Much as I hate to criticise another great strip... 1 - I think it should be Ensure rather than Insure in the first panel 2 - I think that the word "that" is missing from your first speech bubble in the second panel. 3 - Shouldn't it be a cornea printer? Isn't the retina the bit at the back inside your eye, which you obviously couldn't spray ink on?
I may be wrong, in which case, feel free to heap scorn upon me for having the temerity to speak up.
Yop, as much as I love your work Scott, 9Squirrels seems to be right on all 3 counts. Maybe you're just testing us. Yes! That's it, he hasn't lost his mojo, he's just testing us. I want to believe.
Oh, and if you want us to be really picky, which I seem to remember you saying you did, "person" is singular so you can't say "their" fingerprint, it has to be "his" fingerprint. Or hers, of course. I'll shut up now.
The "their fingerprint" bit in the strip is correct (i.e. common) english - you can use they/their as gender-neutral singulars. I.e. "their" lets you refer to any person, whereas "his" has an obvious problem of excluding women.
Dave Haslett, while, technically, the masculine is the grammatical default, using "they" as an ambiguous pronoun has been common use in the English language for many years and won't be leaving it any time soon. It's equally correct in this situation. Some people tend to forget that English is a living, evolving language.
On a much more serious note: Scott, how would I go about investing in this retina printer technology of yours?
> “person” is singular so you can’t say “their” fingerprint, it has to be “his” fingerprint.
Yes, you can say "their" fingerprint. Singular "they" and "their" for a person of unspecified sex are perfectly fine. This has existed in English for centuries, including in Shakespeare, despite relatively recent reactionary beliefs that it's just some new PC anti-sexist thing...
Ahah, actually, the singular "they/their" has a strong case as a legitimate construct. Jane Austen being a notable user (or abuser?). Either way, you're in good company.
Ok, your criticisms are correct, except for 'insure' either word would do, but for the rest folks this is dialogue. How do you know that isn't the way Scott would speak in real life? I say hands off the dialogue. By the way, the overpriced ink remark reminds me of my printer, the darn thing won't even print black type if its out of any color! Heckuva business model, eh? (yes, I know I misspelled 'heck of a', dialogue, remember?)
Linguistic awkwardness aside, this episode lives up to my high expectations for BI humor.
OT: I think "Scott" is the most common first name among cartoonists. Scott Meyer, Scott Kellogg, Scott Christian Sava, Scott Stantis, Scotty Arsenault... even the Marks out there can't keep up.
I'm letting others focus on grammar because I'm too ooked out over the eye stuff. Yuck! And it sounds exactly like some wretched I'd want to inflict on my enemies.
@Blackllab - You Insure to cover an event occuring, you Ensure to make sure that the event does or does not happen. Only Murphy's law says that these words are synonomous. :)
Reader Comments (35)
Much as I hate to criticise another great strip...
1 - I think it should be Ensure rather than Insure in the first panel
2 - I think that the word "that" is missing from your first speech bubble in the second panel.
3 - Shouldn't it be a cornea printer? Isn't the retina the bit at the back inside your eye, which you obviously couldn't spray ink on?
I may be wrong, in which case, feel free to heap scorn upon me for having the temerity to speak up.
Yop, as much as I love your work Scott, 9Squirrels seems to be right on all 3 counts. Maybe you're just testing us. Yes! That's it, he hasn't lost his mojo, he's just testing us. I want to believe.
Also there's a word missing in panel 3 - but person's - but A person's, but EACH person's, but EVERY person's?
Were you in a hurry for some reason?
Oh, and if you want us to be really picky, which I seem to remember you saying you did, "person" is singular so you can't say "their" fingerprint, it has to be "his" fingerprint. Or hers, of course. I'll shut up now.
Of course, Scott has said before that he tries to write the way real people talk, so "their" is entirely appropriate. And you can also make some http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/singular-they-and-the-many-reasons-why-its-correct/" rel="nofollow">really good arguments that singular "they" is correct. So there. :p
Hey this nitpicking stuff is fun! Shouldn't it be "cachet" rather than "cache"?
On another note, I love the use of "jazz hands" in panel 2.
This sounds like a Scott Adams idea!
Dave,
The "their fingerprint" bit in the strip is correct (i.e. common) english - you can use they/their as gender-neutral singulars. I.e. "their" lets you refer to any person, whereas "his" has an obvious problem of excluding women.
Dave Haslett, while, technically, the masculine is the grammatical default, using "they" as an ambiguous pronoun has been common use in the English language for many years and won't be leaving it any time soon. It's equally correct in this situation. Some people tend to forget that English is a living, evolving language.
On a much more serious note: Scott, how would I go about investing in this retina printer technology of yours?
> “person” is singular so you can’t say “their” fingerprint, it has to be “his” fingerprint.
Yes, you can say "their" fingerprint. Singular "they" and "their" for a person of unspecified sex are perfectly fine. This has existed in English for centuries, including in Shakespeare, despite relatively recent reactionary beliefs that it's just some new PC anti-sexist thing...
Ahah, actually, the singular "they/their" has a strong case as a legitimate construct. Jane Austen being a notable user (or abuser?). Either way, you're in good company.
Anyway, I enjoyed this comic!
PS I love your site love your comics. Just anal about grammar that's all! Sorry!
Ok, your criticisms are correct, except for 'insure' either word would do, but for the rest folks this is dialogue. How do you know that isn't the way Scott would speak in real life? I say hands off the dialogue. By the way, the overpriced ink remark reminds me of my printer, the darn thing won't even print black type if its out of any color! Heckuva business model, eh? (yes, I know I misspelled 'heck of a', dialogue, remember?)
Nope - 9Squirrels is right, and you're wrong....'insure' is not a synonym for 'ensure', however much you may want it used that way!
However, the sentence "I am horrified by your plan, and would like to invest" is simply perfect.
At lease Scott got his name right! (Just Kidding)
Another great strip Scott, don't let them get you douwn.
Hmm you deleted my comment about "ensure", corrected the comic, and let my "PS
I love your comic" comment remain?
At least then delete the PS part so it's not obvious there was a comment before that :)
Linguistic awkwardness aside, this episode lives up to my high expectations for BI humor.
OT: I think "Scott" is the most common first name among cartoonists. Scott Meyer, Scott Kellogg, Scott Christian Sava, Scott Stantis, Scotty Arsenault... even the Marks out there can't keep up.
Build the prototype and try it on Rick.
I'm letting others focus on grammar because I'm too ooked out over the eye stuff. Yuck! And it sounds exactly like some wretched I'd want to inflict on my enemies.
I laughed hard.
How could Tom Flapwell leave out Scott McCloud...?
And (the almighty) Scott Adams, and Scott Johnson.
@Blackllab - You Insure to cover an event occuring, you Ensure to make sure that the event does or does not happen. Only Murphy's law says that these words are synonomous. :)