dookie

[Laurence Horn]

At 9:47 AM -0500 9/24/04, Barbara Need wrote:
>>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

Ah, but dat's an ortogonal issue.

L

>>>
>>>>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.