c4countdown

I go to a comedy club in Epsom most weeks and I went to look up some of my favourites and see how they're doing in Edinburgh. I found that one of them, Dan Atkinson, is hosting Countdown at the fringe.

Alex Horne (who I would have played on the show if he hadn't pulled out of the series 59 quarter finals) won it last year and some fairly famous names are taking part too. If anyone's up in Scotland this month, it might be worth showing off to some comedians.

Cheers for that Martin, I'm off next week so will try and check that out.

Martin Bishop wrote: Alex Horne (who I would have played on the show if he hadn't pulled out of the series 59 quarter finals).

Had I needed reminding....

Martin Bishop wrote: If anyone's up in Scotland this month, it might be worth showing off to some comedians.

Define "up" in Scotland. Some of us are here.

Andy Thomson wrote:

Martin Bishop wrote: If anyone's up in Scotland this month, it might be worth showing off to some comedians.

Define "up" in Scotland. Some of us are here.

So what? You're still up in Scotland. You simply have the advantage (arguably) of not having to travel to get there. Had Martin said, "If anyone's going up to Scotland this month", that might have been construed as southern-centric. But he didn't.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Andy Thomson wrote:

Martin Bishop wrote: If anyone's up in Scotland this month, it might be worth showing off to some comedians.

Define "up" in Scotland. Some of us are here.

So what? You're still up in Scotland. You simply have the advantage (arguably) of not having to travel to get there. Had Martin said, "If anyone's going up to Scotland this month", that might have been construed as southern-centric. But he didn't.

I certainly wouldn't have seen it that way.

I'm from Carlisle, which is about as close to Scotland without being there as you can be, and we commonly refer to Scotland as up, simply because it is It's more up than England anyways!

Andy Thomson wrote:

Martin Bishop wrote: If anyone's up in Scotland this month, it might be worth showing off to some comedians.

Define "up" in Scotland. Some of us are here.

Not completely up on my Scotland geography, but wouldn't the Edinburgh fringe be very near Edinburgh?

Well done on completely missing the point Andrew.

Andy Thomson wrote:Well done on completely missing the point Andrew.

Your post was completely ambiguous.

Andrew Feist wrote: Not completely up on my Scotland geography, but wouldn't the Edinburgh fringe be very near Edinburgh?

No, it's in Penzance.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Andrew Feist wrote: Not completely up on my Scotland geography, but wouldn't the Edinburgh fringe be very near Edinburgh?

No, it's in Penzance.

<insert Ryanair joke here>

Charlie Reams wrote:Your post was completely ambiguous.

How is it possible to be completely ambiguous? How would you set about being slightly ambiguous?

Rosemary Roberts wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:Your post was completely ambiguous.

How is it possible to be completely ambiguous? How would you set about being slightly ambiguous?

If I said "I took a picture of a man with a camera", that would be slightly ambiguous (does he have a camera or was I just using one?) For a translator you sure do have a problem with nuance...

Charlie Reams wrote:If I said "I took a picture of a man with a camera", that would be slightly ambiguous (does he have a camera or was I just using one?) For a translator you sure do have a problem with nuance...

That is indeed the translator's problem. You cannot translate "I took a picture of a man with a camera" without quibbling about what was meant (and the dogsbody who sent you the job doesn't know what was meant and does not have the authority to bother the author). But it isn't slightly ambiguous, it's as ambiguous as anything gets.

Rosemary Roberts wrote:But it isn't slightly ambiguous, it's as ambiguous as anything gets.

So you don't think it's possible to guess what was almost certainly meant?

Charlie Reams wrote:If I said "I took a picture of a man with a camera", that would be slightly ambiguous

Charlie Reams wrote:

Rosemary Roberts wrote:But it isn't slightly ambiguous, it's as ambiguous as anything gets.

So you don't think it's possible to guess what was almost certainly meant?

