A Riddle rhyme.
 

:rolleyes:
Heres an old one for xilman.
Hint: there are two answers!

As I was going to St. Ives I met a man with seven wives,
Each wife had seven sacks, each sack had seven cats,
Each cat had seven kits: kits, cats, sacks and wives,
How many were going to St. Ives? :surprised
Mally :coffee:

I say there are 3 answers:
[spoiler]1 - just me (as seen in "Die Hard With a Vengence")[/spoiler]
[spoiler]2 - me and the man (who has the wives, but left them home)[/spoiler]
[spoiler]2753 - me and the man (who brought the 7 wives, 343 cats, and 2401 kits - sacks don't count)[/spoiler]

[QUOTE=mfgoode]:rolleyes:
Heres an old one for xilman.
Hint: there are two answers!

As I was going to St. Ives I met a man with seven wives,
Each wife had seven sacks, each sack had seven cats,
Each cat had seven kits: kits, cats, sacks and wives,
How many were going to St. Ives? :surprised
Mally :coffee:[/QUOTE]
Indeed an old one, so old I won't answer it here. I will, however, give a spoiler.

[spoiler]It depends on whether the man and his entourage is himself
going to somewhere called St Ives.[/spoiler]

I am forced to ask for clarification though: St Ives in Cornwall or St Ives in Cambridgeshire?


Paul

[spoiler]Insufficient Data. All we know is "atleast one"[/spoiler]:razz:

[QUOTE=xilman]Indeed an old one, so old I won't answer it here. I will, however, give a spoiler.

[spoiler]It depends on whether the man and his entourage is himself
going to somewhere called St Ives.[/spoiler]

I am forced to ask for clarification though: St Ives in Cornwall or St Ives in Cambridgeshire?


Paul[/QUOTE]
The rhyme refers to the name of a quaint old village in Cornwall England. the earliest traceable publication is 1730.
Mally

A riddle rhyme
 

Tom 11784:Quote:/tom11784
I say there are 3 answers::/ Unquote.

:smile: Correction Tom
1) just me and 2401 (man, 7 wives etc.) going to St,Ives.
2)Just me. The man with seven wives etc. going in opposite direction. :grin:
Mally :coffee:

No Mally, I think that tom11784 is correct.

The riddle says that the man had seven wives etc, but it does not say that he has them with him. It is also perfectly possible to argue that the word [B]had[/B], being the past participle of the verb to have, could refer to the fact that he no longer has seven wives etc. There is insufficient data to answer the question, and was in fact used in my math course as an example of such poorly worded puzzles.

A riddle rhyme.
 

[QUOTE=Numbers]No Mally, I think that tom11784 is correct.

The riddle says that the man had seven wives etc, but it does not say that he has them with him. It is also perfectly possible to argue that the word [B]had[/B], being the past participle of the verb to have, could refer to the fact that he no longer has seven wives etc. There is insufficient data to answer the question, and was in fact used in my math course as an example of such poorly worded puzzles.[/QUOTE]
:no: You have been too lazy to read the riddle which evidently you don't know by heart or its a purposely denied statement to provoke flaming.
For your benefit I reproduce it again below.

As I was going to St. Ives I met a man with seven wives,
Each wife had seven sacks, each sack had seven cats,
Each cat had seven kits: kits, cats, sacks and wives,
How many were going to St. Ives?

If you are still in school ask a good English teacher to explain the various tenses to you once again.
If you are a drop out you need to go back again to learn tense and conjunction.
If you have managed to pass out then maybe you are blessed with a poor memory!

But being New year's eve I will be polite to you and inform you that I have my ankle boots on to use them besides dancing for any occasion that demands it!!
All the same Happy New year to you and your loved ones.
Mally :coffee:

[QUOTE=mfgoode]:no: You have been too lazy to read the riddle which evidently you don't know by heart or its a purposely denied statement to provoke flaming.
For your benefit I reproduce it again below.

As I was going to St. Ives I met a man with seven wives,
Each wife had seven sacks, each sack had seven cats,
Each cat had seven kits: kits, cats, sacks and wives,
How many were going to St. Ives?

If you are still in school ask a good English teacher to explain the various tenses to you once again.
If you are a drop out you need to go back again to learn tense and conjunction.
If you have managed to pass out then maybe you are blessed with a poor memory!
[/QUOTE]
Ok, let's analyze that first line in detail.

"As I was going to St Ives" implies that at least one was going to St Ives.

