Home  

Members  

Join  

Search  

Listings  

 
<<<<   2876   >>>>

Topic: Deviation of language

Message 1 / 7
Robert L. TorresJan 21, 2009
 

 
I find this particular aspect of the series to be somewhat annoying,
but always downright hilarious.

Its always amazing to hear panelists fumble over their words or
commit malapropisms, or sometimes are challenged for being
ungrammatical.

The one proponent for proper grammar on JAM has always been Clement
Freud, I think over 40 years, he will challenge someone once or twice
in any given round in any given episode over a grammatical error, and
the decisions often go 50/50 so far as it comes to Nicholas awarding
it to Clement or refusing to allow the challenge.

However, something has occurred very recently that has me punching
the walls in anger. It was the very first episode of the new series,
it took place two days before New Year's Eve, and it was the
subject 'What I Got For Christmas' and Nicholas stops the entire show
to complain about the ungrammatical nature of the statement and over
the general ungrammatical nature of the subjects he's been given up
to now.

The reason this has me thoroughly annoyed is simply this:

For 40 years Nicholas has been the most vocal advocate over
COLLOQUIAL SPEECH on Just a Minute, saying time and time and time
again that 'people are allowed to be colloquial in their speech,' by
his own words, 'because if people started challenging on deviation of
grammar, there would be no show and we wouldn't get on with the
game'.

In addition, back in the early 70's, I think it was a show from 71 or
72, which was a somewhat Christmas themed edition that featured
Clement, PEter, Kenneth, and Aimi MacDonald. I know the opening
subject was 'Silent Night'. IN that episode there was the subject
of 'What I Got For Christmas' that Peter was able to speak on for the
full minute, and at NO point did Parsons complain about the subject
being ungrammatical. So what, in the name of Almighty God, gives
Nicholas the sauce to start complaining now about the subjects being
ungrammatical?

And he goes even further to make grammatical corrections to the
subject on the card, changing it from 'What I Got For Christmas'
to 'What I Was Given For Christmas'.

And then he goes all pompous and saying that 'We are Radio 4 and I
think we should stick to more grammatical phrases'. Where the hell
is this coming from? If ever there was an example of pedantry, it's
this. Especially considering that its never been a problem before,
and now, for no reason he decides to complain about it?

He honestly has got no right to start complaining now, nor is he any
authority on speaking properly. This is the same man who, by his own
admission, says that he has heard Americans refer to Loch Ness as a
LAGOON! The same man who still sounds like he gargles with
hydrochloric acid and uses peanut butter as a denture adhesive.

 
<<<<   2877   >>>>

Topic: Re: Deviation of language

Message 2 / 7
kj.naughtonJan 22, 2009
 

 
Hello Robert,

If you genuinely are "punching the walls in anger" or anything
remotely like that then may I gently suggest that you are probably
taking Just A Minute a little too seriously?

Just A Minute is not a quiz show. There are no real rewards for
the "winner". There is no need for Nicholas (or anyone else) to be
consistent between episodes, or even within an episode. Just A
Minute is a show which provides light, humorous entertainment and
nothing else. It is played for laughs.

I've not been listening long enough to know whether Just A Minute
originally started out with a "serious" purpose. It's perhaps
heretical to say this, but I find most of the older shows utterly
dull. I don't even (much) like the contributions that Kenneth
Williams made, although I love the contributions from Peter Jones.

So, as my daughter would say, "take a chill pill".

Incidentally, the MP3 from Monday's broadcast (episode 4 of series
57) is now available for download. Please see the "Series 57" entry
in the "Links" section of this group.

