PDA

View Full Version : Innuendo


AustinChief
07-11-2005, 09:42 AM
Ok.. please help settle an argument... (Poll forthcoming)

If someone makes a statement like this...

"I would never do anything to make your NOGGIN any bigger"

ok so the substitution done on purpose shows that the person DIDN'T want to imply what the statement would imply with the other word in place.. correct?

"I would never do anything to make your HEAD any bigger"

A perfectly sensible statement .. unless you make it around a bunch of pervs (one reason I am asking the Chiefsplanet populus to comment on this).


ok now here is the question... since the statement is negative... the person is basically saying that they WOULD do something to make my "head" bigger...

Correct?

By trying to be "clever" and avoiding innuendo but doing so in a negative statement.. they put themselves in aworse situation.

Agree or disagree?

chagrin
07-11-2005, 09:46 AM
what?

ChiTown
07-11-2005, 09:47 AM
ok, reading that made my head hurt.........

RedNFeisty
07-11-2005, 09:52 AM
Huh?

morphius
07-11-2005, 09:58 AM
I'm thinking the answer must be 3, but Dale from South Dakota came up with the interesting answer of 7, so obviously this is going to take some more research.

Rain Man
07-11-2005, 09:59 AM
I voted "Huh?".

whoman69
07-11-2005, 09:59 AM
Its as big as a planetoid

AustinChief
07-11-2005, 10:09 AM
I voted "Huh?".

and you were the one person I thought would understand my rambling!

Katipan
07-11-2005, 10:15 AM
i thought double negatives equaled a positive.

that just looks like he/she would never do anything to make any head on your body any bigger.

maybe because they can't

Seeeeee. theres a way better implication in that sentence.

HemiEd
07-11-2005, 10:18 AM
There is nothing wrong with big noggins.

Buster's Dad
07-11-2005, 10:19 AM
I voted "Huh?".
Agree with Rainman

Mr. Laz
07-11-2005, 10:51 AM
dude ... your totally thinking too much

AustinChief
07-11-2005, 10:55 AM
dude ... your totally thinking too much

Trust me.. this is easy to explain verbally.. just very obtuse when typed out...

Mr. Laz
07-11-2005, 10:56 AM
Trust me.. this is easy to explain verbally.. just very obtuse when typed out...
ROFL ROFL


:thumb:

siberian khatru
07-11-2005, 10:56 AM
I think I speak for Jim Nasium when I say: WTF is going on here?

excessive
07-11-2005, 01:53 PM
Okay, this is a variant of the "I couldn't care less" riddle.

Could the person care less, or are they at the point of not being able to care less?

You could imply both meanings, depending on how you want to applying the negative, being literal or being interruptive.

The intended meaning is obvious, so, whether you get literal or not about giving some head, i mean giving someone a big head, most could care less. It's that they just don't bother to take the time to.

excessive
07-11-2005, 01:56 PM
"interruptive"

That's supposed to be interpretive, but I guess interruptive works just as well.

Jenny Gump
07-11-2005, 01:59 PM
ok, reading that made my head hurt.........

ROFLROFL

Jenny Gump
07-11-2005, 02:00 PM
"I would never do anything to make your NOGGIN any bigger"



I think Pink has it down right. If she isn't careful, he isn't going to fit through the front door.

mcan
07-11-2005, 02:01 PM
No, the idea of the "head" implication probably never even crossed that person's mind. The word "noggin" has a sense memory and visual to it that implies, "you don't have a head, you have a noggin." As in, your head is so big that you have to call it a noggin... That's why the word "noggin" was used in the first place. It wasn't to avoid using the word "head." That's just my opinion, but I think you lost this one....


But your football website kicks ass!

Phobia
07-11-2005, 02:06 PM
I think you should ask Slayer Diablo about this. I'll bet he knows the right answer.

cadmonkey
07-11-2005, 02:07 PM
that question made my NOGGIN hurt

Jenny Gump
07-11-2005, 02:10 PM
Ok.. please help settle an argument... (Poll forthcoming)

If someone makes a statement like this...

"I would never do anything to make your NOGGIN any bigger"

ok so the substitution done on purpose shows that the person DIDN'T want to imply what the statement would imply with the other word in place.. correct?

"I would never do anything to make your HEAD any bigger"

A perfectly sensible statement .. unless you make it around a bunch of pervs (one reason I am asking the Chiefsplanet populus to comment on this).


ok now here is the question... since the statement is negative... the person is basically saying that they WOULD do something to make my "head" bigger...

Correct?

By trying to be "clever" and avoiding innuendo but doing so in a negative statement.. they put themselves in aworse situation.