"I met a man with seven wives" implies that at some point on the journey I met a man. No indication is given whether or not that man is going to St Ives. If he was going to the same St Ives as I am, we can reasonably conclude that one of us is travelling faster than the other --- either he is overtaking me or vice versa. If he is going to the other St Ives (which is why I asked for clarification) we are both going to St Ives, but we are not going to the same place. If he is not going to either St Ives, irrespective of the starting point of his journey, only one is going to St Ives (me) and that is the answer to the riddle.

In this phrase the word "with" is ambiguous. It may mean that he has an entourage in his presence. It may also mean that he has such a collection somewhere else. I am a man with three brothers, one of whom I met two days ago and accommodated him overnight. I am still a man with three brothers today, even though they are now all more than 100 miles away. Various friends joined me and my youngest brother two days ago for our annual Xmas - New Year barbecue. They met a man with three brothers.

[b]Now[/b] do you see why the riddle is ambiguous? My friends met a man with three brothers. They did not meet all of my brothers.

Paul

[QUOTE=mfgoode] kits, cats, sacks and wives,
How many were going to St. Ives?[/QUOTE]

Or perhaps the question asks you to avoid counting the men at all.

As pointed out, the problem is quite ambiguous.

[quote=mfgoode]You have been too lazy to read the riddle[/quote]
On exactly what evidence do you base this assumption?
[quote=mfgoode]which evidently you don't know by heart[/quote]
Why would I need to know it by heart when it is written in the first post in this thread?
[quote=mfgoode]or its a purposely denied statement to provoke flaming[/quote]
What, exactly, have I denied. Where is this [I]purposely denied statement[/I] I am supposed to have made?
[quote=mfgoode]being New year's eve I will be polite to you[/quote]
And you call suggestions that I might be a drop-out from school, suggesting that maybe I should go back to school to learn how to speak my own native tongue, or that maybe I am the one suffering from memory loss, being polite?
[quote=mfgoode]inform you that I have my ankle boots on to use them besides dancing for any occasion that demands it!![/quote]
And do you actually call that being polite. Because I do not.
Do you know what really makes me want to throw up. Bob Silverman was one of the greatest assets this forum had, and he is no longer here because he told you the truth about yourself. And instead of having learned something from that you seem hell bent on proving that he was right after all.
[quote=mfgoode]All the same Happy New year to you and your loved ones[/quote]
So you can stick your false wishes where the sun doesn't shine.

[QUOTE=xilman][b]Now[/b] do you see why the riddle is ambiguous? My friends met a man with three brothers. They did not meet all of my brothers.[/QUOTE]
Indeed, they met two men with three brothers each. How many brothers were there in all?


Paul

A riddle rhyme.
 

[QUOTE=xilman]Indeed, they met two men with three brothers each. How many brothers were there in all?
Paul[/QUOTE]
:smile:
Paul,
Compliments of the season.
Your problem is as ambiguous as mine!
Are the two men, brothers themselves? If not then the answer is twelve.
If they are then the answer is six.
Thats if we don't consider the two men who met them. If we do, then are there any takers? :question:
Mally :coffee:

[QUOTE=mfgoode]:smile:
Paul,
Compliments of the season.
Your problem is as ambiguous as mine!
Are the two men, brothers themselves? If not then the answer is twelve.
If they are then the answer is six.
[/QUOTE]


Maybe we can consider the fact that the two are brothers and have another two away -- that would give the soltuion of two (more ambiguity)

P.S: If the two men are brothers we can even achieve a solution of four, if one brother is allowed to count for both men.

[QUOTE=fetofs]P.S: If the two men are brothers we can even achieve a solution of four, if one brother is allowed to count for both men.[/QUOTE]
Four is the correct answer in this case.

I have three brothers (Ian, Neil and Nigel). Nigel has three brothers (me, Ian and Neil).

Nigel visited me. Ian and Neil did not. Two brothers were present, each of whom have three brothers.


Paul

[QUOTE=mfgoode]:smile:
Paul,
Compliments of the season.
Your problem is as ambiguous as mine!
Are the two men, brothers themselves? If not then the answer is twelve.
If they are then the answer is six.
Thats if we don't consider the two men who met them. If we do, then are there any takers? :question:
Mally :coffee:[/QUOTE]
Is the wrong answer.

Re-read the description of the party I held.


Paul

[QUOTE=xilman]Four is the correct answer in this case.

I have three brothers (Ian, Neil and Nigel). Nigel has three brothers (me, Ian and Neil).

Nigel visited me. Ian and Neil did not. Two brothers were present, each of whom have three brothers.


Paul[/QUOTE]

I had misinterpreted the question when I gave my first answer; I said "two" because that was the number of brothers "present" on the party. :wink:

A Riddle rhyme
 

[QUOTE=Wacky]Or perhaps the question asks you to avoid counting the men at all.