I think I've worked it out. Does it mean that you, a man, and the camera that that man was 'with' (in the biblical sense), were transporting a picture to an unmentioned destination?

Charlie Reams wrote:

Rosemary Roberts wrote:But it isn't slightly ambiguous, it's as ambiguous as anything gets.

So you don't think it's possible to guess what was almost certainly meant?

I am not paid to guess. You took a photo of an unfortunate guy who didn't have a camera and therefore couldn't take his own, or you used one of these amazing modern gadgets that can record pictures without any kind of closed chamber being involved, or you can sketch so amazingly quickly that you can record an exact image like a Pratchett imp, or you broke into somebody's flat to steal his Hasselblad but couldn't find it so you annexed his Rembrandt instead.

When you factor in making sense of people whose grasp of language and/or typing is shaky, the translator's life can sometimes be extraordinarily interesting.

Confused the only one am I that is getting?

Derek Hazell wrote:Confused the only one am I that is getting?

No, I was confused as well: Charlie's original message had scrolled and I misremembered it as "I took a picture of a man without a camera" and ran with it.
Pity, but it did give my eloquence much more scope.

Rosemary Roberts wrote: I am not paid to guess.

Or to think, apparently.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Rosemary Roberts wrote: I am not paid to guess.

Or to think, apparently.

Charlie, you are many-skilled and entirely admirable, but you don't have much insight into the translator's task. We have to think of all possible meanings and then choose one, but not by guessing.

I think Charlie's being a bit harsh here - I have to defend you Rosemary as I feel like you've not done anything wrong lol. Maybe Charlie should be a translator?

Kirk Bevins wrote:I think Charlie's being a bit harsh here - I have to defend you Rosemary as I feel like you've not done anything wrong lol. Maybe Charlie should be a translator?

Charlie is not the first to believe that translation is easy. I often encounter customers who absolutely loathe being asked for clarification - their stock reply being "just translate what it says". One way of making them see the problem is to offer them the most ridiculous interpretation possible, as in stealing the Rembrandt. It is such a pity that I had previously omitted to post the amended - and much more fruitful - example.

Rosemary Roberts wrote: Charlie is not the first to believe that translation is easy.

Where did you get this from?

Charlie Reams wrote:

Rosemary Roberts wrote: Charlie is not the first to believe that translation is easy.

Where did you get this from?

I got the impression that you were trying to tell me how to do my job, which sort of implies that you think it's a skill anybody can pick up in an afternoon.

Rosemary Roberts wrote:I got the impression that you were trying to tell me how to do my job, which sort of implies that you think it's a skill anybody can pick up in an afternoon.

Umm, no. You were saying that it's impossible to have different degrees of ambiguity.

Forgetting everything that's gone on since, I would have said that Andy Thompson's post was only slightly ambiguous. Presumably the possible misunderstanding would be someone thinking "Define "up" in Scotland? Well Edinburgh must be in the "up" part of Scotland, from the context." But I don't think (m)any people would really interpret it like that. "Some people are already here" sort of hints at the point. I imagine Andrew Feist was taking the piss.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Rosemary Roberts wrote:I got the impression that you were trying to tell me how to do my job, which sort of implies that you think it's a skill anybody can pick up in an afternoon.

Umm, no. You were saying that it's impossible to have different degrees of ambiguity.

Well, I still think that. I agree that an ambiguity may or may not be serious, but I have to take them all equally seriously.

And I'm still pissed off that I screwed up stealing the Rembrandt.

Fuckin' hell ....anyone who's anywhere up, down, left or right of Edinburgh during August, just go to the pissin' festival.

Not to be confused with the Pissing Festival, which I really hope doesn't exist.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Forgetting everything that's gone on since, I would have said that Andy Thompson's post was only slightly ambiguous. Presumably the possible misunderstanding would be someone thinking "Define "up" in Scotland? Well Edinburgh must be in the "up" part of Scotland, from the context." But I don't think (m)any people would really interpret it like that. "Some people are already here" sort of hints at the point. I imagine Andrew Feist was taking the piss.

