Can you can a can as a canner can can a can?

That's 11 a's in a total of 32 letters. (34,4%)

wordwise it's 12 words, and 6 can's (7 if you count the canner :) )
(50% or 58,3%)

"Good cooks cook good food for good rooks."

That's 15 o's in 33 letters, 45,5%
(Not bad for a non-native speaker, if I might say so myself ;))

I couldn't come up with a better word then rooks... seems a bit odd that good cook will cook at all for rooks...

[quote=michaf;156248]"Good cooks cook good food for good rooks."

That's 15 o's in 33 letters, 45,5%
(Not bad for a non-native speaker, if I might say so myself ;))

I couldn't come up with a better word then rooks... seems a bit odd that good cook will cook at all for rooks...[/quote]


Nice sentence! :smile:

Yes it is very odd but nobody said there had to be much chance of the sentence actually happening in real life...just that it makes gramatical and contectual sense. In other words, it is possible.

If the only definition of rook was the piece in a chess game, the sentence would still make gramatical sense but would not make contectual sense so it would not be allowed. After all, you can't cook for an inanimate object! lol


Gary

Eerie eels see eerie green bee's eyes.

16/30 e's = 53.3%

I was just thinking of something: We should disallow the use of a word more than once in a sentence. If you do that, that knocks out mine and both of Micha's submissions.

Regardless, xilman's sentence is by far the most impressive. Not only does it not have a repeat word, it is a far longer sentence than any of the rest with > 50%!

I haven't made it a rule yet but I just thought I'd throw the idea out there.


Gary

Normally, I don't even lurk over here....


Tittle-tattle, tot, tote that tat to the titto.

19 t's, 36 letters, 47 characters (includes the .)

52.5%