As pointed out, the problem is quite ambiguous.[/QUOTE]
:surprised
Thats lateral thinking Wacky. Its an angle I didn't consider at all!
Well ,the very fact that I gave a hint of two answers, is sufficient to conclude that the problem is ambiguous and I don't deny it in the least. Its interesting to see the various interpretations of a school child's rhyme.
Mally :coffee:

[QUOTE=tom11784]I say there are 3 answers:
[spoiler]1 - just me (as seen in "Die Hard With a Vengence")[/spoiler]
[spoiler]2 - me and the man (who has the wives, but left them home)[/spoiler]
[spoiler]2753 - me and the man (who brought the 7 wives, 343 cats, and 2401 kits - sacks don't count)[/spoiler][/QUOTE]
:unsure: How do you arrive at the figure of 2753 ? Is it a typo error?
Mally :coffee:

A Riddle rhyme
 

[QUOTE=xilman]Indeed, they met two men with three brothers each. How many brothers were there in all?


Paul[/QUOTE]
:smile: Well lets consider the algebraic solution.
Lets forget the 'they'
We have two men (A and B) with three brothers each.
If the men themselves are not brothers but unrelated we have two sets A and B
Each set (A or B ) consists of 4 elements (brothers).
If we take a subset of two elements (brothers) then we have a subset of 2 brothers
So from A we derive 4C2 brothers = 4*3/1*2 = 6
The same goes for set B = 6
In all (A and B) we have 6+6 brothers = 12 brothers (sub sets) :rolleyes:
If the two men are themselves brothers then the set consists of 4 elements
Similarly there are 6 subsets. and so 6 sets of brothers. :rolleyes:
Elementary my dear Watson!
Mally :coffee: .

[QUOTE=mfgoode]
Elementary my dear Watson!
Mally :coffee: .[/QUOTE]

Your reasoning is incorrect, because if the men are brothers, a brother of one of them would be a brother of the other one as well. That's elementary. In your solution, you only consider one men to count for the other.

By the way, for the basic solution, I can count 8 (Set A+Set B). How did four brothers appear magically?

Edit: Oh, I see. You're not counting the [I]elements[/I], you're counting the [I]subsets[/I]. Indeed, there are 6 subsets: 1,2,3,1 and 2, 2 and 3, 1 and 3. But the problem isn't asking for the number of subsets you can form with 3 brothers, is it?

:smile:
Thank you fetofs. It shows you are thinking and that's good. I'm not infallible you know but I like an intelligent discussion and welcome your viewpoint.

Lets put it this way. Let one set of brothers be called X and the other Y.
Lets say X consists of four brothers A, B, C, D. The minimum we can have to call them a single group of brothers is a combination of two of them.

We thus have AB, AC, AD, BA, BC, BD, CA, CB, CD, DA, DB, DC. Obviously AB and BA are the same brothers so are AC and CA and so on and so we eliminate the duplicates.

We thus get remaining AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, CD. = 6 groups of brothers.
The same goes for the set Y = 6 groups of brothers.
Algebraically this is written as 4 C 2 where C is a combination = 4*3/1*2
We can generalise this formula for any number of brothers N as
NCr = N!/(N-2)!*2. which is the minimum combination for a group of brothers taken two at a time to make the group. :confused: :question:
Mally :coffee:

[QUOTE=mfgoode]:smile:
The minimum we can have to call them a single group of brothers is a combination of two of them.
[snip]
a group of brothers taken two at a time to make the group. :confused: :question:
Mally :coffee:[/QUOTE]

I haven't got many knowledge on sets, but it should be pretty obvious that 4C2 is the number of subsets with two elements in a set of four. But yet again the flaw is the same: you're counting subsets, not brothers.

I don't understand the need to consider "a single group of brothers" and brothers "taken two at a time". The only groups of brothers we actually need to consider are sets X and Y, that contain every brother in the family, and we should count the brothers individually.

I really don't see why to contest that the algebra is flawed and your school child's rhyme has no more solutions. Being an open-minded person could really help you to learn more with discussions like this.

