dookie

[Laurence Horn]

At 9:19 AM -0500 9/24/04, Barbara Need wrote:
>"two turds", i.e. 2/3
>
>Barbara

I can go either way on this.  "turd" can be used as a natural kind
term, in which case you have to know something about the causal
history, or it can be used phenomenologically.  Compare the effect of
cutting a worm in half--if you know the history, you have a dead
worm.  If not, you have two dead worms.  (That does kill them, right?
I'm a bit vague about the facts here.)

larry

>
>>From:    Wilson Gray <wilson.gray at RCN.COM>
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>: About a quarter-century ago, wasn't something similar to the following
>>: conundrum being heard in linguistic circles?
>>
>>: A. A piece of shit and a turd are the same thing, right?
>>: B. Right.
>>: A. And if you cut a piece of shit in two, you get two pieces of shit,
>>: right?
>>: B. Right.
>>: A. But, if you cut a turd in two, you don't get two turds, right?
>>: B. Right.
>>: A. Explain.
>>
>>Admitting further embarassment to this list, but i don't get it. For me, the
>>answer to "...you don't get two turds, right?" would be "No, you do."
>>
>>So am i just clueless, or is this some dialect difference i've never heard
>>of?
>>
>>FWIW, i have a student in my office (a 4.0 student who taught her bird to
>>say "poopy", so she presumably has some expertise here :-) who agrees with
>>my intuitions here.
>>
>>David Bowie                                         http://pmpkn.net/lx
>>     Jeanne's Two Laws of Chocolate: If there is no chocolate in the
>>     house, there is too little; some must be purchased. If there is
>>     chocolate in the house, there is too much; it must be consumed.