arrow_circle_left arrow_circle_up arrow_circle_right
AVMA Take 2
help
Yes, it's another round of that classic guessing game - Animal, Vegetable, Mineral, Abstract [or any combination thereof]. This effort - '03/'04 should address any queries, but then again, may just serve to confuse and baffle which some might say is the point of the game. Patience, integrity and a decent search engine may be useful ....
arrow_circle_up
A politician?
Connected to sports?
Swedish?
British?
A scientist?
[Inkspot] Politician - YES.
[Tuj] Sportsman - NO.
[Raak] Swede - NO.
[Tuj] Brit - NO.
[Rosie] Scientist - NO.
Born in the 18th century?
A former President of a country?
Connected with World War II?
[INJ] Born in the 1700s - NO.
[Inkspot] Former president - NO.
[Tuj] WW2 - NO.
German?
Born before 1850?
[Tuj] German - NO.
[Inkspot] Born before 1850 - YES.
Italiano?
[Projoy] Italian - NO.
ok then...
French?
I do pick obscure subjects, don't I...
[Tuj] Frenchman - NO.
Someone from ancient Greece?
[Inkspot] Ancient, Greece? - NO, and NO.
Born before 1700?
Now we're getting somewhere.
[ImNotJohn] NO.
Does the country he comes from have a Mediterranean coastline?
OK, so he is a European politician born between 1800 & 1850. He is not from Greece, France, Italy, UK, Sweden, Germany. He was not a president. Vague relationship to Arts, but not of his own making (maybe subject of painting or sculpture?).
Born in some part of Prussia which is not part of modern Germany?
[INJ] Mediterranean coastline - *checks map* NO.
At least one of those facts may be slightly misleading, but they are all quite correct.
[Let's assume the last bracketed clause was a question] Subject of painting or sculpture? - Well... NO. (Audience clap!)
[Proj] Prussia - NO.
A monarch?
[Projoy] Monarch - NO (some applause)
Would he have been a monarch, had not other events intervened?
Subject of a performance piece (play, etc)?
[Raak] Would have been - NO. (Audience looks sheepish at having conveyed wrong impression by clapping)
[CdM] Performance piece - NO -- and also (since I'm feeling generous) Subject - not as such, NO.
Jan Paderewski?
Does the country have a coastline?
[Rosie] Paderewski - NO.
[Inkspot] Coastline - Oh YES.
Russian?
An aristocrat or oligarch?
Portuguese?
[flerdle] YES!
[Projoy] Hmmm. NO and YES, in some senses of the term.
[Dandalf] Portuguese - nice guess, but NO.
Alexei Alexandrovich?
Rasputin?
No, can't be -- born 1869.
Prince Vladimir Odoevsky
[flerdle, Raak, Dandalf] NO to all three.
Mikhail Bakunin?
A Prime Minister?
say, Nikolai Golitsyn?
Trotsky?
Oops! Born 1879.
Or perhaps Boris Stürmer
Should I give you a hint?
[flerdle] Бакунин - NO.
[Projoy] Prime Minister - NO, Голицын - NO.
[Dandalf] Троцкий - NO.
[Проюй] Штюрмер - NO.
Grigori Alexandrovich Potyomkin (Potemkin)?
Oh bugger, I got the wrong century!
Was his poltical success in Russia?
or, political, even
Pyotr Valuev?
[Phil] Potemkin - NO.
[Projoy] Political success in Russia - NO! (audience applaud and cheer, but two dissenting groups can be heard arguing)
Was his political success in Greece, France, Italy, UK, Sweden or Germany?
ooops
[flerdle] Valuev - NO.
That wasn't the misleading part
[CdM] G,F,I,UK,S,G - NO.
Clarification
I could have responded to Projoy's question with a YES but that would have led you in the wrong direction, I think.
Karl Marx?
Wrong country
[Dandalf] Marx - NO.
aaaargh!
Mikhail Bakunin?
Did he have anything to do with (an organised) religion?
[Irouléguy] I already arksed that one.
[Irouléguy] Still no.
[flerdle] Religion? - NO.
Political success in USA?
[Dandalf] USA - NO. (See my clarification above).
Did he have a significant influence outside Russia?
Was he alive in 1905?
Did he live in exile from Russia?
[Raak] Influence outside Russian Empire - NO. [flerdle] Alive in 1905 - NO. (murmurs of "oooh, so close")
[Inkspot] Exiled - NO, anything but.
Murdered in Russia?
[Projoy] Murdered in the Russian Empire - YES! (Audience goes wild)
Dmitry Karakozov?
Not really a politician, was he?
[Projoy] Karakozov - NO.
(well, it was a poltical act, but I guess he doesn't count as an oligarch. :)
Served in an Imperial government?
[Projoy] In an Imperial government - YES!
Nikolai Ivanovich Bobrikov?
Sorry, rather hogging this game. That's my last question for a while.
Was he titled?
I mean a Count or some such title?
Bobrikov is also the name of a cat I know.
[Projoy] Major General Nikolai Ivanovich Bobrikov, much-loathed Governor-General of Finland - YES!!
[Inkspot] Titled - No, he wasn't as a matter of fact -- a soldier, not a nobleman.

