"Tricks or treats"?
Is that how kids used to say it, making both words plural?
shareIt may depend on where you're from. I never said tricks or treats when I was a kid; (I would have been 9 when Great Pumpkn came out.) I said trick or treat
share
MovieChat Forums > It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown (1966) Discussion > "Tricks or treats"?
I forget, isn't it only Sally that says this? I'm just wondering if its just the cute mispronunciation by the youngest kid in the group.
shareNo I think Lucy said it too. And I agree, I was 9 when I first saw it, and that was SO WEIRD, we always said 'trick or treat'.
shareI thought Sally skipped trick or treating to stay with Linus in the pumpkin patch?
shareThey all say it plural. I grew up in southern California in the '50s and '60s and everybody here said "trick or treat".
shareThey were referring to the activity collectively.
shareNo, that still doesn't make sense. It may be a regional thing. To be clear, when I was a kid the phrase "tricks or treats" never crossed my lips in any context or construction. It was always "trick or treat."
Allow me to clear up the confusion my friend:
When a child is speaking only for himself, he will say "trick or treat". When a group of children all say it together, they will still say "trick or treat" individually despite being in a group.
However, when one child is pre-designated as the spokesperson for the group, he will say "tricks or treats" speaking for all.
Here's where it can go off the rails so to speak - if a nerdish or perhaps inexperienced Trick or Treater should also say "tricks or treats" at the same time the designated spokesperson says it, it's considered a very and egregious breach of etiquette as the sound of two children saying "tricks or treats" at the same time is quite offensive to the ear. At this point, the offender is then soundly beaten and the candy he has collected up to that point is confiscated and divided evenly among the rest of the group. The offender is then allowed to begin collecting candy once more as long as he manages to keep his candy hole shut and not cause any further offenses.
All of this can be found in the Halloweener's Tricks or Treats Field Manual, available on Amazon and from fine booksellers everywhere.
All very interesting except that I HAVE NEVER HEARD THAT PHRASE USED BY ANYONE, ANYWHERE, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!! Is that clear enough? Many other posters have said the same. That is not to say that it isn't used somewhere. And the rules you are quoting seem far to sophisticated for children, or most adults for that matter, to use.
shareNo kid would ever say "tricks or treats" because he was speaking for the group. Really.
share"Allow me to clear up the confusion:"
That is hilarious!! Are you a writer? If not you missed your calling!!
I don't think you are being serious.
Why are so many people trying to use sarcasm in a format where it doesn't work? There are no facial expressions, tones of voice, body language, energy, or any subtleties like that you can pick up to realize someone's not being 100% serious.
In a text-based communication format, sarcasm is a really bad idea, because it takes an enormous amount of effort and energy just to detect a possibility of sarcasm, and even then you can never be completely sure.
It's best to avoid using it in text-based formats.
There is no such manual, and how do you discern between 'fine booksellers' (whoever they are) and 'crude booksellers', and how did you establish it would be available 'everywhere'? Even in my toilet?)
In a text-based communication format, sarcasm is a really bad idea
You don't read that much books, don't you? share
Language changes over time, I have noticed many interesting sayings that have morphed into something different, that are used in the old comics and cartoons like these. Usually these sayings have been shortened from their original, longer version, this is no exception.
It WOULD be kind of lame to threaten someone with only ONE trick, now wouldn't it? Also, what kind of kid only wants _A_ treat? They want TONS of candy and no amount is ever enough!
It WOULD be kind of lame to threaten someone with only ONE trick, now wouldn't it? Also, what kind of kid only wants _A_ treat? They want TONS of candy and no amount is ever enough!
Excellent points!
By threatening "tricks" (plural), it will suggest to the treat dispenser in no uncertain terms that it might greatly behoove them to cough up treats (again, plural) in a time and traditionally accepted wink/nod quid pro quo of candy based extortion.
share
You are correct that language changes. However, in the case, it hasn't. While I love "The Great Pumpkin," it is the only show, movie, play, book, etc. that I have ever heard use the term "tricks or treats" My parents taught us the phrase as "trick or treat" and they would have used it in the thirties. My siblings and I said that through the sixties and seventies. Even today, I have never heard an DJ, announcer, or TV personality use the plural. Very movies and TV episodes have used "Trick or Treat" as a title, not "Tricks or Treats."
For now, there has not been a language change for this phrase. Attempts to logically analyze a saying are facetious at best. They develop for their own reasons and don't necessarily reflect logic, rationality, or careful development.
Author of the Sodality Universe
The Road from Antioch
In the Markets of Tyre
Flight to Lystra
The Theater at Ephesus
The Council on Jerusalem (coming 2023)