound wasn't added for the genitive, sometimes an apostrophe by itself was used just to make it clear that a genitive was used.

While I'm at it, let me noted that none of the pronouns use an apostrophe in the genitive form. That's how you can remember not to write “it's” for the genitive of “it”.

 

[Darcow]

Paru is Legosi, confirmed!

 

[Nixnaw]

Sticky label thingys are indeed annoying.

 

[Raknasuu]

@Oeconomist

While I'm at it, let me noted that none of the pronouns use an apostrophe in the genitive form. That's how you can remember not to write “it's” for the genitive of “it”.

As this is not my native language, I had to re-read this last part various times. Than I remembered that the possesive form for "it" is "its" and the world was well again. As a matter of personal experience, I haven't really seen that much use of the word lately: I hear/read people use "their" more often if they don't wanna specify gender/sex or are talking about no-human animals.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Oeconomist]

@Raknasuu—

There are lots of uses for the genitives of singular things that aren't living; using “their” in such a case would be alien even to social-justice warriors. For example, “I like this coin. Its obverse is an image of a beautiful woman, and the image on its reverse is that of a panda.”

 

[kirbee]

@Oeconomist Bro what's the point of tagging me just to say you won't watch it? Kind of a waste of both our times you attention whore

 

[Oeconomist]

@kirbee—

The point, you twit, is that you should almost never link to a video without a summary.

 

[kirbee]

@Oeconomist maybe your brain is too swollen with your own ego to comprehend the actions of other people. But maybe, just maybeee do you think that if there's a chapter about paper-based stickers. AND. If someone links a video with the simple caption of "Relevant video," that the video may in fact be about paper-based stickers? Or were you too busy being a pedantic pompous prick too obsessed with apostrophes to just stay in your own lane.

 

[Oeconomist]

@kirbee—

You deal with everything but the point: One should almost never link to a video without a summary. The presumption is going to be that the video is in some way relevant, but that doesn't change the fact that one should almost never link to a video without a summary. Videos are typically inefficient in their demands for time and for data (and even those mobile data plans that are labelled as “unlimited” choke the user after a data allowance is exceeded). Go cough on your mother.

 

[kirbee]

@Oeconomist And you deal with everything but the fact that if you're going to ignore the video just ignore the video instead of drawing attention to the fact. You think anyone cares whether you did or didn't watch it? Why bring it up at all? If your caveman brain is too oonga boonga to be able to deduce something like that and determine whether it's worth your time or not then just keep that to yourself. No one gives half a rat's ass whether you watched the video, you dingus. Go kick some rocks and yell at a three year old on the playground you pretentious prat.

 

[Oeconomist]

@kirbee—

if you're going to ignore the video just ignore the video instead of drawing attention to the fact

No, because then people who are simply thoughtless will keep posting links without summaries to videos. Now, granted that a belligerent jerk would just double-down, but I didn't have a basis at the start for thinking that you were a belligerent jerk.

 

[kirbee]

Collapsing this cus I'd rather not clog more of the comments with your inane circular logic

Spoiler

Again. You're an attention whore. I need to explain this again because for all your pomp and braggadocio you can't fathom the fact that someone didn't provide a four page review on a funny video just for you. No one's going to suck your dick because you explained apostrophes to an uncaring comment section. You're clearly not explaining it to help people for whom English is a second language because if that was your intention you wouldn't use the proper terms (genitive etc) to explain such a simple concept.

1) As a contraction of two/more words into one: Here the apostrophe will replace one letter eg Do not -> Don't.
2) As a possessive: The apostrophe shows who an object belongs to eg John's book.
Pronouns such as "it", "he", "she" etc. Don't require the apostrophe, simply becoming "its", "his", "her"
With words that already end in "s", simply put the apostrophe next to it eg Kass' book.

Look at that. 4 lines, no jargon that a non-native speaker honestly doesn't need, super simple to understand. But no. Your overinflated ego, a head that would put a hot air balloon to shame, an attitude that even any hormonal teenager would have the shame to grow out of. You can't give a simple grammar lesson without pumping up that fat head of yours and trying to make yourself look incredibly clever to a bunch of strangers and looking like an arrogant asshole in the process.
I'm not going to engage with you anymore so reply to me all you want. Before you do so, pull your head out your ass for two seconds and honestly tell yourself whether you were trying to help someone or not- that is if you can quell your rage boner for long enough to actually have any moments of self-reflection.

 

[Oeconomist]

@kirbee—

I note that you cheaply avoid a ping.

No one asked for a review. Again: One should almost never link to a video without a summary, so that people will know whether it's something on which to invest time and bandwidth.

You're explicitly objecting to my using proper terms as such.

The first part of your proposed alternate explanation is no good because not only do many people put the apostrophe in the wrong place, but the translator had done just that. I explained where it would go and why. And, more generally, your explanation assumes that translators aren't interested in language as such. In reality, most of them want to now how things came to be as they are.

And here you are, objecting to my being thorough because that makes things longer (a length that can immediately be seen, unlike that of a video located elsewhere), but yourself blah-blah-blahhing not to provide more information, but as if someone's going to see your sea of words be persuaded by its volume.

 

[Nako]

Easy solution for hard-to-remove stickers: hair-dryer. The heat melts the adhesive, voilà, works on almost all stickers.