"Hello. We're talking about language."

Two small exhibits, each about 6 minutes long. First, via Clusterflock, a bit from A Bit of [Stephen] Fry and [Hugh] Laurie*:



. . . and George Carlin (mild vulgarity, natch).

Some initial observations below the fold.

You should keep in mind as you read this that in general, I happen to prefer British humor about language to its American equivalent (though I will say that Carlin is especially sharp in the bit I linked to above).

Here, edited and elaborated on, are my comments on the Fry and Laurie post over at Clusterflock: what's interesting to me about British “language” humor is that it actually enacts it, as opposed to the American version that just sort of notices weird stuff about it. It’s as though, for us Americans, English is “outside” us, as though we Americans don’t fully possess it (still). Or, as in the Carlin piece, language is actually hostile to him and his sensibilities as a human being. If I really wanted to push this, it's as though the American attitude toward English is that we (still) feel colonized by it and resist it (the colonization, if not the language) by scrutinizing it. Carlin critiques, and we laugh with him as he shares his critique. He's done the work for us. The Brits, though, are “inside” it, mucking about in it, the weirdness emerging as they use it without having to point it out. We then get to laugh in the old laughter-as-implicit-critique sort of way. In other words, we do the work to create the humor (which I like doing, and which is why I tend to prefer this humor).

So, then, here's my theory about British and American humor about language, which is my theory: The subject of British language humor tends to be the language, whereas American language humor tends to be about the language. Or something.

*Fans of Laurie's work on House are directed to the Fry and Laurie material post-haste. Here, meanwhile, Laurie showcases his talents as a musician and singer.

Bonus: Victor Borge doing "Inflationary Language":