That was more difficult than I'd expected it to be. The arts connection is via Ulysseus, which mentions the assassination of Bobrikov -- it happened on the day the novel takes place. Also, I think I committed a couple of mistakes by answering too literally sometimes and not sufficiently literally at other times. Feel free to issue edicts and threaten me with years of oppression. Baton goes to Projoy...
Oops. Well, I think I got that one more by carpet-bombing tactics than anything else. Still, here's a (hopefully less wikipedia-heavy) VEGETABLE. (Annoyingly, I thought of a really good one to set the other day, but can I bring it to mind now? Tch.)
wooden?
[Phil] Wooden - NO
Edible?
A textile?
[Dandalf] Edible - NO
[Raak] Textile - NO
(just as a totem against pedantry, I should probably mention there is probably a very small MINERAL element to this, but not in any way that need detain us here.)
Manufactured?
Cooked?
Néa, flerdle] oops, soory - though I had read all the moves.
Darn. I go out and the game runs away...
[Né] Manufactured - YES
[a] YES to your question also.
[Ig] Cooked? Um, NOT REALLY
cardboard box?
though that might be "wood"
[flerdle] Cardboard box? NO
colourful?
Would I normally have one in my house?
[Lib] Colourful - NO
[flerdle] would you have one in your house? NO, you wouldn't.
Carpet?
Haven't thought that through very far but may as well make a guess.
[Tuj] Carpet? NO.
Would I normally have one in my house?
A plant of some kind?
(Tuj) The implication of your guess is that flerdle's house doesn't have carpets. I await the storm. -:)
Is it heated as part of the manufacturing process?
[CdM] In your house? Hm. I DOUBT IT (although I couldn't actually say for certain in your case or flerdle's. Incidentally, I don't have one in my house either.)
[Rosie] A plant of some kind - YES (but that's nigh-on inevitable in this category)
[CdM] Heated in manufacture? YES! *applause*
Hm. At the risk of complicating things the more correct answer to the "would I have one in my house" question, for anyone who might ask it is strictly NO.
Is it edible?
[Rosie] Told you I didn't think it through... (sorry flerdle)
Some kind of tool?
[Tuj] That's already been asked, unfortunately. Incidentally, carpeting is a culture-bound phenomenon. Soft wall-to-wall carpets are unusual here, for instance.
[Tuj] edible, NO *there are some titters in the audience, as some new significance to this question dawns on them*
[Néa] tool, NO
* after a moment, one or two more titters from more lowbrow members of the audience *
Paper?
Sorry, that was a really stupid guess, and it was Blob who made me make it.
[Néa] Paper - NO :)
Is this an artifact manufactured for sexual purposes?
Is it smokable?
[whoever] Carpet in two rooms out of approximately 12. House was built by Italians, who seem to like ceramic tiles. I prefer no carpets; it's cleaner, or at least easier to clean.
[Raak] manufactured for sexual purposes, NO
[flerdle] smokable? YES! *applause*
A joint?
what I meant to say was mari.. maroug... argh... *googles* marijuana/pot/cannibis
Tobacco?
Cigarettes or joints would seem to involve paper (a cigar would not, though). However, tobacco would also explain the cryptic response to "would I have one in my house?" That said, it doesn't seem to explain the tittering response to "edible?" unless I am just insufficiently lowbrow to get it...
[CdM] You just need to hang out with the right people.
A cigar?
[CdM] Yeh, I bet you're so out of touch you have carpet in most of your rooms :P
[flerdle] A joint, NO
[CdM] tobacco, YES
[Tuj] A cigar, YES, but that's not the whole answer...
*applause for CdM, Tuj*
Cuban cigar?
... going for the bleedingly obvious, and probably wrong.

Apparently, in Illinois, it is illegal to offer a lit cigar to a pet.

Cigar-ette?
[flerdle] Cuban cigar, DON'T KNOW
[Tuj] Cigarette, NO
A cigarillo?
A particular cigar?
A Hamlet cigar?
(flerdle) Illinois very nearly passed a law in 1897 declaring that pi was de jure 3.2 exactly. Strange place.
A... err... cigar from the White House? *blushes*
[Rosie] Indeed. Apparently it is also illegal to take a french poodle to the opera (at least in Chicago).

Perhaps there is a game in that...

[Ig] Cigarillo, NO
[Tuj] particular cigar, YES *audience applaud, some start to sneak out to avoid the rush on the car park*
[Rosie] Hamlet, NO
[flerdle] Cigar from the White House? YES *thunderous applause, calls of encore etc.*
Specifically, the cigar that Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky... erm... well, you know.... So over to flerdle.
(as you'll gather, my confusion over the "would I have one in my house" was because you could answer it as if it referred to cigars generically or this particular cigar. I started out with the former assumption).
ooerr
Ok, here we go...

