I've thought about it some more, and I think essentially it's because the first part of the statement is so strong. "Germany's terrible trains" - is pretty definitive. Whatever comes next is...
I've thought about it some more, and I think essentially it's because the first part of the statement is so strong. "Germany's terrible trains" - is pretty definitive. Whatever comes next is almost certainly an intensifier or some other kind of modifier that doesn't change the meaning of the subject, and indeed "are no joke" and "are a joke" are both intensifiers.
If you made the first part more ambiguous, then the two would not be as close.
Germany's "terrible" trains are no joke
Germany's "terrible" trains are a joke
The latter seems, to me at least, to be implying that the idea that the trains are terrible is a joke, becoming the opposite of the former sentence.
That is interesting. Completely removing the "terrible" also has the same effect. I guess making it "less strong" and more focused on the latter part of the sentence.
That is interesting. Completely removing the "terrible" also has the same effect. I guess making it "less strong" and more focused on the latter part of the sentence.
I've thought about this one and I think that while they imply the same thing, they don't actually mean the same thing. no joke = not something to laugh about, should be taken seriously a joke = so...
I've thought about this one and I think that while they imply the same thing, they don't actually mean the same thing.
no joke = not something to laugh about, should be taken seriously
a joke = so terrible that you have to laugh about it
This is a little more literalist than I think most people would take it but in certain contexts the difference would be way more apparent
Well they don't mean the same thing. The former is somber and serious, it's a matter so bad it needs to be taken serious and actioned instead of making lighthearted jokes about it. While the...
Well they don't mean the same thing. The former is somber and serious, it's a matter so bad it needs to be taken serious and actioned instead of making lighthearted jokes about it. While the latter is the opposite, it's so bad it's to be openly mocked instead of even being acknowledged in a serious manner, it's not serious enough as a system to be granted that.
This article is similar to the one posted a few days ago: https://tildes.net/~transport/1b6g/your_next_excuse_is_on_platform_five_german_train_travel_has_become_an_experience_worthy_of_kafka.
Deutsche Bahn’s once-admired service has descended into chaos. Whether decades of poor investment or the company’s unusual structure is to blame, it’s a huge headache for a coalition trying to meet climate goals
I lived in Germany in 1999 and remember watching the engineer at a station in the east side of Berlin looking at his watch and the clock at the station and starting the train at the very second it...
I lived in Germany in 1999 and remember watching the engineer at a station in the east side of Berlin looking at his watch and the clock at the station and starting the train at the very second it was supposed to start in the schedule.
I moved to Germany a year ago, and this stereotype of German uber-efficiency still lived in some small part of my brain ... now, actually living here, the reality is jarringly bad. IDK how it is...
I moved to Germany a year ago, and this stereotype of German uber-efficiency still lived in some small part of my brain ... now, actually living here, the reality is jarringly bad. IDK how it is possible for a person to keep a job, while relying on the public transport system here.
And side-note ... the German bus system is much more disjointed and regional, so I supposed it is not fair to categorically disparage it throughout the country ... but my experience in the Nordrhein-Westfalen area has been every bit as bad as the train service. It is absolutely routine for scheduled buses to just not show up, and not at all uncommon for 2 or even 3 buses in a row to not show up, at a scheduled stop.
Having just come back from a tour of Switzerland that heavily used trains, it really is everything it is said to be. You could set your watch by the trains if you wanted to. An absolutely...
Having just come back from a tour of Switzerland that heavily used trains, it really is everything it is said to be. You could set your watch by the trains if you wanted to. An absolutely wonderful system.
This is completely anecdotal, so I don't know if I even believe it myself, but I've been told by a history buff friend of mine that German efficiency was propaganda created by the Nazis. Both he...
This is completely anecdotal, so I don't know if I even believe it myself, but I've been told by a history buff friend of mine that German efficiency was propaganda created by the Nazis. Both he and I live in Germany and I'll at least admit that that would explain a lot of things, I don't seem to see much efficiency in my daily life here
Off-topic, but isn't it a fun quirk of English that
and
can both be written and mean the same thing?
I've thought about it some more, and I think essentially it's because the first part of the statement is so strong. "Germany's terrible trains" - is pretty definitive. Whatever comes next is almost certainly an intensifier or some other kind of modifier that doesn't change the meaning of the subject, and indeed "are no joke" and "are a joke" are both intensifiers.
If you made the first part more ambiguous, then the two would not be as close.
The latter seems, to me at least, to be implying that the idea that the trains are terrible is a joke, becoming the opposite of the former sentence.
That is interesting. Completely removing the "terrible" also has the same effect. I guess making it "less strong" and more focused on the latter part of the sentence.
I've thought about this one and I think that while they imply the same thing, they don't actually mean the same thing.
no joke = not something to laugh about, should be taken seriously
a joke = so terrible that you have to laugh about it
This is a little more literalist than I think most people would take it but in certain contexts the difference would be way more apparent
Well they don't mean the same thing. The former is somber and serious, it's a matter so bad it needs to be taken serious and actioned instead of making lighthearted jokes about it. While the latter is the opposite, it's so bad it's to be openly mocked instead of even being acknowledged in a serious manner, it's not serious enough as a system to be granted that.
This article is similar to the one posted a few days ago: https://tildes.net/~transport/1b6g/your_next_excuse_is_on_platform_five_german_train_travel_has_become_an_experience_worthy_of_kafka.
I lived in Germany in 1999 and remember watching the engineer at a station in the east side of Berlin looking at his watch and the clock at the station and starting the train at the very second it was supposed to start in the schedule.
I moved to Germany a year ago, and this stereotype of German uber-efficiency still lived in some small part of my brain ... now, actually living here, the reality is jarringly bad. IDK how it is possible for a person to keep a job, while relying on the public transport system here.
And side-note ... the German bus system is much more disjointed and regional, so I supposed it is not fair to categorically disparage it throughout the country ... but my experience in the Nordrhein-Westfalen area has been every bit as bad as the train service. It is absolutely routine for scheduled buses to just not show up, and not at all uncommon for 2 or even 3 buses in a row to not show up, at a scheduled stop.
If you want an efficient train system you should move to Switzerland where the Swiss train system's efficiency is only slightly exaggerated.
Having just come back from a tour of Switzerland that heavily used trains, it really is everything it is said to be. You could set your watch by the trains if you wanted to. An absolutely wonderful system.
This is completely anecdotal, so I don't know if I even believe it myself, but I've been told by a history buff friend of mine that German efficiency was propaganda created by the Nazis. Both he and I live in Germany and I'll at least admit that that would explain a lot of things, I don't seem to see much efficiency in my daily life here
As seen on this season of Jet Lag... It's a really bad look for a country like Germany.