0
Dokterjokkebrok Posted 12 years ago
Speech & Pronunciation
Burlington socks...
Hi, Today I came across this Burlington sock commercial conceived by the French marketing department of Burlington.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX33RTR6_Ec
Now, I know most of you don't think this is funny at all, and neither do I, for obvious reasons. There's something that made me wonder though. The 'clue' clearly hinges on the French marketers' assumption that, to the ear, the verbs 'to suck' (sexual act) and 'to sock' (to put on socks) are indistinguishable from each other. This of course phonetically isn't true, so the joke doesn't make any sense – at least from a native speaker's perspective it doesn't. Adding to that is the allusion to an incestuous act...which only makes things worse.
My question then is that, because I have always assumed that, due to the minimal pairs in suck/sock, native speakers of English could never confuse these two verbs with each other, which I thought is why the commercial isn't funny. But....is my assumption in this true? Do native speakers never mistaken / mix up the minimal pair u/o?
Thank you for your help!
- DJB -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX33RTR6_Ec
Now, I know most of you don't think this is funny at all, and neither do I, for obvious reasons. There's something that made me wonder though. The 'clue' clearly hinges on the French marketers' assumption that, to the ear, the verbs 'to suck' (sexual act) and 'to sock' (to put on socks) are indistinguishable from each other. This of course phonetically isn't true, so the joke doesn't make any sense – at least from a native speaker's perspective it doesn't. Adding to that is the allusion to an incestuous act...which only makes things worse.
My question then is that, because I have always assumed that, due to the minimal pairs in suck/sock, native speakers of English could never confuse these two verbs with each other, which I thought is why the commercial isn't funny. But....is my assumption in this true? Do native speakers never mistaken / mix up the minimal pair u/o?
Thank you for your help!
- DJB -
Top answer
That's a really weird ad. Distasteful. The two sounds are distinct and different.
- That's a really weird ad.
- Distasteful.
- The two sounds are distinct and different.
- Added to that is the fact that there is no verb 'sock' with the meaning of 'put on socks'.
- Its a made-up meaning.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
3 Answers
0
That's a really weird ad. Distasteful.
The two sounds are distinct and different. Added to that is the fact that there is no verb 'sock' with the meaning of 'put on socks'. Its a made-up meaning.
Clive
The two sounds are distinct and different. Added to that is the fact that there is no verb 'sock' with the meaning of 'put on socks'. Its a made-up meaning.
Clive
00
CliveThat's a really weird ad. Distasteful.The two sounds are distinct and different. Added to that is the fact that there is no verb 'sock' with the meaning of 'put on socks'. Its a made-up meaning. CliveThank you for your reply Clive. Yes, it is very poor taste, isn't it? I can't imagine people going crazy for Burlington socks after having seen this ad...
00
Related Questions