Agree or disagree?


Disagree.

If I "never" do A to cause B, and we assume that A always causes B, then B would not occur. If I said that I would "never" not do A, and we assume that A always causes B, then B will occur. The negatives cancel each other out to turn it into a positive statement.

Raiderhader
07-11-2005, 02:16 PM
I voted "Huh?".


If Kevin is confused by this, then I am just going to walk away from the thread....

AustinChief
07-11-2005, 02:19 PM
No, the idea of the "head" implication probably never even crossed that person's mind. The word "noggin" has a sense memory and visual to it that implies, "you don't have a head, you have a noggin." As in, your head is so big that you have to call it a noggin... That's why the word "noggin" was used in the first place. It wasn't to avoid using the word "head." That's just my opinion, but I think you lost this one....


But your football website kicks ass!

actually the word was SPECIFICALLY used to avoid using the word HEAD... because the speaker thought she was being smart and not giving me any ammunition to make any innuendo with...

my opinion is that by doing so(knowingly) yet doing so in a NEGATIVE statement... had the reverse effect

AustinChief
07-11-2005, 02:22 PM
Disagree.

If I "never" do A to cause B, and we assume that A always causes B, then B would not occur. If I said that I would "never" not do A, and we assume that A always causes B, then B will occur. The negatives cancel each other out to turn it into a positive statement.

I can see that I am not explaining the situation very well... this is not a LOGIC question it is more of a language issue...

... see my last post for a slightly better explanation

The whole point hinges upon her DELIBERATELY replacing the word head with noggin.. to AVOID innuendo.. but my point is that by doing so(and doing so QUITE OBVIOUSLY) in a NEGATIVE remark it had the opposite effect (in truth I think the innuendo was unavoidable either way)

--Kyle

AustinChief
07-11-2005, 02:28 PM
ok.. one last attempt to explain...

Original statement:

"I would never do anything to make your NOGGIN any bigger"

my point is that by replacing head with the ridiculous word noggin ... the IMPLIED meaning of the remark could easily be seen to be ..

"BUT I would do something to make your "head" bigger..."

btw.. this whole thing loses alot in translation to the typed word... I may just RECORD this and explain it... it is very clear when spoken aloud

Simplex3
07-11-2005, 02:33 PM
Ok, now I see it.

Here's what I need to know: Does this person have children? I am forced to watch Noggin every morning. It's a commercial-free kiddie network. Seeing that word non-stop has reintroduced it into my vocabulary whereas it had been absent since about third grade. For me (and I suspect many other parents) we're using it the way they do which is synonymous with "head".

DanT
07-11-2005, 02:42 PM
Unless I'm missing something, I disagree with you, Austin Chief. However, I don't understand what you mean by "negative", so I might be missing your point. If you mean "negative" because the negating word "never" appears in the statement, then I disagree with the statement you asked about. If you mean "negative" as in the statement conveys some sort of bad emotion or thought or was delivered with sarcasm or meanness, then I am missing something.

Here's a set-theoretic argument for my position:

Let U be the class of all actions that the speaker could possibly do (including actions that the speaker would not want to do, but could).

Let B be the class of all actions available to the speaker that could make your head bigger. (B is in U, of course).

Let N be the class of all actions in U that the speaker currently wants never to do. Let W be the complement (in U) of N. In other words, W consists of all those actions that satisfy these two conditions:

(W1) the speaker could do the action (because they are in U)

and

(W2) she hasn't declared that she wants never to do the action (because it's not in N).

The speaker is saying that B is a subset of N (i.e. any action that would cause your head to be bigger is an action that the speaker would never want to do). Saying that B is a subset of N is the same as saying that W, the complement of N, is a subset of the complement of B (in U). The complement of B consists of all those actions available to the speaker that would not cause your head to be bigger.

If you draw the Venn diagrams, you'll see what I mean.

DanT
07-11-2005, 02:50 PM
ok.. one last attempt to explain...

Original statement:

"I would never do anything to make your NOGGIN any bigger"

my point is that by replacing head with the ridiculous word noggin ... the IMPLIED meaning of the remark could easily be seen to be ..

"BUT I would do something to make your "head" bigger..."

btw.. this whole thing loses alot in translation to the typed word... I may just RECORD this and explain it... it is very clear when spoken aloud

OK, I didn't get what you meant. You can ignore the set-theoretic argument in my previous post.

The implication you claim is not logically valid. However, it is true that that meaning of the remark you propose could easily be seen to be there by anybody sufficiently illogical. ;)

If somebody says they would never do anything to make your already-so-large-a-head-as-to-be-called-a-noggin any bigger, that doesn't necessarily mean that they would do anything to make your head bigger if it weren't already a noggin.