ABSTRACT with Animal, Vegetable and Mineral connections.

this game?
[Projoy] Heh. NO.
A genie in an oil lamp?
nice idea...
[Phil] NO.
A degree in woodland conservation?
An activity?
ahhhh
[Phil] NO.
[Néa] NO.
Necessarily involving humans?
Something from fiction?
the least misleading answers are...
(sorry, should recap for clarity)
[Projoy] This game -- NO
[Phil] A genie in an oil lamp/degree in woodland conservation -- NO.
[Néa] An activity -- NO.
[Rosie] Necessarily involving humans -- Depends what you mean. Probably YES (although it could be argued, from another angle, NO).
[Projoy] Something from fiction -- NO.
To do with mathematics?
Is the animal part just one species?
[Raak] To do with mathematics -- can be, but primarily NO.
[Irouléguy] Animal just one species -- YES in one way and NO otherwise (see answer to Rosie's question).
A process?
A long shot - Agriculture?
[Projoy]A process -- NO.
[Rosie] Agriculture -- NO.
Human evolution?
[Dandalf] human evolution -- NO.
a human construct?
thought you'd never ask
[Projoy] human construct -- YES? *audience wakes up and starts arguing*
Is it something that only humans construct?
To do with art?
[Irouléguy] something only humans construct -- YES would be the least misleading answer at the moment. *a small minority of the audience starts arguing again*
[Raak] to do with art -- can be, but primarily NO.
A settlement of some kind?
Is it an activity?
Sorry, already asked.
Is it group of people?
Is there a geographic connection?
[Rosie] a settlement -- (as in 'place where people live'?) NO
[Raak] a group of people -- NO, although there is a relationship between a group of people and the answer.
[Dandalf] Geographic connection -- NO, depending on what you mean by that. The answer is more common in some places than others, but it would be too misleading to answer 'yes'.
Anything to do with death?
[Rosie] to do with death -- NO.
To do with religion?
The environment?
[Raak] to do with religion -- NO

To clarify: Religion, or things to do with religion, can be related in a particular way to The Answer On The Card, but is The Answer to do with religion (or its things) more than to do with other things? NO. This is what I meant in my answer to "to do with art" and "to do with mathematics". Keep going, though.

[Dandalf] is it the environment? -- NO.

Is this an emotion?
[Chalky] an emotion -- NO.
Is it a hobby or pastime?
[Chalky] a hobby or pastime -- NO.
Is a human element required?
If it's not something you can do, is it something you can be?
Science?
[Inkspot] a human element required -- fundamentally YES
[Projoy] if it's not something you can do, is it something you can be -- NO... *audience wakes up and makes encouraging murmurs*
[Dandalf] Science -- NO.
Thought?
[Raak] Thought -- NO... thought is more closely related to this than most of the previous answers, but it's still a fair way off.
Two further clarifications: I have come across this in a work of fiction, but it is not really from fiction. And some people may involve this in a hobby or pastime, but I wouldn't classify the words on the card as a hobby or pastime. I'm not being intentionally vague, honest...
Is this something spiritual?
[Tuj] something spiritual -- NO
A family?
(beats me what the mineral connection would be, in that case, but since we're floundering, it's probably worth a shot or two in the dark!)
[Projoy] a family -- NO.
Wanna hint?
It's definitely not something you do?
(i.e. one does)
[Projoy] It is definitely not something one does, in the way that one does not "do" a door, or one does not "knitting" or "biology textbook". The answer is still abstract, however.
Ethics?
Would this be considered a skill?
Looking at it, knitting, even if in the sense of a noun, is not a great example. Apologies if I've been too pedantic. I hope you get the idea.
[Tuj] Ethics - NO
[Chalky] a skill - NO, although a measure of skill is certainly related to its existance.
(a measure of = an amount of some kind of)
Is it something the brain can do?
Is the vegetable a plant?
Is this anything to do with being funny/having a sense of humour?
Is the mineral water?
[Tuj] something the brain can do -- NOt strictly, although activity of the brain is usually required. *a smattering of claps from the audience*
[Inkspot] is the vegetable a plant -- NO would be least misleading.
[Chalky] to with being funny/a sense of humour -- NO. Hmmm, there is a humour component in the work of fiction I mentioned earlier. But in the main, NO.
[Irouléguy] is the mineral water -- NO would be most helpful here.
hoookay...
To summarise:

This abstract with animal, vegetable and mineral connections is more common in some places than others but is not primarily connected to geography. It involves a human element in some way, more specifically some activity of the brain and even more specifically thought, but is not actually any of these. There is some relationship with a group of people. Only humans construct it (although this may be debated).

Religion, mathematics, art, and non-human animals can have something to do with it but only in a certain sense, and it can be found in at least one fictional work (but not only there) and some people may involve it in a hobby or pastime. It is not in itself an action, process or activity but a certain amount of skill is related to its existance.

It is not: this game, a genie, a degree in woodland conservation, from fiction, an activity, a process, agriculture, evolution, a settlement, the environment, an emotion, a hobby, something you can do or be, science, thought, something spiritual, a family (or group of people), ethics, a skill, a plant, water, to do with death or to do with humour.

