Talk:how do I get to Carnegie Hall

This is a rhetorical question. DCDuring TALK 16:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion debate

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

how do I get to Carnegie Hall

A hoary joke, not an idiom, like why did the chicken cross the road? Equinox ◑ 16:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I could easily be swayed by argument on this, my NY bias favoring it. The possibility is that the question is an allusion to the jocular/serious answer, thereby making it idiomatic or proverbial. DCDuring TALK 17:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong delete. We have knock knock, but that's a class of jokes. This is just a set-up line. bd2412 T 18:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't really get the definition. I don't see any reason to keep it, but I don't see how I can comment on something I don't fully understand. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
    • It's a double entendre - how does one get somewhere? The usual meaning is that the person is asking for directions to a physical location; the joke is that the person answering tells them how to achieve a milestone symbolized by that location. Say the Super Bowl is in New Orleans, and I ask, "how do I get to the Super Bowl in New Orleans"? The answer I'm looking for is probably either how to obtain tickets, or how to physically locate the stadium. If you answer, "Win all your playoff games", this implies that I want to play in the Superbowl, not just be at the location when it occurs. bd2412 T 18:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The rationale for keeping it, with a corrected "definition", is that the joke is so well known (in the US, at least) that the setup is often heard as the answer. There are a large number of Proverb, Phrase, and Idiom entries that have that relationship to something more complete. In some cases we have both the full form of a proverb and a phrase or clause that evokes it. Now, I don't want to say that anyone doesn't have wit enough to see the merit of my arguments, but if the shoe fits.... DCDuring TALK 19:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If this can be demonstrated, I think it's a definite keeper. But google books:"how do I get to Carnegie Hall" is not very encouraging. -- Visviva 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm betting on on Google news. DCDuring TALK 02:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete or open a pretty big can of worms. Should we include all well-worn set-ups, come-ons, punch lines, snappy comebacks, ripostes, gags, plays on words, shticks, and thigh-slappers that have gone the rounds, on the grounds that they have all ascended to proverbial status? I certainly have a very hard time seeing this one as an idiom, a proverb, or a part of one. Who's on first here, anyway? -- WikiPedant 00:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The can of worms is already leaking a bit: sticks and stones, when in Rome, bird in the hand, time and tide are examples of lead-ins to proverbs that we have as entries. What is required is that the completion be fairly obvious and proverbial. Not very many joke questions end up with a proverbial as a punch line. We also have evocative fragments like and your little dog too and and the horse you rode in on, which are includable largely because they are euphemisms. We have no reason to exclude any of these if they are attestable and I'm reasonably sure they are. In each case they allude to and evoke a full expression. The sole difference, AFAICT, is that, in the instant case, the speaker of what is evoked is different from the speaker of the question. Also, rhyming slang works analogously, it seems to me.

I wonder how big a can of worms this could be (compared to including, say, gazetteer entries and SoP terms that are translation targets). This seems to meet CFI. It conveys meaning beyond the meaning of actual words. I believe it would prove attestable in a sufficient number of newspaper columns. I'm sure that it would pass a few Pawley idiomaticity tests, too. DCDuring TALK 02:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Judging by how hard it is to attest in the use that I have heard, that I know exists, at least in the NY metro area and among educators, musicians etc, there are very few worms to worry about here. DCDuring TALK 03:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I only understand now because I've read the WP article. Someone needs to say what Carnegie Hall is. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that the attributive-use standard narrowly construed would allow Carnegie Hall to be an entry. It could be an application of {{only-in}} pointing to WP. DCDuring TALK 12:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per others' comments.​—msh210℠ 17:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per above. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Basically, this is not an idiom or a proverb, it's the first line of a joke. What's next? an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that I could attest the usage that I know exists: It is too regional and dated to be used in print in the allusive way that I had posited above. I don't think that it is deletable for the reasons stated. In the usage I know, "How do you get to Carnegie Hall?" is the retort to some asking for advise on how to do something easily that, in fact, requires practice: "What do I have to do to get an athletic scholarship to college?" / "How do you get to Carnegie Hall?" The joke is supposed to be well known enough to trigger the automatic punch line. If it does not and the person says "Hunh?", then one has the opportunity to make one's point directly. It is all in aid of giving advice. My position is that in such a case "How do I get to Carnegie Hall" means "Practice! Practice! Practice!". That is not inferrable from the components. It is not a joke. It is just like proof of the pudding (in OneLook dictionaries) which is an ellipsis for the the proof of the pudding is in the eating. One does not infer that one is referring to a metaphorical eating without knowing the expression as a reference to the proverb.

Accordingly, I would prefer that this be a Keep and Move to RfV to not create a precedent against allusive entries per se. DCDuring TALK 15:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Moving this to RfV would only delay the need to determine whether a well known setup to a punchline should be included. Of course, we could make an entry on something like why did the chicken cross the road (which is clearly verifiable) to test this principle, but this entry already exists. bd2412 T 16:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)