Hope this helps

kJ

--- In just-a-minute@..., "Robert L. Torres"
<bobbyshaddoe3004@...> wrote:

>
> However, something has occurred very recently that has me punching
> the walls in anger. It was the very first episode of the new

series,

> it took place two days before New Year's Eve, and it was the
> subject 'What I Got For Christmas' and Nicholas stops the entire

show

> to complain about the ungrammatical nature of the statement and

over

> the general ungrammatical nature of the subjects he's been given

up

> to now.
>

 
<<<<   2878   >>>>

Topic: Re: Deviation of language

Message 3 / 7
Steve KenrickJan 22, 2009
 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.12/1909 - Release Date: 1/22/2009 7:08 AM

 
<<<<   2879   >>>>

Topic: Re: Deviation of language

Message 4 / 7
Robert TorresJan 22, 2009
 

 

Well, it's been well established that I don't like Nicholas Parsons, and even now I think he's well past the point when he should've abdicated his responsibilities as chairman.   I love Just a Minute for the panelists, because they are the ones that create such wonderful moments of humor and hilarity for the audiences in attendance and for the listeners at home.    And by 'punching the walls in anger', I wasn't being literal.  it's like saying 'climbing the walls', its a figure of speech.... a colloquialism.    Anyway, now that I've gotten my Nicholas rant out of my system, I can refocus on really hilarious moments when panelists commit these deviations of language.  One really hilarious example I think came from I think from either early 2000 or sometime in 2004 or thereabouts.  Tony Hawks was talking on a subject and he was trying to say 'when a coin is tossed' and it comes out 'when a coss is toined', which had me on the floor in stitches.    another example I think comes from 1994, I think the panelists were Clement Freud, Paul Merton, Peter Jones and Arthur Smith.  I think the subject was 'The Big Time', and Paul had the subject and he goes on to say this, 'You know you’ve hit the big time when you find yourself in a radio show sitting next to Nicholas Parsons! This man is truly a giant amongst men. His pinnacle career... his pinnacle career?'    Again, another example of how the best stuff tends to come up by accident.  --- On Thu, 1/22/09, kj.naughton <kj.naughton@...> wrote: From: kj.naughton <kj.naughton@...> Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: Deviation of language To: just-a-minute@... Date: Thursday, January 22, 2009, 5:57 AM Hello Robert, If you genuinely are "punching the walls in anger" or anything remotely like that then may I gently suggest that you are probably taking Just A Minute a little too seriously? Just A Minute is not a quiz show. There are no real rewards for the "winner". There is no need for Nicholas (or anyone else) to be consistent between episodes, or even within an episode. Just A Minute is a show which provides light, humorous entertainment and nothing else. It is played for laughs. I've not been listening long enough to know whether Just A Minute originally started out with a "serious" purpose. It's perhaps heretical to say this, but I find most of the older shows utterly dull. I don't even (much) like the contributions that Kenneth Williams made, although I love the contributions from Peter Jones. So, as my daughter would say, "take a chill pill". Incidentally, the MP3 from Monday's broadcast (episode 4 of series 57) is now available for download. Please see the "Series 57" entry in the "Links" section of this group. Hope this helps kJ --- In just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com, "Robert L. Torres" <bobbyshaddoe3004@ ...> wrote: > > However, something has occurred very recently that has me punching > the walls in anger. It was the very first episode of the new series, > it took place two days before New Year's Eve, and it was the > subject 'What I Got For Christmas' and Nicholas stops the entire show > to complain about the ungrammatical nature of the statement and over > the general ungrammatical nature of the subjects he's been given up > to now. >

 
<<<<   2880   >>>>

Topic: Re: Deviation of language

Message 5 / 7
Robert TorresJan 22, 2009
 

 

I wouldn't mind if the chairperson actually could pull off all those personality traits well, but Nicholas fails miserably (in my opinion) at being anything except dull, boring and thoroughly irritating.  For all his talk of keeping the show going, his commentary merely disrupts the flow of the show, and its one thing for him to get away with flirting with women 30 years ago, but the man is almost 90 for God's sake.   I'll speak no more about Nicholas, because I've already dealt with what I think about him at great length.  let's get back to the discussion of the hilarious instances of verbal slip ups that crop up on Just a Minute, can anyone else give some examples?  I'm trying to think of some more myself actually, cuz its hard to sift through 40 years of programming to see what sticks out in your mind.