I could also say that it should probably be considered to have abstract connections as well, but although strictly accurate, that may not be helpful. I think this summary should be very helpful indeed.

Is it something to do with the visual sense?
more questions, less explanation!
[CdM] something to do with the visual sense -- YES and NO. *several "ooooh"s from the audience, quickly shushed*
Something to do with imagination?
[Raak] something to do with imagination -- NO (except where in agreement with details in paragraph 2, above ("Religion, mathematics...")).

Oh, and apologies for spelling "existence" wrong. Oops.

Something to do with hearing, taste, touch, or smell?
[CdM] to do with hearing, taste, touch or smell -- NO.
Does it have an entry in wikipedia?
Is the answer more than one word [apart from the in/definite article]?
[Phil] Does it have an entry in wikipedia -- NO... *audience starts to take more notice*
[Chalky] more than one word -- YES!
Is it a concept?
[Phil] a concept? YES and NO. *more oooooohs*
Do all of these "YES and NO" answers reflect distinct different meanings of the words on the card?
To do with money?
I think I've chosen a stupid topic.
[CdM] NO. If I understand your meaning correctly, then the words on the card are together a whole entity, and I am not looking at each word in isolation, and the answer does not have two different meanings (so, for example, it is not like the expression "knock off").

The yesnoyesno is because

    (a) there are the properties of the thing on the card -- the "thing" that the words on the card are about, and the way(s) in which it can exist.

    (b) there are things to which the answer/words on the card can be to do with, because of the nature of the answer/words on the card. Thus I have problems saying "no" to "to do with xyz" because yes, it can have something to do with xyz.


To say much more without other questions to answer would be to give it away completely.

[Projoy] to do with money -- NO. (I am giving up on the broader meaning of "to do with" from here on, since it's causing too much trouble.)

How about some good old questions like many of the ones from the first topic in this game, which was also an abstract? Start with "did it exist in ...".

Was this an invention?
Is this some type of human relationship?
OK, did it exist in 1800?
(actually, slight rephrase: "Did it exist by 1800)
[Tuj] an invention -- YES if you mean something made up by people
[Irouléguy] a type of human relationship -- NO
[Projoy] did it exist by 1800 -- YES!
Did it exist by 1000?
[CdM] did it exist by 1000 -- YES
did it exist almost since the dawn of mankind?
[irach] did it exist almost since the dawn of mankind -- NO!
Did it exist by 1CE?
(at least we can get into the right millennium)
Is it a social system?
*feels very old* I had to look up "CE".
To do with language?
[Projoy] Did it exist by 1CE -- YES. One place definitely had examples of this before 1CE, and another had examples of it by 20CE but I can't be more exact than that.
[Tuj] a social system -- NO.
[Raak] To do with language -- YES! *audience bursts into loud and sustained applause*
to do with codes/cyphers?
Did it first appear in the Middle East?
[Phil] to do with codes/cyphers -- NO
[Projoy] first appear in the Middle East -- NO
To do with one particular language?
[Raak] to do with one particular language -- NO.
Is it to do with an aspect of written language?
Is it to do with an aspect of spoken language?
A book or books?
[Juxtapose] to do with an aspect of written language -- YES *audience claps enthusiastically*
[Tuj] to do with an aspect of spoken language -- YES *clapping subsides somewhat*
[Phil] A book or books -- NO *gasps and oooohs from the audience*
law?
[Phil] law -- NO *audience start arguing*
+s
something to do with instructions?
[Phil] something to do with instructions -- YES but not only or always so. *more gasps and oooohs*
Cookery books?
[Raak] cookery books -- NO
Rules?
Card games?
[Projoy] Rules -- NO.
[Raak] Card games -- NO.
In a particular script/alphabet?
The invention of the bound codex, superceding scrolls?
Language schools?
Some sort of command?
[Projoy] in a particular script/alphabet -- NO
[Raak] the invention of the bound codex -- NO
[Dandalf] language schools - NO *someone starts clapping, but is quickly hushed*
[Tuj] some sort of command -- NO.
Grammar?
Connected to translation?
[Rosie] Grammar -- NO *a few claps from more excitable members of the audience*
[CdM] connected to translation -- often YES but not necessarily *cheering starts*
Dictionaries?
It is the lack of wikipedia entry that still has me stumped...
[Raak] dictionaries -- NO! *audience cheers loudly with enthusiastic applause*
[CdM] not everything in the wikipedia has its own entry.
A chrestomathy?
wait a moment while I look that up...
[Raak] a chrestomathy -- NO. (it's in wikipedia, anyway).
Anything to do with books?
[Tuj] Anything to do with books -- YES, some.
Back in a few hours... do carry on.
Diaglossia?
Some sort of system of translation?
(except that would be a process, I guess)
A verse form?
Spelling tests?
A public library?
Something to do with the word "version"?
Printing?
bucket-o-hints
[Raak] diaglossia -- NO (had to check that one too)
[Projoy] some sort of system of translation -- NO, but it can be very useful in this.
[Projoy] a verse form -- NO.
[Phil] spelling tests -- NO, but spelling is an issue.
[Dandalf] a public library -- NO, but it can often be found there.
[Tuj] something to do with the word "version" -- NO, but it often has different versions.
[Irouléguy] printing -- NO, but it is most often printed.
Transliteration?
(except I guess there must be examples of that way into the BCE dates).
(and it's an activity and a process, curses!)
A testimony?
...which isn't right but I'm hoping I might guess something which could point us the right way. Not likely, eh?
Roadsigns?
By, which I of course mean "signage" in general, since you can find it in libraries...
[Projoy] Transliteration -- NO, but transliteration is sometimes involved.
[Tuj] A testimony -- NO.
[Projoy] roadsigns/signage -- NO.
Taking notes?
A text book?
[Tuj] Taking notes -- NO.
[Phil] A text book -- NO.
Begins with a P?
Pheww
[Tuj] Begins with a P -- many of them do. But the answer doesn't. So I have to say NO.
Mmmhwwhhwa? I think I give up.