[QUOTE=mfgoode]:unsure: How do you arrive at the figure of 2753 ? Is it a typo error?
Mally :coffee:[/QUOTE]

[code]2401 - kits
343 - cats
7 - wives
1 - other man
+ 1 - me
_____________
2753[/code]

A Riddle rhyme
 

[QUOTE=tom11784][code]2401 - kits
343 - cats
7 - wives
1 - other man
+ 1 - me
_____________
2753[/code][/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: You have 48 less :no:
PL check this out:
The riddle of the poem "As I was going to St. Ives" (' Google it')
Only one assumption can be made in the Nursery Rhyme "As I was going to St. Ives" and that is that one person was definitely going there - or was it? It , of course would depend on the direction of the people that were encountered on the way! This type of conundrum is now referred to as a logic problem in lateral thinking designed to improve the logic and deductive skills of children, and indeed, adults! (As I was going to St. Ives refers to the name of a quaint old village in
Cornwall, England) Earliest traceable publication date is 1730.


The Answer to the Riddle
Only one man was going to St.Ives!
He met the following who were
going the other way:
A man (1) with 7 wives
7 x 7 (49) sacks
7x7x7 (343) cats
7x7x7x7 (2,401) kits
A Total of 2,801 wives, sacks
cats and kits!

Poem - As I was going to St. Ives

As I was going to St. Ives I met a man with seven wives,
Each wife had seven sacks, each sack had seven cats,
Each cat had seven kits: kits, cats, sacks and wives,
How many were going to St. Ives ?
Mally :coffee:

[QUOTE=mfgoode]:rolleyes: You have 48 less :no: [/QUOTE]
I'm purposely not counting the 49 sacks because they are not people nor animals, and thus not worthy of the count. (49 less than your count)
I'm counting myself since in that case all the people (including 'I') and animals are going to St Ives (1 more than your count)

However, one could argue that only people should count, and that any number from 0 to 7 of the man's wives are with him, the set of answers would be restricted to 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9.

[QUOTE=mfgoode]As I was going to St. Ives I met a man with seven wives,
Each wife had seven sacks … [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=tom11784]and that any number from 0 to 7 of the man's wives are with him[/QUOTE]
Considering the suggestion that the wives are not present --
I do not see that suggestion to be in conflict with "a man with seven wives" because that statement can be referring to a property of the man which is independent of the location of said wives.

However, I think that it conflicts with "Each wife had seven sacks" because that statement reports an observation that could not have been made were they not present.

Today's question:
"Was there a polygimist present?"

[QUOTE=Wacky]Considering the suggestion that the wives are not present --
I do not see that suggestion to be in conflict with "a man with seven wives" because that statement can be referring to a property of the man which is independent of the location of said wives.

However, I think that it conflicts with "Each wife had seven sacks" because that statement reports an observation that could not have been made were they not present.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily, m'Lud, if hearsay were acceptable in such circumstances.


Paul

I pity the man who has seven wives. Never mind where they are going.

Mally,

You have shown yourself to use inconsistent logic in this thread. Maybe we should wish 7 wives on you as a curse.:surprised

Fusion

[QUOTE=tom11784]I'm purposely not counting the 49 sacks because they are not people nor animals, and thus not worthy of the count. (49 less than your count)
I'm counting myself since in that case all the people (including 'I') and animals are going to St Ives (1 more than your count)

However, one could argue that only people should count, and that any number from 0 to 7 of the man's wives are with him, the set of answers would be restricted to 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9.[/QUOTE]
:smile:
Where did you get the idea that only people count.? Yes you have a legitimate point about the sacks but lets stick to the problem which clearly in the 2nd last line states
"kits, cats, sacks and wives,
How many were going to St. Ives ? "

Quote:"I'm counting myself since in that case all the people (including 'I') and animals are going to St Ives (1 more than your count)" :no:

What would you call the goods transported by a freight train from A to B ?
Are they not going from A to B ?
Mally :coffee:

A Riddle rhyme
 

[QUOTE=Wacky]However, I think that it conflicts with "Each wife had seven sacks" because that statement reports an observation that could not have been made were they not present.
Today's question:
"Was there a polygimist present?"[/QUOTE]
:bow:
Excellent Wacky! You have a God given talent of viewing a problem from a different angle. This is lateral thinking at its best

In this particular thread there have been people who have viewed the problem also from a different perspective with ulterior motives of throwing a spanner into the works and posing an entirely problematical solution which they themselves cant answer. Amen! to them.

Polygamist ? The man was probably, as any man with more than one wife is a polygamist.

There is a parallel case in the Bible when Christ confronts Mary Magdalene with 6 husbands who were not present and she lies to him. But that's going off topic.
Mally :coffee:

A Riddle rhyme
 

[QUOTE=Fusion_power]I pity the man who has seven wives. Never mind where they are going.

