Consider these two old puzzles:<\/p>\n
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]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Write a sentence with the word “and” appearing five times in a row. [Solution]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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!<\/p>\n
The disappointment is that they rely on both sides of the use-mention distinction<\/a>. As soon as some of the words are (implicity or explicitly) quoted, I think the glamour of the solution is lost. <\/p>\n
I will explain that further, but first consider an old children’s poem that suffers the same fate. It can be written two ways:<\/p>\n
The humorous way:<\/p>\n
11 was a racehorse.
\n22 was 12.
\n1111 race.
\n22112.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nThe explanatory way:<\/p>\n
Juan-juan was a racehorse.
\nTu-tu was one, too.
\nJuan-Juan won one race,
\nTu-tu won one, too.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nThis 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”:<\/p>\n
11 was a racehorse.
\n221121121128293612 was 12…<\/p><\/blockquote>\nSimilarly, 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.<\/p>\n
Want me to continue? Too bad, I shall anyway. <\/p>\n
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”.<\/p>\n
That reminds me of the Buffalo puzzle:<\/p>\n
Parse this valid sentence: Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. [Solution]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Again, mild spoilers below so try to solve it if you like before you read on.<\/p>\n
For some reason, I find this sentence far more interesting. <\/p>\n
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.)<\/p>\n
So, I don’t know why I don’t grumble about this sentence for the same reasons. It just feels better. Any ideas?<\/p>\n