at least for now.
A group of words?
who am i kidding
[Tuj] A group of words -- *audience gasps* YES it is but that's not The Answer, so NO.
A particular class of word such as noun, verb etc.?
[Projoy] a particular class of word -- *audience gasps again* NO!
Something to do with an encyclopedia?
[CdM] something to do with an encyclopedia -- NO...
Home stretch?
OK, this is getting very long, so here's another summary where the other one left off.

The answer has to do with language, more so written than spoken.
Two places definitely had examples of it before 20CE.
It is an invention, in that it is something made up by people. It is not just a concept.
It has something to do with instructions (although perhaps not directly as much as I first thought).
It is often but not necessarily connected to translation and can be very useful in this.
It has something to do with a book or books.
It can often be found in a public library.
It is most often printed.
It often has different versions.
Spelling is an issue.
Transliteration is sometimes involved.
It is a group of words (kind of) but not a particular class of word.
Many instances of the answer start with the letter P.

It is not "a dictionary" and is not "something to do with an encyclopedia". It did not first appear in the Middle East and is not to do with one particular language.

The audience or some of the audience were impressed when the law, grammar or language schools were mentioned, although it is none of these things.

Oh, and the answer has more than one word (plus an indefinite article), not starting with the letter "P", and it does not have its own wikipedia entry.

An Index?
Forget that; it has a wikipedia entry...
And it is only one word. On the bright side, it doesn't begin with the letter P.
a particular way of organising a group of words?
(it's not a concordance either, as that's in Wikipedia, too)
:-)
[CdM] an index -- NO
Don't think of an elephant!!
I now keep wanting to say anything beginning with P, such as paragraph, page and punctuation.
[Projoy] a particular way of organising words -- NO.
[Projoy] *ROFL*
Is there a typical number of words in this group (or can it vary wildly from a few words to hundreds)?
I know it's not my go, but....
It's not a particular type of morpheme, is it?
Is it an elephant? If not, does its physical manifestation (as a group of words) typically occur only in a particular type (or types) of book?
had to look that one up too.
[Projoy] a particular form of morpheme -- NO
old-world charm...
[CdM] an elephant - that is not the answer.
[CdM] YES! *wild cheering*. the physical manifestation of elephant as a group of words typically only occurs in a particular type of book. I think.
[Projoy] I meant a particular type of morpheme (still NO) Blame too many simulposts.
many apologies
[CdM] and I meant the physical manifestation of The Answer (as a group of words) typically only occurs in a particular type (or types) of books -- YES but, note, The Answer can also occur elsewhere.

(I mis-read "it" amongst the flurry of posting; you can have elephants in lots of books, of course, as well as elsewhere.)

woohoo, quintuple post
Of course, my mistake illustrates my difficulty with aspects of this topic all along. Note to self: don't win again.
[flerdle] Hey, I said don't think of an elephant! :)
PS. Is there a typical number of words in this group (or can it vary wildly from a few words to hundreds)?
[Projoy, elephants] AAAARRRRRGGGHHHHH

[Projoy] sorry, that got lost in the flurry of posts and a random backspace. NO. The number of words can vary wildly depending on where The Answer is found and The Answer itself. A random sampling just now gave the number of words as 24, 10, 65, 30 and 352.

Did you perform that random sampling with books that you had to hand?
Can I just say that this AVMA is (a) very good and (ii) very annoying?
[CdM] Did I perform that random sampling with books that I had to hand -- I would answer NO if I was to be evil because I used only one book. YES otherwise.
Is it a subclause (which often appears parenthetically)?
(I know it isn't really, since that appears in all kinds of books, but you have to get this stuff out of your head sometimes)
Wait a second... footnotes?
please excuse my badly mangled second-last sentence up there...
[Projoy] a subclause -- NO :-)
[Projoy] footnotes -- NO.
[Projoy] I have gone through footnotes and other similar ideas in my head, but then I get stuck on the fact that there are also very early instances of the elephant.
Is it some kind of definition or explanation?
[CdM] some kind of definition or explanation -- YES! *audience cheers enthusiastically*
a citation or quotation?
Scrub that, is it a definition in law, i.e. appearing in a contract or piece of legislation?
A dictionary definition?
[Projoy] citation/quotation -- NO, but it can be a very important part of some elephants
[Projoy] a definition in law/contract/legislation -- NO... *audience holds its collective breath*
[Phil] a dictionary definition -- CLOSE ENOUGH!
So, what were the words on the card?
The words on the card are actually "a dictionary entry". You can check the history of the dictionary in the wikipedia. Everything else can be seen above. *audience claps for everyone, especially CdM and Raak, with special cheers for Projoy's perseverence*