Phobia
07-11-2005, 02:51 PM
Unless I'm missing something, I disagree with you, Austin Chief. However, I don't understand what you mean by "negative", so I might be missing your point. If you mean "negative" because the negating word "never" appears in the statement, then I disagree with the statement you asked about. If you mean "negative" as in the statement conveys some sort of bad emotion or thought or was delivered with sarcasm or meanness, then I am missing something.

Here's a set-theoretic argument for my position:

Let U be the class of all actions that the speaker could possibly do (including actions that the speaker would not want to do, but could).

Let B be the class of all actions available to the speaker that could make your head bigger. (B is in U, of course).

Let N be the class of all actions in U that the speaker currently wants never to do. Let W be the complement (in U) of N. In other words, W consists of all those actions that satisfy these two conditions:

(W1) the speaker could do the action (because they are in U)

and

(W2) she hasn't declared that she wants never to do the action (because it's not in N).

The speaker is saying that B is a subset of N (i.e. any action that would cause your head to be bigger is an action that the speaker would never want to do). Saying that B is a subset of N is the same as saying that W, the complement of N, is a subset of the complement of B (in U). The complement of B consists of all those actions available to the speaker that would not cause your head to be bigger.

If you draw the Venn diagrams, you'll see what I mean.


Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

That clears everything up.

Logical
07-11-2005, 02:55 PM
I believe your presumption that

ok now here is the question... since the statement is negative... the person is basically saying that they WOULD do something to make my "head" bigger...

is not correct. I believe the statement means the person has a big noggin (ego) and you would not do anything that would let it become bigger.

Thus my only answer could be huh?

DanT
07-11-2005, 02:56 PM
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

That clears everything up.

ROFL

(I was just trying to give him something long enough to read so he could cool off before he and her find themselves in the storage room madly parsing one another's syntax.)

Mr. Laz
07-11-2005, 02:58 PM
ok.. one last attempt to explain...

Original statement:

"I would never do anything to make your NOGGIN any bigger"

my point is that by replacing head with the ridiculous word noggin ... the IMPLIED meaning of the remark could easily be seen to be ..

"BUT I would do something to make your "head" bigger..."

btw.. this whole thing loses alot in translation to the typed word... I may just RECORD this and explain it... it is very clear when spoken aloud
basically you've decided that no matter what the girl says, it's dirty


she either says "make your head bigger" HEAD = Penis

or

she says "make your noggin bigger"


either way you get to chuckle like beavis and butthead and say "you thought of penis"


ROFL ROFL

Phobia
07-11-2005, 02:58 PM
ROFL

(I was just trying to give him something long enough to read so he could cool off before he and her find themselves in the storage room madly parsing one another's syntax.)

"give him something long enough"


errrr

How appropo.

JimNasium
07-11-2005, 02:59 PM
Where is the "WTF is going on here?" option?

DanT
07-11-2005, 03:01 PM
Psst, Austin Chief, I think she was trying to tell you your head was already exactly the right size to be her saddle. Giddyup!

vailpass
07-11-2005, 03:02 PM
Hey Trebec, last night your mother asked me where I was going to put it. I answered : "in-u-end-ho"
Ahahahahaha/Sean Connery

whoman69
07-11-2005, 03:56 PM
Trust me.. this is easy to explain verbally.. just very obtuse when typed out...
You need to fire TK as your secretary.

AustinChief
07-11-2005, 05:11 PM
ok.. last attempt.. the word noggin is not at issue.. she chose that word for only ONE REASON.. to avoid saying "head" and putting herself at risk of me being juvenile and making a comment... as you can clearly see it didn't work. The use of noggin was just the first "head" substitute she could think of.

but my point all along is that when you make it a point to say noggin/cranium etc... in that sentence it backfires because of the negative (never). This is all about what is IMPLIED... it is not a logic argument.


OK .. for example if you actually owned a melon plant and I say... "I would never touch your Cucumis melo reticulatae" it implies that I would on the other hand touch your "melons"... by the fact that I made the distinction between the two... otherwise why make the crazy substitution that clearly denotes what I WOULD NOT touch

Donger
07-11-2005, 05:14 PM
ok.. last attempt.. the word noggin is not at issue.. she chose that word for only ONE REASON.. to avoid saying "head" and putting herself at risk of me being juvenile and making a comment... as you can clearly see it didn't work. The use of noggin was just the first "head" substitute she could think of.

but my point all along is that when you make it a point to say noggin/cranium etc... in that sentence it backfires because of the negative (never). This is all about what is IMPLIED... it is not a logic argument.