Eh, who knows. I don't anymore, 'cause I've slept since then. I was certainly aware of the ambiguity, but my internal "which is more likely" meter leaned toward "You'll have to more specific than 'Scotland'", probably because by that point in the thread I had forgotten where it was exactly. I was wrong, so we can chalk it up to "idiot doesn't know what's going on" and move forward.

Previous gay banter notwithstanding, is there actually any audience participation in this show? I've not booked any tickets yet, and this could make the list.

Ian Volante wrote:Previous gay banter notwithstanding, is there actually any audience participation in this show? I've not booked any tickets yet, and this could make the list.

Go see John Gordillo - F**konomics

(Another in the reliable series...'Sue recommends')

Sue Sanders wrote:

Ian Volante wrote:Previous gay banter notwithstanding, is there actually any audience participation in this show? I've not booked any tickets yet, and this could make the list.

Go see John Gordillo - F**konomics

(Another in the reliable series...'Sue recommends')

Oh, that's if you like intellectual humour; if you want plain old daft you HAVE to see Pappy's Fun Club - Them boys is crazeee

Sue Sanders wrote:

Ian Volante wrote:Previous gay banter notwithstanding, is there actually any audience participation in this show? I've not booked any tickets yet, and this could make the list.

Go see John Gordillo - F**konomics

(Another in the reliable series...'Sue recommends')

I second this motion. John Gordillo previewed his show in Epsom and he was amazing. He's the best live stand up I've seen.

Come to think of it, I wouldn't be surprised if he showed up for comedy countdown. Dan Atkinson (the host) was the other act the night Gordillo was previewing and the club owner told me they were coming together, so they could help each other with their shows.

On the audience participation front, it doesn't specifically say anywhere that they will be asking for the audience to give words, but I'd imagine that they'd be happy to be given such useful heckles. They also hand out biscuits during the break if that helps!

Martin Bishop wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:

Ian Volante wrote:Previous gay banter notwithstanding, is there actually any audience participation in this show? I've not booked any tickets yet, and this could make the list.

Go see John Gordillo - F**konomics

(Another in the reliable series...'Sue recommends')

I second this motion. John Gordillo previewed his show in Epsom and he was amazing. He's the best live stand up I've seen.

Come to think of it, I wouldn't be surprised if he showed up for comedy countdown. Dan Atkinson (the host) was the other act the night Gordillo was previewing and the club owner told me they were coming together, so they could help each other with their shows.

On the audience participation front, it doesn't specifically say anywhere that they will be asking for the audience to give words, but I'd imagine that they'd be happy to be given such useful heckles. They also hand out biscuits during the break if that helps!

I've played John at online Scrabble - he can hold his own (Ooh er missus!)

The funniest joke of the year is apparently: "Hedgehogs. Why can't they just share the hedge?".

The judges who decided on that obviously haven't spent any time on these forums.

Derek Hazell wrote:The funniest joke of the year is apparently: "Hedgehogs. Why can't they just share the hedge?".

Ah, Dan Antopolski (the self-styled "big name comedian"). Trying to decide what to spend my remaining money on as the minutes ticked away on the last night of the 1999 Fringe, I opted for a late-night ensemble comedy gig in which Dan turned out to be far and away the funniest performer. He started off telling a few fairly mediocre gags which got a predictably muted (not to say puzzled) reaction. After a minute or two he produced a stack of large cue cards, on the first of which was written: I THINK THE ROOM IS BUGGED. He then proceeded to reveal the remaining cards one at a time, à la Bob Dylan/Subterranean Homesick Blues - the next one said: PRETEND YOU'RE HAVING A REALLY GOOD TIME, followed by LAUGH!!! He spent the next ten minutes doing two simultaneous routines: the not particularly funny spoken one, and the hilarious written one. You had to be there (no really).