*retires*


I suddenly spotted the quotes in It is not "a dictionary" and realised there must be some significance.
Dunno how to follow that epic, but I'll try.

Vegetable

A dictionary?
Blimey, what a struggle!
A drink?
A live plant?
In hindsight, another clue(whether intentional or not)was the answer "not everything in the wikipedia has its own entry" right after the answer to Raak's guess "dictionaries". That was a very good AVMA. Nice one, Flerdle.
[Tuj] Dictionary? Not this time, matey :-)
[Inkspot] A drink? No, although I could do with one.
[Dandalf] A live plant? YES
A tree?
(On the last one I got totally sidetracked by the letter-P-elephant. I assumed there was something special about P.)
Native to a particular country?
Edible?
Typically sold at the local garden centre?
[Projoy] Tree? No
[Dandalf] Edible? YES
[Raak] Typically sold at local garden centre? No
A fungus?
[Projoy] That'd be my fault then :(
A bush?
[Tuj] Fungus? No
[Projoy] Bush? No
A berry?
Coughs politely
A root vegetable?
Does it grow in the wild?
nettle?
[Dandalf] Definitely intentional. [Projoy] many apologies.
A brassica?
flerdle] Do win again - that was one of the best for a long time.
A fruit ?(In the culinary not botanical sense)
Sweet, rather than savoury?
[Tuj, flerdle] No apols necessary. The whole fun of the game is trying to avoid being taken for a ride by your assumptions, and all the questions asked and answers given were completely correct.
Green in colour?
Typically found in the vegetables section of a British supermarket?
[Inkspot] Berry? No
[Rosie] Root vegetable? YES
[Chalky] grow in the wild? No, not as far as I know.
[flerdle] nettle? No
[Irouléguy] Brassica? No
[Dandalf] Fruit? No
[Projoy] Sweet, not savoury? Ummm, no. ( Some hushed comments amongst audience members)
[Tuj] Green? Partly
[Raak] Typically in UK supermarket? No
Carrot?
Yam?
(as opposed to sweet potatoes, which I think are to be found in British supermarkets these days. Aren't they?)
[\tuj] Carrot? No
[CdM] Yam? No (Yes, sweet potatoes are generally to be found in British supermarkets these days)
Chives?
Native to a particular country?
Just ask this one again as it has been over looked
Cassava? which unlike chives is a root vegetable ; -)
[Rosie] Chives? No
[Inkspot] Native to a particular country? (Sorry, didn't spot that earlier) No, as it does not grow in the wild, as far as I know.
[Dandalf] Cassava? No
Taro?
In order to get the last of the obvious ones out of the way.
[CdM] Taro? No - and if that's obvious, I'd hate to see obscure ;-)
Arrowroot?
Jerusalem artichoke?
Don't all cultivated plants have a wild form? Unless only the cultivars have survived and the original wild form is now extinct.
[flerdle] Arrowroot? No
[Dandalf] Jerusalem Artichoke? No - Yes, I presume all cultivated plants do derive from a wild form, but not all specific plants can be found in the wild.
A spice?
[Inkspot] Spice? No
A tuber?
[Inkspot] A tuber? No
A particular plant (rather than a vegetable/plant type)?
[flerdle] A particular plant? YES
Is it grown for human consumption?
[Inkspot] Grown for human consumption? YES - A ripple of applause from the slighly somnolent audience
sugar beet?
[flerdle] Sugar beet? No
Tea?
[Chalky] Tea? No
A swede?
Possibly not called Sven.
Is it grown in the Americas?
Is it typically processed (other than simply by cooking) before being eaten?
[Rosie] Swede? No
[Raak] Grown in the Americas? YES
[CdM] Typically processed before eating (other than cooking)? No, unless you count something like slicing as processing.
Time for a Summary
It is:
A specific, live, edible root vegetable, which is not (to my knowledge) found growing in the wild, and is not native to a particular country. It is grown in the Americas, and is grown for human consumption. It is partly green.

It is not:
A dictionary or a drink. Nor is it a tree, bush, fungus, berry, tuber, fruit, spice, tea, cassava, brassica, nettle, carrot, yam, chives, taro, arrowroot, jerusalem artichoke, spice, sugar beet or swede. It is not typically processed before eating (other than cooking or, say, slicing), and is not typically found in British supermarkets or local garden centres.