Mally,

You have shown yourself to use inconsistent logic in this thread. Maybe we should wish 7 wives on you as a curse.:surprised

Fusion[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
I dont agree to your sweeping statement of inconsistency without a qualification. Never the less I will let it pass as you are entitled to delude yourself as much as you please. :no:
:smile:
" A curse" ? Speak for yourself (we should) but I say the more the merrier!
Solomon had a harem of 700 concubines and he had no problem :wink: But they probably were present one or two at a time and not all at once. There I go again its a vicious circle ! :grin:
Mally :coffee:

[QUOTE=Wacky]
However, I think that it conflicts with "Each wife had seven sacks" because that statement reports an observation that could not have been made were they not present.

[/QUOTE]

I don't think so because that statement can be referring to a property of the wives which is independent of the location of said wives.

Consider the verb had in the same way you are considering "with". It's easier still!
You can easily assume the wives are not there and that all of the mentioned are in home, with seven sacks (because they have them)...

[QUOTE=mfgoode]:rolleyes:
I dont agree to your sweeping statement of inconsistency without a qualification. Never the less I will let it pass as you are entitled to delude yourself as much as you please. :no:[/QUOTE]

You can delude yourself as well Mally, as much as you please.

"A man with seven wives" need not be a polygimist.

Consider a true case where you could meet "a man with seven wives".

My wife is a member of a group of ladies that decided to take a trip to France. Each of the seven ladies was married (to different husbands).
Most of those husbands were busy working, or otherwise not interested in the trip. However, the husband of one of the ladies, and their unmarried daughter, did accompany them. He acted as their driver, assist them with luggage, make arrangements, etc. while they visited various attractions. In the evening, he joined them at dinner with all nine sharing a table.

Now, if you were to have come in during such a dinner, you could have met a man with seven wives and a daughter.

[quote=Wacky]Considering the suggestion that the wives are not present --
I do not see that suggestion to be in conflict with "a man with seven wives" because that statement can be referring to a property of the man which is independent of the location of said wives.[/quote]
The man might have seven wives, they are just not actually with him when we meet him. Okay, that seems reasonable.

[quote=Wacky]However, I think that it conflicts with "Each wife had seven sacks" because that statement reports an observation that could not have been made were they not present.[/quote]
So the fact that they have seven sacks can [b]only[/b] be gleaned by direct observation rather than by (as Paul said) hearsay?

Can the man not tell us that the seven wives he has (who are not present) each have seven sacks? After all, we were prepared to believe him when he said he had seven wives who just did not happen to be with him at this moment. Can we not believe him when he tells us that they each have seven sacks? Surely we can.

Now let's move on to this lucky fellow dining with seven women (and an unmarried daughter).

If the man we meet while going to St. Ives is with seven women who are married, whether or not they are married to him, then he has seven wives (with him). But, if the women are not there, and we are still to presume that he has seven wives, then surely he must be married to them. Otherwise there is no sense in which he has seven wives. So, either he is a polygamist who is married to seven women, or the seven wives are with him. Or both. He could be a polygamist who has his wives with him.

Whether or not this allows you to suppose that because polygamy is illegal in Britain (which is where St. Ives is) he therefore cannot be a polygamist and therefore the seven wives must be with him, is a different matter altogether. But it does narrow it down to one of only two options. Hope this helps.

Numbers,

Ah, the nuances of the English language!

I think that we might agree that "with" can mean "in the company of" or "in the possession of (a relationship to)" whereas "had" can mean only the latter.
(Unless you choose the euphemistic meaning of "had" (or is that the "biblical" meaning of "with") :}

Not quite.

When my girlfriend was a young girl she owned a dog. She no longer owns a dog. So I can say that she had a dog. Even though she no longer has a dog.

When I met my girlfriend from work this evening she was carrying a red handbag. That handbag is now in the wardrobe upstairs while my girlfriend is sitting downstairs laughing at me typing this silly message. So I can say (of our meeting earlier this evening) that she had (with her) a red handbag. Even though she still owns it, but it is not actually in her hand at this moment.

If we put these two together we get that "had" means "was at one time (not necessarily the present) in possession of, but may or may not at this moment be in physical possession of, but either may or may not still own.

So we get that "a man with seven wives" can mean he is in the company of seven married women (to whom he may or may not be married), or it can mean he is married to seven different women (who may or may not be in his company).

And we also get that these seven women either are or at one time were in possession of seven sacks, which they may or may not have either owned or been in physical possession of when the meeting on the road to St. Ives took place, and which they may or may not still actually own irrespective of whether they actually have them in their possession right now.

Does that make it any clearer? :-) LoL

I agree that "had", being the past tense of 'to have', means (in this context) that, at some point in the past, that the wives were in possession of the respective sacks. However, if this time was not that of the meeting, but rather some time prior thereto, then I think that we would not say "they had the sacks", but rather "they had had the sacks".