 
<<<<   2881   >>>>

Topic: Re: Deviation of language

Message 6 / 7
lindaJan 22, 2009
 

 
Robert Torres said the following :

> Again, another example of how the best stuff tends to come up by

accident. 


i was listening to tony hawks comedy controller on bbc radio 7 a few
days back . one of the shows he picked was an apperance he made on
just a minute . he mentions how the show is mostly improvised . so
anything the guest say good bad or indifferent would come about by
accident . sorry i am now taking off my over pedantic hat .

one last thing . like a couple of other people here i also lost my
hard drive just before new year, i had all the i'm sorry i haven't a
clue uploaded there . i did'nt loose them they are on my i pod . i am
going to see if i can back up my i pod . if i can get the series of
clue off i would be happy to repost them depending on premission from
the original capper .

cheers
Linda

 
<<<<   2885   >>>>

Topic: Deviation of language

Message 7 / 7
Clitheroe KidJan 23, 2009
 

 
I've followed the show since the mid 1970s, and have heard recordings of
many editions which were broadcast even prior to that.

The programme has never had a serious purpose. It's always been light
entertainment.

And the rules were always chaotic. In its very earliest days, it was not
even certain what amounted to repetition: Nicholas Parsons made arbitrary
rulings in many early shows, and - for instance - often allowed panellists
to repeat particular words a certain number of times.

The rules were so arbitrary that at one stage, in the early 1970s, repeating
even the words on the card was forbidden.

Gradually, the rules as we recognise them today began to emerge from the
chaos of those early years. But it took a long time. By the late 1970s a
body of recognised rules existed. Today, most of those same rules are still
recognised, at least in theory.

But the players of today (save for Clement, of course) lack the erudition
and skill of the original foursome. The rules have been largely abandoned,
in favour of the "bonus points" scheme. All intelligent discourse has been
lost, and the surreal style of Paul Merton has changed the show out of all
recognition.

The players in the 1970s could talk intelligently about the subject on the
card, particularly Kenneth Williams and Derek Nimmo. Nowadays, most
panellists talk rubbish (or surreal rubbish). It may be funny, but you never
come away knowing more about the subject itself. The game use to be played
at a much higher intellectual level; yet it was still hysterically funny.

Was it more "serious"? The subject on the card was often serious; but
Kenneth could make absolutely any subject funny, and yet do so in such a way
that you actually came away from the show knowing something about the
subject that you hadn't previously been aware of.

I like Paul Merton. He would have fitted into the show nicely in the old
days, as a contrast to the others. But the show loses something, now that
nearly all the other panellists are emulating him by affecting a surreal
style too. It can work when only Paul is doing it; but it does not really
succeed if all the other panellists are doing it too.

The problem lies in too many of the panellists being stand-up comedians. In
the old days, none of the panel were. Not even Kenneth was a stand-up.
Sadly, there has been a certain dumbing-down, such that the 1970s are now
looked back on as being "serious".

At the time, they were not.

----- Original Message -----
From: "kj.naughton" <kj.naughton@...>
To: <just-a-minute@...>
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 10:57 AM
Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: Deviation of language


> Hello Robert,
>
> If you genuinely are "punching the walls in anger" or anything
> remotely like that then may I gently suggest that you are probably
> taking Just A Minute a little too seriously?
>
> Just A Minute is not a quiz show. There are no real rewards for
> the "winner". There is no need for Nicholas (or anyone else) to be
> consistent between episodes, or even within an episode. Just A
> Minute is a show which provides light, humorous entertainment and
> nothing else. It is played for laughs.
>
> I've not been listening long enough to know whether Just A Minute
> originally started out with a "serious" purpose. It's perhaps
> heretical to say this, but I find most of the older shows utterly
> dull. I don't even (much) like the contributions that Kenneth
> Williams made, although I love the contributions from Peter Jones.
>
> So, as my daughter would say, "take a chill pill".
>
> Incidentally, the MP3 from Monday's broadcast (episode 4 of series
> 57) is now available for download. Please see the "Series 57" entry
> in the "Links" section of this group.
>
> Hope this helps
>
> kJ
>
> --- In just-a-minute@..., "Robert L. Torres"
> <bobbyshaddoe3004@...> wrote:
> >
> > However, something has occurred very recently that has me punching
> > the walls in anger. It was the very first episode of the new
> series,
> > it took place two days before New Year's Eve, and it was the
> > subject 'What I Got For Christmas' and Nicholas stops the entire
> show
> > to complain about the ungrammatical nature of the statement and
> over
> > the general ungrammatical nature of the subjects he's been given
> up
> > to now.
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>