Peanuts, or if more "specific" is required Jimmy Carter's peanuts.
[Dandalf] Jimmy Carter's peanuts, or anyone else's for that matter? No
To clarify how specific I meant, the answer is something like "Savoy Cabbage", rather than "Cabbage" (to use a brassica-based example, which we know it isn't).
Is it medicinal?
[Inkspot] Is it medicinal? There are claims to its medicinal properties, so I think I'll have to say YES - Appreciative applause again for Inskspot
Well then ... is it typically consumed primarily for its medicainal properties?
[CdM] Typically consumed for medicinal purposes? No
Jicama?
It seems to me that it has to be more obscure than taro...
[CdM] Jicama? No - there is at least one non-obscure family of root vegetable plants that has not been mentioned at all.
Well, there are bulbs -- garlic, etc. -- but it seems to me that all the non-obscure ones would also be in U.K. supermarkets. So I am very confused...
daikon radish?
[flerdle] daikon radish? No - Audience gets rather agitated at CdM's musings.
Lotus roots?
Vidalia Onion?
[Raak] Lotus roots? No
[CdM] Vidalia Onion? No Disappointed mumblings from audience
Some kind of Allium?
[Néa] Some kind of Allium? YES - Cheers from the audience
Ramps?
[Raak] Ramps? No The audience leans forward in anticipation
Elephant Garlic?
Vidalia?
Is it known by different names in different countries (eg UK/USA)?
[Projoy] Elephant Garlic? YES Tumultuous applause
[Dandalf and flerdle] See above.
What with everyone not thinking about elephants for a day or two, and 30 seconds of Chris Beardshaw at a garlic farm that I saw on TV last week, it seemed the obvious option.
Well, whaddya know? I spend hours on flerdle's one patiently exploring every angle, and about 10 minutes making a random guess on this one, and win...