Further, failing to use that language "had had", I think that each "wife had seven sacks" implies that the possession (or possibly simply ownership) was true at the time of reference namely the time of the meeting.

NB: I'm still undecided as to whether I am willing to accept ownership without possession for this case.

Your GF "had a dog" implies that as of the present, she previously possessed the dog.
Your GF "had a red handbag" (earlier this evening) implies the current possession as of a previous (to the present) time.

There are three times involved. The present, the time of the encounter, and the time of possession.
If the three are the same, then we use "has".
If either is in the past, but there are only two distinct times, then "had" is appropriate.
However, if the three times are distinct, then "had had" would be used.

okay, as long as we can agree that "could" and "should" are not the same thing. You "could" say it like that but it is in my view extremely bad English.

I would rather re-cast a whole paragraph than end up with a double-verb construction like that, but I know folks who talk like that and think nothing of it. And please don't ever get me started on double negatives.

[QUOTE=Numbers]please don't ever get me started on double negatives.[/QUOTE]

No, I would not never do that :)

But should we also take into account that that the author was restricted by the "rules" of poetry and had to restrict the constructs to those that met the meter and rhyme?

Which means that a single "had", by the "rules of poetry", could, but does not necessarily stand for the double-had I so abhor. And therefore it means, or can mean, any of the meanings I earlier suggested it might have.

You've tied yourself in knots by first suggesting that "we would rather say had had" and now suggesting that a poet would reconstruct had had by writing a single had.

I think we are in basic agreement that whatever the guy meant when he wrote it, no single answer to the question is going to be acceptable to more than three people at once. It's English, Jim, but not as we know it.

What about people like the fictional charactor Al on the show Quantum Leap? Didn't he have 5 wives? Heh.

[QUOTE=Numbers]Which means that a single "had", by the "rules of poetry", could, but does not necessarily stand for the double-had I so abhor.[/QUOTE]
Numbers would eradicate the pluperfect from the English language! :shock:

Those who do not know what "pluperfect" means should look it up. Check on the meaning of the phrase "modal verb" while you are there.

Here endeth today's polemic on the subject of the grammar of English verbs.


Paul

[QUOTE=Numbers]okay, as long as we can agree that "could" and "should" are not the same thing. You "could" say it like that but it is in my view extremely bad English.

I would rather re-cast a whole paragraph than end up with a double-verb construction like that, but I know folks who talk like that and think nothing of it. And please don't ever get me started on double negatives.[/QUOTE]

Given that English is a language with only 2 tenses, doubling of verbs is utterly vital to the language. Avoidance of the verb 'have' to denote posession is a far better aim.

[QUOTE=fatphil]Given that English is a language with only 2 tenses, doubling of verbs is utterly vital to the language. Avoidance of the verb 'have' to denote posession is a far better aim.[/QUOTE]There are more than two tenses of English verbs, as there are in most languages.

However, and in line with your statement, there are only two tenses which are indicated by modification of the verb stem. These are the present and the simple past tenses.

All other tenses are indicated by the use of additional words, most often an auxilliary verb or two. This behaviour is also common in most other languages. I can't, at the moment, think of a language which doesn't use such additional words though there are quite possibly are some. Note that in some languages the auxilliary words are sometimes written as suffices or prefices and so their ectopic nature isn't always readily apparent without paying close attention to the etymology. Agglutinative languages, such as Finnish Turkish and Sumerian, as you may expect, are the prime examples of such. I wish I knew more about more such languages. Perhaps you could help us out with examples from Finnish.


Paul

The publican at the Coach and Horses asked a signwriter to paint him a new sign. When the signwriter brought it along for inspection the publican noticed that the words were not evenly spaced. In particular, the gap after "Coach" was bigger than the gap before "Horses". He said to the signwriter, "The spaces between Coach and and and and and Horses are not the same."

So maybe just two "had's" is not such a sin after all.

[QUOTE=Numbers]the double-had I so abhor. [/QUOTE]

When I saw this i was tempted to post the 'eleven hads in a row' quizzer but I refrained: you know it and hate it I expect.

Anyway, this hijack has been very amusing to read, but was there any consensus on the 'St Ives' riddle?

Richard

[QUOTE=xilman]There are more than two tenses of English verbs, as there are in most languages.

However, and in line with your statement, there are only two tenses which are indicated by modification of the verb stem. These are the present and the simple past tenses.
[/QUOTE]

I prefer my shorter wording.

