Linguists
Linguists
[Ponytail is walking to the left. A voice calls out from behind her (at the right of the panel):] Off-panel voice: Help! Off-panel voice: I fell down a hole!
[Ponytail runs to the right, toward the hole.]
[Ponytail, kneeling down next to the hole, calls out:] Ponytail: Hey! Ponytail: Is "fell down a hole" exactly equivalent to "fell in a hole," in your usage? Or do they have slightly different implications?
[Caption below the panel] There's a myth that linguists are pedants who love correcting people, but they're actually just enthusiastic about understanding language in all its infinite varieties, which is much worse.

Ponytail hears the cries of an unidentified person who has become trapped in a hole. She rushes over, but rather than helping the person out, she instead asks whether the trapped person's chosen phrasing for their predicament – "fell down a hole" – is equivalent to "fell in a hole."
To most people, the phrases "fell down a hole" and "fell in a hole" are paraphrases. To other people, however, the two sentences have a subtle difference that implies slightly different things; for example, whether one has fully or only partially fallen down/in the hole, how big the hole is, or whether the person has exited out of the hole yet at the time of speaking (see the paragraph on the title text below). Ponytail is thus asking whether the person chose to use 'down' over 'in' for those reasons. In either case, the joke here is that this is probably not the best time for Ponytail to ask.
In the caption, Randall comments on the stereotype that linguists are obnoxious elitists who only love telling people how wrong they are (" Grammar Nazis "). A linguist might make a statement like this that ends with something like "linguists actually are only trying to describe existing grammar rules, not prescribe them." Instead, Randall takes the comment in an unexpected direction by saying not that linguists are better than expected but actually worse. He claims that seeking to extract exact information is worse than if they were pedants browbeating their audience, possibly because a pedant could prioritize the elements of a situation better than Ponytail is doing here.
This is similar to the viewpoint dedicated to scientists in comic 877: Beauty , as in studying that field seems to be a cold and sad way to analyze the thing, but instead is an extreme form of child-like awe and inspiration.
The title text sees Ponytail asking the person whether their answer is dependent on the current situation, or in technical terms, tense-aspect-mood . As noted above some people see the difference between 'fell down' and 'fell in' as to whether the sentence still holds true at the time of speaking; this is called the perfective aspect . There are other variations, such as recent vs. remote past: "I just fell down a hole"; the perfect (not to be confused with the first one - note the lack of -ive ): "I fell down a hole, and it has consequences relevant to our conversation"; habitual : "I had previously fallen down a(nother?) hole, and I have fallen down this hole now", all of which can influence one to choose 'down' over 'in' or vice versa.
The last sentence “assuming you get out” drives home the point that Ponytail is concerning herself with linguistic matters over practical ones. Ponytail’s use of “assuming” rather than “when” suggests that Ponytail doesn’t have a plan to get the person out, or that she has a plan but isn’t confident in its success. The former interpretation, that Ponytail is thinking of the person getting out as abstract and unconnected with her, is funnier and more consistent with Ponytail’s actions so far.
[Ponytail is walking to the left. A voice calls out from behind her (at the right of the panel):] Off-panel voice: Help! Off-panel voice: I fell down a hole!
[Ponytail runs to the right, toward the hole.]
[Ponytail, kneeling down next to the hole, calls out:] Ponytail: Hey! Ponytail: Is "fell down a hole" exactly equivalent to "fell in a hole," in your usage? Or do they have slightly different implications?
[Caption below the panel] There's a myth that linguists are pedants who love correcting people, but they're actually just enthusiastic about understanding language in all its infinite varieties, which is much worse.
