Difference between revisions of "Talk:1108: Cautionary Ghost"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | I have to say, not using the subjuctive case correctly really grinds my gears, 'as it were'. --[[Special:Contributions/216.110.25.2|216.110.25.2]] 13:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)dangerkeith3000 | ||
| + | |||
could it of been spurred by [http://www.explosm.net/comics/2923/ this comic]? | could it of been spurred by [http://www.explosm.net/comics/2923/ this comic]? | ||
Revision as of 13:53, 14 September 2012
I have to say, not using the subjuctive case correctly really grinds my gears, 'as it were'. --216.110.25.2 13:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)dangerkeith3000
could it of been spurred by this comic?
- It shares quibbles over the word literally, but the driving idea behind the jokes are different. Davidy22 (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it is a reference to this prior xkcd comic which is also dealing with the difference between literally and figuratively and somebody eager to tell people the difference.
--194.167.19.2 08:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Josch
What's so idyllic on that scene? That people are still alive and someone is still flying? (Note that it may be airforce one) -- Hkmaly (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The usage of a ghost from the past or future to deliver a message in fiction was begun in Charles Dicken's A Christmas Carol - I really don't think that's true. --Kronf (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Having the Literally as the word to argue about seems to be fitting this comic quite well, since the world is literally the same in both scenarios. Or, the other way around, arguing about literally literally doesn't matter.
