ArticlesConsider these two old puzzles:
Punctuate this word sequence to make it a meaningful sentence: James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher [Solution]
Write a sentence with the word “and” appearing five times in a row. [Solution]
If you haven’t seen these puzzles before, feel free to go and try to solve them first before reading the solutions. There are more spoilers below.
I want to show that the solutions to these two puzzles have a common flaw – no, that’s the wrong word. A cheat? A workaround? A disappointment!
The disappointment is that they rely on both sides of the use-mention distinction. As soon as some of the words are (implicity or explicitly) quoted, I think the glamour of the solution is lost.
I will explain that further, but first consider an old children’s poem that suffers the same fate. It can be written two ways:
The humorous way:
11 was a racehorse.
22 was 12.
1111 race.
22112.
The explanatory way:
Juan-juan was a racehorse.
Tu-tu was one, too.
Juan-Juan won one race,
Tu-tu won one, too.
This was a fun poem when I was a kid, and yet rather dissatisying as an adult. The names of the horses aren’t, in a way, real words. They could be anything. Hence, the poem could be “improved”:
11 was a racehorse.
221121121128293612 was 12…
Similarly, I could claim that John, in fact, had had “had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had”, which the teacher said was ungrammatical.
Want me to continue? Too bad, I shall anyway.
I didn’t like the HTML rendering on the solution page for the second puzzle; there should have been more space between the “Pig” and “and and and and and” and “and and and and and” and “Whistle”.
That reminds me of the Buffalo puzzle:
Parse this valid sentence: Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. [Solution]
Again, mild spoilers below so try to solve it if you like before you read on.
For some reason, I find this sentence far more interesting.
It does cross over the use-mention distinction as it contains some proper nouns, but for some reason is seems more harmonious way. It also can be extended by a buffalo or two (Wikipedia claiming indefinitely.)
So, I don’t know why I don’t grumble about this sentence for the same reasons. It just feels better. Any ideas?
I learnt something from writing this article. The Had Had sentence which I grumbled about, above, was written by a philosopher called Hans Reichenbach. (A wasted opportunity; if his name had been Hans H. Hans-Hans, we could have had far more fun!) According to Wikipedia, he wrote it as an exercise in understanding the distinction between Object Language and Metalanguage! That is, has was deliberately playing with the use-mention distinction, to demonstrate how it worked.
I feel a bit better about it now, and I am starting to get a wider and deeper perspective of the real issue: that someone needs a biscuit and a little lie down before tackling any more puzzles.
Comment by Aristotle Pagaltzis on October 16, 2008
No, it does not! The use of Buffalo as a proper noun referring to a place is still a use: it’s talking about a place, not about the word “Buffalo.†Granted, it’s still cheeky, as almost any word can be a place name, but in this particular case there is some historical justification for the combination.
What’s more, it doesn’t detract from the construction. You can leave out the proper-name “Buffaloâ€s and the sentence still works, although it loses punch and clarity (inasmuch as you can speak of clarity where this sentence is concerned).
Comment by Julian on October 17, 2008
After eating a biscuit and having a lie down, I can see that Aristotle is right.
The same argument could be made for the 22112 poem as well. Thinking about it, I realise that if there were two race-horses called Juan-Juan and Tu-Tu that were household names, I would find the poem more satisfying.
(Yes, I am afraid to report that I live in a country where racehorses can be household names.)
(Yes, I did notice the use-mention breakage in the idiom that a person or an animal is a household name. They have household names.)
Comment by John Y. on October 18, 2008
I dunno ’bout Australia, but here in the U.S. racehorses get all sorts of crazy names, so even if a name isn’t a household name, it doesn’t warrant any kind of surprise, cognitive dissonance, or indignation once it is established that we are talking about racehorses.
Comment by Alan Green on October 19, 2008
“And and and and and another thing,” stuttered Frank, “this post is is is is is do do do doing my head in.”
Comment by Julian on October 19, 2008
Alan, I think I would have used a dash to indicate the stuttering, rather than just a space.
That is, I would have put a dash between the “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”.
I hope this helps.
Comment by Julian on October 19, 2008
John,
Agreed, but nor does it deserve any particular admiration. Inventing a horse name that leads to odd sounding sentences isn’t hard. I could write a poem about a fictional horse called “And and and and and”. It wouldn’t be very clever.
Jokes about children with invented names? Not funny any more once you turn about 13.
On the other hand, there really is a place called Morrow, Ohio, so the To Morrow song popularised by The Muppets is deserving of your laughter.
Comment by Julian on May 28, 2011
A mathematical proof that you can add more buffalos to the buffalo sentence. (Via Chris)