OK .. for example if you actually owned a melon plant and I say... "I would never touch your Cucumis melo reticulatae" it implies that I would on the other hand touch your "melons"... by the fact that I made the distinction between the two... otherwise why make the crazy substitution that clearly denotes what I WOULD NOT touch

But, a melon plant is a physical object. Your ego (which I assume she was referring to) is not.

AustinChief
07-11-2005, 05:15 PM
btw.. this is just a friend of mine who made the comment...

I am putting this out there to see if my perception is THAT off... or if you guys can see the clear opportunity to make a lewd reference from what she said (especially given that she had thought she was so clever to avoid saying "head")

AustinChief
07-11-2005, 05:19 PM
But, a melon plant is a physical object. Your ego (which I assume she was referring to) is not.

immaterial in this argument...

she used the word noggin to refer to both my physical cranium and my ego... didn't matter in the sentence really... but it was all to avoid saying "head" which could refer to one of TWO heads that all men have

So, by distinguishing that she would not do anything to the one on my shoulders ... she IMPLIES that she is specifically NOT saying that about my other head... hence the great opening for a juvenile comment by me...

I think the melon example shows it quite clearly...

This is so much clearer spoken.

--Kyle

el borracho
07-11-2005, 05:37 PM
Was there any special emphasis (exaggerated pitch/ tone/ volume; unusual facial expression, etc) on the pronunciation of the word "noggin"?

If yes, then she made a innuendo.

Katipan
07-11-2005, 05:57 PM
girls are cute and adorable

we use cute and adorable words like noggin without meaning anything

besides, the head of the penis doesn't really get all that much bigger, now does it?

Simplex3
07-11-2005, 06:10 PM
btw.. this is just a friend of mine who made the comment...

I am putting this out there to see if my perception is THAT off... or if you guys can see the clear opportunity to make a lewd reference from what she said (especially given that she had thought she was so clever to avoid saying "head")
I agree with anyone who thinks you desperately want to bang this chick and are looking for any excuse to make the first move.

Rain Man
07-11-2005, 06:31 PM
The more I think about this, the more I think that we should defer the issue to kcnut.

Jenny Gump
07-11-2005, 06:32 PM
ok.. one last attempt to explain...

Original statement:

"I would never do anything to make your NOGGIN any bigger"

my point is that by replacing head with the ridiculous word noggin ... the IMPLIED meaning of the remark could easily be seen to be ..

"BUT I would do something to make your "head" bigger..."

btw.. this whole thing loses alot in translation to the typed word... I may just RECORD this and explain it... it is very clear when spoken aloud

Ok, I get it now...sorry. If she deliberately placed vocal stress on the word "noggin", then yes, I agree that she implies that it would please her to make your willy woody.

Jenny Gump
07-11-2005, 06:35 PM
I agree with anyone who thinks you desperately want to bang this chick and are looking for any excuse to make the first move.

That was actually my thought when I finally understood the question. However, I didn't want to burst your proverbial bubble.

I mean....yeah AC, she wants to ride your NOGGIN.

Simplex3
07-11-2005, 06:38 PM
However, I didn't want to burst your proverbial bubble.
Is that innuendo?

Jenny Gump
07-11-2005, 06:45 PM
HEAD = Penis

Huh. I always thought HEAD=HEAD.

milkman
07-11-2005, 08:12 PM
After reading this thread, I can honetly say my noggin is about to explode, which is not to imply that my head is about to explode, because that needs different stimuli.

milkman
07-11-2005, 08:15 PM
btw.. this is just a friend of mine who made the comment...

I am putting this out there to see if my perception is THAT off... or if you guys can see the clear opportunity to make a lewd reference from what she said (especially given that she had thought she was so clever to avoid saying "head")

Actually, I think the opportunity has passed.

And, as a man, why the hell do you need to have a clear opportunity to make a lewd reference.

Every minute of every day is a clear opportunity.

whoman69
07-11-2005, 09:07 PM
Huh. I always thought HEAD=HEAD.
Shows what you know.

cheeeefs
07-11-2005, 09:17 PM
look at the head on that one

cdcox
07-11-2005, 11:12 PM
lets ban him

DanT
07-12-2005, 11:34 AM
After reading this thread, I can honetly say my noggin is about to explode, which is not to imply that my head is about to explode, because that needs different stimuli.
ROFL

luv
07-12-2005, 12:51 PM
:clap:

I think you might just possibly overthink things more than me, and that's hard to do.