"Lots" of cars!

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 7:19 am

On my way up the I-15 freeway this morning, going from San Diego to Orange County with my wife and son to visit a sister-in-law, I spotted an outdoor billboard with the following message advertising an Auto-Mall coming up in the next town (Norco):

Norco Auto-Mall
"Lots" of cars!

Now here's my question. What do you all make of the use of the quote marks here? For those of you who are not familiar with Auto-Malls, they are a probably uniquely American (rather recent) development whereby 8 or 10 automobile dealers for various makes of cars group themselves together on one large land mass so that you can go there and shop for a car without having to drive all over town. The use of " " around the word lots clearly is intended to draw attention to the double meaning here with separate interpretations. The sentence could mean that there are a lot of cars there, or it could mean that the cars are situated on a series of 'car lots' (which may also be an uniquely American expression).

So, do you find this use of quote marks creative? Or confusing? Or absurd? Or clarifying?

Would you teach such use of quote marks to your students?

Larry Latham

My Dingaling · Post by **My Dingaling** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 8:04 am

I think the double quote " " is confusing. Maybe single quotes: 'Lots' of cars.

A better way that doesn't misapply punctuation might be to use italics, bold or even colour.

Warmest Regards,

My Dingaling

Lorikeet · Post by **Lorikeet** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 3:47 pm

Why would single quotes be better?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 5:53 pm

I'd say no quotes at all and let those that get the pun get it on their own.

Incidentally we've had the same thing in the Gulf for years as far as second hand cars go. You'll get one part of town where all the second hand dealerships are, and also where everybody goes to buy or sell their car privately.

Nice to see we're ahead of the States in something

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 7:35 pm

I don't think that anyone would get the pun without the quotes. As puns go it isn't that funny; I mean just compare it to the line in "Carry on Cleo" when Kenneth Williams playing Julius Caesar is stabbed in a scene alluding to the eponomous play by Shakespeare and cries,

"Murder! Infamy! They've all got it in for me!"

We like to think of "Carry on" films as unsophisticated, but trust me only very advanced students would get that joke.

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 11:17 pm

I believe Andy is right here when he says no one would have reason to suspect a pun without the quote marks, although My Dingaling's remarks about other attention-getting devices probably would work as well. Something is needed, however, else no pun intended. And, My Dingaling, what about Lorikeet's question to you? Can you answer her?

I also agree with Andy's judgment that the pun isn't that good or funny.

None of you has answered my final question, though: "Would you teach this use of quote marks to your students?" Why or why not? If not, is that because it is wrong or misleading? Or only because it is a somewhat obscure use of them. Or is it, really?:?:

Larry Latham

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 11:41 pm

Polish students tend to overuse quotation marks as there are more uses of quotation marks in Polish than in English. Your example showed a legitimate use of quotation marks and provided they wrote "lots" not ,,lots" (as they are apt to do), I would be over-joyed that they were able to master the more subtle aspects of English punctuation.

My Dingaling · Post by **My Dingaling** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 10:58 am

Lorikeet wrote:Why would single quotes be better?

As you know single quotes are more permissive. The readers first thought with double quotes is that the words within the quotation marks are being cited, and this clarity distracts the reader from realizing the pun. The single quotes suggests the possibility of citation as single quotes are used by journalists for this function, but more often the double quotes are used in all other forms of writing for citation and singles quotes have a highlighting function. I think in this case, they (he or she) want the term 'Lots' to have as many connotations as possible.

Warmest regards

'My Dingaling'

Lorikeet · Post by **Lorikeet** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 4:05 pm

My Dingaling wrote:
Lorikeet wrote:Why would single quotes be better?
As you know single quotes are more permissive. The readers first thought with double quotes is that the words within the quotation marks are being cited, and this clarity distracts the reader from realizing the pun. The single quotes suggests the possibility of citation as single quotes are used by journalists for this function, but more often the double quotes are used in all other forms of writing for citation and singles quotes have a highlighting function. I think in this case, they (he or she) want the term 'Lots' to have as many connotations as possible.

Warmest regards

'My Dingaling'

Hmm. We (U.S.) often use double quotes for this double entendre type meaning. In speech, we even use our fingers to model the quotes when we say a word used in that way. I've never seen it with single quotes. So is it just me?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:31 pm

I don't think that anyone would get the pun without the quotes.

What you'd expect ifom the country that invented the smily.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:09 pm

Concerning the entry on "Lots":

Hmm. We (U.S.) often use double quotes for this double entendre type meaning

.

This is a pun not a double entendre, a double entendre has to have one meaning that means something sexual and another that does not.