Anyway, here's an ANIMAL/ABSTRACT...
One word answer?
Human animal?
Does it begin with elephant?
Wildebeest migration?
[Tuj] One word answer, NO
[Dandalf] human? NO
[CdM] elephants involved in any form? NO
[flerdle] Herds of Wildebeeste sweeping majestically...? NO
Mammalian animal?
[Dandalf] Mammal? YES
A feline?
You didn't tee a puddy tat
[Tuj] feline? NO
On further consideration, the best answer to the Human Animal question is YES and NO.
Homo florensis hobbitus?
Fictional?
[Raak] Hobbitses? NO, we hates hobbitses
[Tuj] Fictional? YES
A specific fictional character?
Vampire?
[Tuj] specific fictional character - YES
[Ig] vampire? NO
From a book?
[Tuj] From a book, YEEES *notable lack of applause from audience*
Has it appeared in other media other than books?
[Ink] Other media? YES
Begins with a P?
Different tack ;)
Mr Spock?
[Tuj] Begins with a P? NO
[Phil] Mr Spock? ILLOGICAL! er, I mean NO
Cartoon character?
Captain Haddock?
Extra-terrestrial?
[Dandalf] Cartoon character... least misleading is NO
[CdM] Capn. Haddock? NO
[Tuj] Extra-terrestrial? NO
PS. I'm not especially well today, so I may end up disappearing for sleeps.
A computer-animated character?
Is the other media that of film?
Get well soon Projoy!
[Raak] Computer animated, NO
[Tuj] Film? NO
Television?
A primate? (in zoological rather than religious sense!)
Does the character originate in oral story-telling?
[Tuj] TV? NO
[Dandalf] Primate? YES AND NO (see human above)
[Raak] Oral story telling? FUNDAMENTALLY NO
Comic Books?
[CdM] Comix? NO
Radio?
Male?
[Néa] Radio? NO
[Tuj] Male? YES!
A horse?
A horse, NO *an undercurrent of "oooh!" from the audience*
Does it appear in a song?
Someone who is known for riding a horse?
"An undercurrent of oooh", lovely.
A centaur?
Is it a talking character rather than an animal?
What I mean is Wind in the Willows and Watership Down have talking characters while Tarka the Otter is an animal (hopefully that made sense).
[Rosie] In a song? NO
[Tuj] Horse Rider? NO
[Raak] Centaur, NO
[Ink] Talking character, YES!
Donkey?
Balaam's donkey?
[Né] Donkey, NO *an encouraging burst of applause from the audience (and the sounds of some members animatedly disputing the answer)*
[Raak] Balaam's D? NO
* a kind audience member comes to the front and drops the "a" back into Néa's name.*
Incidentally, these answers about media types are coming up as NO because that's the least misleading answer. In fact this character has almost certainly appeared (but not originated) in all of the above mentioned.
Muffin the Mule?
[Phil] Muffin, NO
A quick summary:
This ANIMAL/ABSTRACT is both human and not. There is a donkey connection. It is a specific male mammalian fictional character that talks. It has almost certainly appeared in, but was not originated in, the following media: TV, cartoons, song, radio, comics, computer animation, oral storytelling, books.
It is not a hobbit, a vampire, a centaur, Mr Spock or Balaam's Donkey.
Bottom?
*cheers*
[Raak] And the same to you! YES. The words on the card are "Nick Bottom, the weaver, while possessed of the head of an ass". Technically, or so I understand, asses and donkeys are not quite the same thing (the latter being the domesticated variety).
[Projoy] As it happens, I've just been reading a book on biological nomenclature and popular imagination in 18th and 19th century Britain, which I must post of elsewhere.
The next item is MINERAL, VEGETABLE, and possibly also ANIMAL.
Does it occur naturally?
[Projoy] Does not occur naturally.
Bigger than an armchair?
An item of furniture?
[Tuj] Not bigger than an armchair.
[I] Not furniture
An item of clothing?
Electronic?
Defined by its function?
[Rosie] Not clothing.
[Tuj] Not electronic.
[Projoy] Not defined by its function.
Does it have a function?
[Projoy] Yes, it has a function.
Metallic?
Is the vegetable part processed like rubber or natural wood?
Is it something that can be made of different materials?
[Tuj] Not usually.
[Inkspot] On the whole, I would say no.
[Projoy] The mineral part can be.
Smaller than a toaster?
[Projoy] Smaller than a toaster.
Smaller than a pack of cards
Did it (or they) exist in 1938?
Even I didn't
[Projoy] Bigger than a pack of cards.
[Rosie] Existed in 1938.
Would it be found in the home?
Existed by 1900?
Stationery?
Is it a single unique item?
Anything to do with writing?
[Chalky] Yes, found in the home.
[Projoy] Yes, existed by 1900.
[Tuj] Not stationery.
[Inkspot] Not unique.
[Rosie] Nothing to do with writing.
Existed by 1800?
[Projoy] Yes, by 1800.
Is it generic item?
I would say a generic item (if that's the right term) is something like the wheel, a cup or a crown rather than an attributable invention?
[Inkspot] Yes, a generic item.
Does it have moving parts?
A container of some kind?
Spectacles?
[Projoy] No moving parts.
[Rosie] YES, partly.(Applause!)
[Chalky] Not spectacles.
Begins with a P?
[Tuj] (laughter from the audience at the double entendre) Does not begin with a pee.
Not a toliet is it?
Cuh!
[Tuj] Neither a toliet nor a toilet.
A handbag?
It is I, Rosie.
Usually made of plastic?
Was about to guess "pencil case", then looked at my last-but-one question.
[Rosie in drag] A HANDBAG???? No.
[Tuj] Can be plastic.
Saturday is the last day to get this, as I'm off for a week in the south of France Sunday morning.
Is there a food connection?
Is the mineral part glass?
Back in normal clothing.
[Projoy] Yes, a food connection.
[Rosie] (A sharp intake of breath) Not among civilised people. One has heard that they may do such things on the Continent.
Is the mineral china?
A gravy boat?
An appropriately snooty term.
[Inkspot] YES! (Almost always.)
[Rosie] No.
A cup of tea?
Oops - possibly also animal! (beef tea perhaps?)
A saucer?
[Tuj] A saucer is part of it.
[Dandalf] YES: a cup of tea. Actually, the words on the card are "a nice cup of tea", but that's close enough. (The possible animal part is the milk.)
Oh! just found out I'd won as I was away for weekend. (Kicks himself re milk, but no use crying etc.). Next is ABSTRACT with ANIMAL connections.
Begins with a P?
Hah!
Three-ring circus?
Is the animal human?
Human construct?
[Tuj]- P....? NO
[flerdle]- 0-0-0 circus? NO
[Rosie]- Human? Both human and non-human.
[CdM] HC? hmmmmm...I think YES.
Is it an action?
To do with the body?
[Inkspot]Not an action, but implies activity.
[Projoy]Only remotely to do with the body.
A condition?
A thought process?
Small pox?
[Projoy] Condition? Could be.
[Rosie] Thought Process? NO.
[Lib] Smallpox? Not a pox, whatever the size.
To do with emotion?
A person?
[Projoy] Emotion? NO
[Tuj]A person? NO
Bird flu?
Horse racing?
50-1
Any religious connection?
A bodily function?
Does it require human involvement?
Could someone define "human construct" please, I find these the marmite on toast of the game.
[Inkspot] Quick definition off the top of my head: something that could not exist without a conscious human mind. Others can now refine it: think of this as a wikidefinition.
[Lib] bird flu? NO
[Rosie]Horse Racing? NO (but audience breaks into applause)
[Tuj] NO religious connection
[INJ] Bodily function? NO
[Inkspot]Human involvement? YES
Is the word "horse" in the answer?
Is it a sporting activity?
Hunting?
[Tuj] No horse.
[Kim] Not a sporting activity, though one of the words on the card could be related to sports.
[Rosie] Not hunting.
Is the word 'race' on the card?
[CdM] YES (tumultous applause! Some murmuring that Dandalf gave the game away.)
A Caucus Race?
A one-man race?
Three legged race?
(The) Rat Race?
The human race?
A game face?
[Rosie] The Rat Race YES Well done! [Others} See above.
arrow_circle_down
Want to play? Online Crescenteering lives on at Discord