dookie

[Barbara Need]

>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

I think you are over analyzing the joke here. For some people, not
me, the word *thirds* is pronounced like turds.

Barbara

>>
>>>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.