Siegfried Posted October 22, 2007 Posted October 22, 2007 That's pretty horrendous, but at least it's possible that you may learn a skill from it. Perhaps, but I would be stuck at step 1... :-$ Quote
hewkii9 Posted October 22, 2007 Posted October 22, 2007 You want me to defend it? Okay. Not Galidor. Quote
Hinckley Posted October 22, 2007 Author Posted October 22, 2007 Perhaps, but I would be stuck at step 1... :-$ :-| I said may... You want me to defend it? Okay.Not Galidor. It may as well be. BTW, your sig say "how much woodchucks would a woodchuck chuck..." It's "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck..." Quote
Lt. Col. Thok Posted October 22, 2007 Posted October 22, 2007 Not Galidor. HEY!!! I actually like(d) Galidor! I feel betrayed by a fellow Kingstonian! Anyways, how stupid do they think we are? Do we really need to know which pen is for drawing, which is for colouring, etc? Lego, get your act together. Kids may be stupid, but not that stupid. Quote
hewkii9 Posted October 22, 2007 Posted October 22, 2007 It may as well be. BTW, your sig say "how much woodchucks would a woodchuck chuck..." It's "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck..." At least this can be used for something. And I know, everyone studies that. I wanted to look into woodchucks chucking something somewhat more substantial- woodchucks. Quote
Doctor Sinister Posted October 22, 2007 Posted October 22, 2007 Anyways, how stupid do they think we are? Do we really need to know which pen is for drawing, which is for colouring, etc? Lego, get your act together. Kids may be stupid, but not that stupid. Agreed. If they were that stupid they wouldn't be able to read the writing on the pen anyway... Dr. S. Quote
Hinckley Posted October 22, 2007 Author Posted October 22, 2007 At least this can be used for something.And I know, everyone studies that. I wanted to look into woodchucks chucking something somewhat more substantial- woodchucks. then the ending is wrong. It still says "could chuck wood" It should say "could chuck woodchucks" also it would be how many woodchucks... If you want something more substantial, why don't you use tractors or something? Quote
Nyundi Posted October 22, 2007 Posted October 22, 2007 Ermm... sorry peeps, ...... I bought 10 of them at half price 2 weeks ago. Two words: Loot bags. Peace. Out. Facepalm. Seriously tho, I guess that would be a good use for them X-D Quote
Hinckley Posted October 22, 2007 Author Posted October 22, 2007 Ermm... sorry peeps, ...... I bought 10 of them at half price 2 weeks ago. Two words: Loot bags. Peace. Out. Hey you, take your peace elsewhere :-P Quote
hewkii9 Posted October 22, 2007 Posted October 22, 2007 then the ending is wrong.It still says "could chuck wood" It should say "could chuck woodchucks" also it would be how many woodchucks... If you want something more substantial, why don't you use tractors or something? How many woodchucks could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? It does say how many. And I'm comparing and making a wood-to-woodchucks ratio. How is a woodchuck supposed to lift a tractor? Quote
gylman Posted October 22, 2007 Posted October 22, 2007 There WILL be PEACE! EVEN IF I HAVE TO SHOOT DEAD EVERY PERSON IN THIS ONE HORSE TOWN! Quote
Hinckley Posted October 22, 2007 Author Posted October 22, 2007 How many woodchucks could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?It does say how many. And I'm comparing and making a wood-to-woodchucks ratio. How is a woodchuck supposed to lift a tractor? Clearly then, the entire question is faulty. If you're asking "how many woodchucks would a woodchuck chuck" why is the qualifier "if he could chuck wood?" The correct sentence would be, if your were comparing and making a ratio: How many woodchucks could a wood chuck chuck and how much wood would a woodchuck chuck and what would the comparitive wood to woodchuck ratio be if a woodchuck could chuck woodchucks and wood, but never something silly like a tractor? Change your sig to read that now. :-P There WILL be PEACE!EVEN IF I HAVE TO SHOOT DEAD EVERY PERSON IN THIS ONE HORSE TOWN! All right all right, you can stay. Have a keychain, settle down. Sheesh! :-P Quote
Shadows Posted October 22, 2007 Posted October 22, 2007 Have a keychain, settle down. Sheesh! :-P If I act up, can I have a keychain too? X-D Quote
Hinckley Posted October 22, 2007 Author Posted October 22, 2007 If I act up, can I have a keychain too? X-D Only Canadians... Quote