[QUOTE=xilman]
All other tenses are indicated by the use of additional words, most often an auxilliary verb or two. This behaviour is also common in most other languages.
[/QUOTE]

Auxiliaries can mark for time, both tense and aspect, but from the PoV of the English language I see these analytic tenses and moods as clearly distinct from the synthetic tenses formed by modification of the verb stem. (As the auxiliaries themselves have their own past/non-past morphology, amongst other reasons.)

[QUOTE=xilman]
I can't, at the moment, think of a language which doesn't use such additional words though there are quite possibly are some. Note that in some languages the auxilliary words are sometimes written as suffices or prefices and so their ectopic nature isn't always readily apparent without paying close attention to the etymology. Agglutinative languages, such as Finnish Turkish and Sumerian, as you may expect, are the prime examples of such. I wish I knew more about more such languages. Perhaps you could help us out with examples from Finnish.

Paul[/QUOTE]

I am not aware of any language that does not have /any/ auxiliaries.

My finnish is perseesta, but let's have a go...

Our synthetic tenses are exactly as in English - preterite and non-preterite (present).

Our analytic tenses are as in English - perfect and pluperfect.

Our four moods are:
depressed, solemn, morose, and phlegmatic
Erm, no, I mean:
indicative, imperative, conditional (~would), and potential (~might)

Finnish confuses matters a bit as every form of verb has a matching negative form.

It also totally puts coventional indo-european logic in a spin with several bizarre aspects that can imply continuity, repeatedness, momentariness, and all kinds of subtle things. For extra confusion, these aspects have to be interpreted using information gained from the form of its object.

So, those are the main ingredients that can be mixed in, let's see which tenses/moods require auxiliaries, and which don't!

First, the two easily categorised auxiliaries:
1) All negatives have a form of the "don't"/"ain't" auxiliary modal.
2) All perfects/pluperfects use the neutral auxiliary formed from the verb "be", its present indicative. E.g. literally (though not semantically) "i am", where in English we'd say "i have". Like English, the pluperfect uses the preterite tense of the auxiliary used for the perfect.
(Side note - finnish doesn't have a verb "to have" in the way most indo-european languages do, it's synthesised via other constructions)
Correct conclusion - (1) and (2) together do give you two auxiliaries.

No auxiliary word, where one might expect one:
3) The conditional has an -isi- infix.
e.g. haluatko? - do you like? vs. haluaisitko? would you like?
4) The potential has a non-regular form, from what I can see, but always modifies the main verb.
e.g. halunnet - he may like.
5) The passive forms again are suffixes
e.g. contrast "maksava asiakas" = "a paying customer" with "maksettava lasku" = "a to-be-paid bill".
or for the verb sanoa=to say, compare "sanova" = "saying" vs. "sanottava" = "something somebody says" or "to be said" vs. "sannottu" = "something somebody said" or "having been said".
6) The verbal adverb form "in order to <do sthg.>" or "in order that <pers.> might <do sthg.>" is derived from an infinitive formed by a -kse suffix plus a further personal suffix
e.g. kirjoitan oppiaksesi = "i write" "learn-in order to-2nd. pers. sing."
= I write in order that you (singular) might learn.
7) "As <person> was about to <do sthg.>" is likewise derived from an infinitive which looks like the amalgamation of several suffixes and
e.g. "sanomaisillasi <sthg.>" = "just as you were about to say <sthg.>"
8) Aspect modifiers, and other adverbial modifiers, of which there are many. Some are suffixes, some infixes, with various amounts of changing the stem.
e.g. hyp\"at\"a = to jump; hypell\"a = to jump about; hyppi\"a = to jump repeatedly
or potkia = to continually kick; potkaista = to give a kick.

Add all that together, and you can get some real frankenstein's monsters of verb forms just as one word.

Of course there are other modifications of verbs into noun or adjectival forms, but that would triple the length of this post. Finnish is pretty, erm, funky....

I can't pretend to understand more than about 2% of it! Most of this was cribbed off Eugene Holman - ask on usenet if you have any particular questions - soc.culture.baltics or soc.culture.nordic. If instead you want a silly answer, ask Markku J. Saarelainen instead (of sci.crypt notoriety, naturally).

[QUOTE=Numbers]"The spaces between Coach and and and and and Horses are not the same."[/QUOTE]

I hate these. The words which represent actual words rather than that word's meaning should be marked up somehow -- in quotes typically. And once you're sticking stuff in quotes, then the game's over, as you can recurse to infinity.

The sentences that contain "and and and and and" and "and and,
and and and and, and and and and, and and and and, and and and and,
and and and", and sundry tawdry other examples, are just silly contrivances.

