Talk:Winston tastes good like a cigarette should
Latest comment: 19 years ago by 194.151.6.67 in topic Grammatically incorrect?
 | Winston tastes good like a cigarette should has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}. |
 | Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically. |
|
An entry from Winston tastes good like a cigarette should appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 20 July, 2006. |  |
(nominated by ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC))
GA
Congrats, this is now officially a Good Article. Way to go on documenting such an interesting piece of Americana. pschemp | talk 03:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
MAD Magazine parody
The back cover of MAD's January 1971 issue (distributed in November 1970) features a color photograph of a cemetery with four thought balloons superimposed. Their dialogue is as follows:
- 1: "Winston tasted good like a cigarette should've."
- 2: "You mean, as a cigarette should've."
- 3: "What did you want, good grammar or good taste?"
- 4: "I wanted to live a lot longer than this!"
- Caption at bottom of page: "Winston may not say it right, but they sure know how to put you right -- six feet under with CANCER BLEND tobaccos."
Grammatically incorrect?
I think it should be changed from "many noted that the slogan was grammatically incorrect; it should, correctly, say.." to "many claimed that the slogan was grammatical incorrect, saying that it should, correctly, be..". Somehow I doubt it actually is grammatically incorrect. --Ptcamn 12:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Your proposed change isn't right either. As far as I can tell from the article, consensus at the time was that the phrase was grammatically incorrect, even if modern standards of grammatical correctness might not have judged it incorrect back then (if it was already in use in speech, which the article doesn't address). To complicate matters, this use of like is no longer considered ungrammatical today by more than a minority.
- I propose "many noted that the slogan was grammatically incorrect; it should have said..." This removes the present tense altogether. 194.151.6.67 13:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Grammatical correctness isn't just a "standard", defined by consensus. It's an objective thing. If they thought it was grammatically incorrect at the time, then they were just as wrong as they would be if they claimed the same today (in my opinion). --Ptcamn 14:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I do agree that grammatical correctness is not defined by concensus--it's defined by what people actually do (Ptcamn, is that what you mean by it being 'an objective thing'?). I agree with Ptcamn's proposed changes above. Just because people agreed it was incorrect doesn't mean it was--it is quite normal that how people speak, and how they think they speak are quite different. Actually, I'd like to see someone characterise exactly what it is about the construction that is grammatically incorrect. Dougg 00:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Grammatical correctness is not defined by consensus, but standards of what is considered grammatically correct are. Speakers of the language actually define the grammar, but grammar lawyers are the ones who point out what is and isn't correct (according to their learnéd opinions).
- What I'm trying to say is: even back then, the phrase might have been grammatically correct (in the sense of "everyone was using it and only the pundits were complaining based on some argument with no basis in fact") but that doesn't mean it wasn't considered grammatically incorrect by said pundits. 194.151.6.67 11:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think it is explained: like should not be used as a conjunction in this sense, but replaced with as. In any case, I do propose that any changes we do to that section be written out here and discussed before being changed. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 01:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's an injunction, not an explanation. And 'like' (in this usage) is usually described as a comprative preposition: I'm not sure why it's called a conjunction here. Surely it's not very different from, say, 'he's strong like an ox'? Dougg 05:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- In any case, do find a source where grammarians or English professors or the like defend "like a cigarette should." It'd be an interesting addition to the article. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know if it'll be possible to find a discussion of exactly this example, but I'm sure similar constructions have been described. I've emailed a colleague (I'm a linguist, but not an English specialist) about this. Hopefully I'll have something to post soon. Dougg 10:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
PD on TV!
Evidently (one of) the TV version(s) of this is PD, as the Internet Archive/Prelinger Archives has this availible for download: http://www.archive.org/details/ClassicT1948_3 along with several other cigarette commericals. 68.39.174.238 14:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)