Shadows Posted October 22, 2007 Posted October 22, 2007 Only Canadians... Racist! Nationalist! Cheapskate! >:-( :-P Quote
Clonie Posted October 22, 2007 Posted October 22, 2007 Clearly then, the entire question is faulty. If you're asking "how many woodchucks would a woodchuck chuck" why is the qualifier "if he could chuck wood?" The correct sentence would be, if your were comparing and making a ratio:How many woodchucks could a wood chuck chuck and how much wood would a woodchuck chuck and what would the comparitive wood to woodchuck ratio be if a woodchuck could chuck woodchucks and wood, but never something silly like a tractor? Change your sig to read that now. :-P Actually, hewkii9's sentence is correct, in that it is asking if a woodchuck could chuck wood, then how many woodchucks could it chuck in comparison.So your question example - How many woodchucks could a wood chuck chuck and how much wood would a woodchuck chuck and what would the comparitive wood to woodchuck ratio be if a woodchuck could chuck woodchucks and wood, but never something silly like a tractor? - is incorrect or poorly worded, most likely both. :-P Quote
Hinckley Posted October 22, 2007 Author Posted October 22, 2007 Actually, hewkii9's sentence is correct, in that it is asking if a woodchuck could chuck wood, then how many woodchucks could it chuck in comparison.So your question example - - is incorrect or poorly worded, most likely both. :-P Except there are no words that indicate the comparison. They are two fragments strung together with a dangling participle. On the other hand, my sentence is the epitome of perfect grammar! :-P Quote
Shadows Posted October 22, 2007 Posted October 22, 2007 They are two fragments strung together with a dangling participle. Cover that thing up! :-$ Think of the children! :-X Quote
Clonie Posted October 22, 2007 Posted October 22, 2007 (edited) Except there are no words that indicate the comparison. They are two fragments strung together with a dangling participle. On the other hand, my sentence is the epitome of perfect grammar! :-P The sentence itself indicates the comparison, based on the fact that the phrase "How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" exists, and since it's such a well-known phrase there is no need to bring it up within that phrase or in the signature. Edited October 22, 2007 by Clonie Quote
Hinckley Posted October 22, 2007 Author Posted October 22, 2007 The sentence itself indicates the comparison, based on the fact that the phrase "How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" exists. Let's say we wanted to compare a fast food clerk's output of fries compared to burgers, would we ask: "How many burgers would Joe produce if he could produce fries?" No, we wouldn't. That wouldn't make any sense... :-D :-D :-D Quote
Shadows Posted October 22, 2007 Posted October 22, 2007 Let's say we wanted to compare a fast food clerk's output of fries compared to burgers, would we ask:"How many burgers would Joe produce if he could produce fries?" No, we wouldn't. That wouldn't make any sense... :-D :-D :-D THAT'S IT! :-| *hands both of them some wood, a woodchuck, and a tractor* 20 paces, turn and chuck! X-D Quote
Clonie Posted October 22, 2007 Posted October 22, 2007 We're asking the question based on a well-known phrase, which asks how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood. So assuming a woodchuck could chuck wood, one could pose the question "If a woodchuck could chuck wood, how many woodchucks could it chuck?" if one wanted to know how many woodchucks a woodchuck could chuck in comparison. So to relate that to your terms, we'd need two phrases. 1) How many fries could a fast food clerk produce if a fast food clerk could produce fries? Now a fast food clerk can't produce fries because he only serves them, that is if I am thinking of the right person. Similar to how a woodchuck probably can't chuck much wood. Actually, I don't even know what a woodchuck is. So to compare to that: 2) How many burgers could a fast food clerk produce if a fast food clerk could produce fries? That calls for a comparison between the skill required to make fries and the skill required to make burgers assuming phrase 1 exists, as does hewkii9's woodchuck phrase call for a comparison between the skill required to chuck wood and the skill required to chuck woodchucks assuming the original phrase exists. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.