Oooh, aren't I clever, I've just accidentally made an even longer one.

NOT!

A Riddle rhyme
 

[QUOTE=Richard Cameron]When I saw this i was tempted to post the 'eleven hads in a row' quizzer but I refrained: you know it and hate it I expect.

Anyway, this hijack has been very amusing to read, but was there any consensus on the 'St Ives' riddle?

Richard[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
Well we have had some fine lateral thinking and, logical interjections in this thread. Also expositions of the nuances and vagaries of the English language and even a bit of Finnish!
Now I would like to add a dose of logic, as spice, to give it more flavour and I hope we all get a better idea of this simple Childs rhyme. The foll. Is taken from my book “The logic book” by Bergman
1) An argument is a set of sentences one of which (the conclusion) is taken to be
Supported by the remaining sentences (the premises.)
2) A logical criterion is that if all the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion must be true as well. If this criterion is satisfied then it’s a deductively valid argument.
If not then the argument is a deductively invalid argument.
In terms of consistency an argument is a deductively valid argument iff it is not possible consistently, both to assert the premises and to deny the conclusion
3) An argument is inductively strong iff the conclusion is probably true given the premises. Otherwise it is inductively weak.
4) A sentence is logically indeterminate iff it is neither logically true or logically false
5) We must ask, rather, whether the sentence CAN possibly be true and whether it can possibly be false.
Of course if the sentence is actually true it cannot logically be false; if it is actually false it cannot be logically true.
Therefore in this rhyme (1) we can have multiple logical inputs (2) arriving at equally valid logical outputs (3) They will be inductively strong and (4) determinate (5) For each logical input which can be POSSIBLY TRUE the output cannot be logically false, and therefore true.
Mally :coffee:

[QUOTE=fatphil]My finnish is perseesta, but let's have a go...
[/QUOTE]

Beware, there were 3 errors -- 2 typos and 1 gramattical faux pas.
With the help of a few linguists that I know, I shall expand on the above, and put it on my website for future reference.

A Riddle rhyme
 

[QUOTE=fatphil]Beware, there were 3 errors -- 2 typos and 1 gramattical faux pas.
With the help of a few linguists that I know, I shall expand on the above, and put it on my website for future reference.[/QUOTE]
:smile: Well we have had enough of Finnish fatphil which in any case is off topic. How about getting on track in this present case-Logic.
Mally :coffee:

Forum admins - what's the point in having ignore lists if you send mails to me telling me that someone in my ignore list has just made a post? Sounds, erm, flawed. Is it possible to restrict such emails only to posts from those not in ignore lists?

[QUOTE=mfgoode]:smile: Well we have had enough of Finnish fatphil which in any case is off topic. How about getting on track in this present case-Logic.
Mally :coffee:[/QUOTE]Who is this "we" of whom you speak?


Paul

Riddle rhyme
 

[QUOTE=xilman]Who is this "we" of whom you speak?

Paul[/QUOTE]
:surprised
Ha! ha! Hail lover of Egyptian hieroglyphs! Haven't you heard of the Royal Plural? Nefertiti herself used it ages ago!
Mally :coffee:
. .

[QUOTE=mfgoode]Ha! ha! Hail lover of Egyptian hieroglyphs! Haven't you heard of the Royal Plural? Nefertiti herself used it ages ago![/QUOTE]
Of course I've heard of the Royal "we". I've also heard of egomania.

As for the use by Nefertiti, please provide a reference as I've not heard that claim before. In particular, did she use the plural proper when referring solely to herself, or the dual, or both?

As far as I am aware, very few utterances by Nefertiti are preserved, compared with, say, Akhenaten.


Paul

A Riddle rhyme
 

[QUOTE=xilman]Of course I've heard of the Royal "we". I've also heard of egomania.

As for the use by Nefertiti, please provide a reference as I've not heard that claim before. In particular, did she use the plural proper when referring solely to herself, or the dual, or both?

As far as I am aware, very few utterances by Nefertiti are preserved, compared with, say, Akhnaten.
Paul[/QUOTE]
:smile: egomania is not so much 'we' as I, ME, and MYSELF'

Paul, you take things too seriously.
So allow me to reply in a humorous vein.
Its simple Logic.
The Egyptian Royals used the Royal Plural as Akhnaten did
Nefertiti was his wife,
So she was royal.
There fore she used the RP.

Now this is simply very silly of me!

Yes there were few recorded utterances of Nefertit I agree
I heard her speak in one of the Biblical movies !!:grin: LOL
Mally :coffee: