[Rosie] Connected with farming? NO. (One could make a case for YES, but that would undoubtedly be misleading.)

[Chalky] Contains actual animal parts? NO.

To clarify, there are no organic animal components to speak of; if there were, it would have been MINERAL / ANIMAL. And in the interests of full disclosure, there are occasionally VEGETABLE elements, though pursuing that line of questioning is unlikely to be productive.

[CdM] A building? NO.

Y'know, one o' vem Japnese mo'ors.

[Rosie] Shotgun? NO, neither single- or double-barreled.

[Chalky] Geography? NO.

On further consideration, [Chalky]'s previous question was incorrectly answered due to an overly narrow reading of it. So, to revisit:

[Chalky] Is the animal connection to a product of an animal? YES.

[Chalky] Leather? NO.
[Raak] Container? YES, although this may be misleading.

[Graham III] Milk bottle? NO.
[Chalky] Usually found in a home? NO.

"Of", not "on".

"The", not "hte". I dunno.

[Rosie] Restrict movement of animals? NO.

Time for a recap:

We have a MINERAL with ANIMAL connections.

It is NOT: "Tigereye" gemstone, human animal-ish, a mousetrap, a mantrap, a birdcage, a model or representation of an animal, a fossil, a medical device, owned by a typical Morningverser, connected with farming, made from an animal product, a building, a shotgun, a geographical feature, leather, a milk bottle, found in a typical home, used to restrain animals.

It IS: Man-made, made using metal as a component, connected with an animal product, a container.

It is SOMETIMES: made using glass as a component.

A contestant aroused audience interest when asking if it was a model of an animal.
A contestant aroused audience mockery when asking if a typical Morningverser owned one.

[Dujon] Animal connection originates from name? NO.
[Software] Glasses case? NO.
[Graham III] Cow creamer? NO.

Clarification/hint: The fact that the subject is a container isn't central to its identity.

[CdM] Bigger than a telephone box? NO.

[Raak] Uses power? NO.

[Graham III] Artistic pretentions? YES. *applause*

[Raak] Damien Hurst? NO.

[CdM] Typically valued at over £2000? YES.

[irach] YES! (The words on the card are "an authentic Faberge Egg", but that's more than close enough.) Passing over an ovoid, richly bejeweled clockwork baton...

---

[irach] Are you there? It may be time for someone else to take over here...

All right then, a nice quick ABSTRACT in the meantime.

I'd just like to point out that this is the first time I have asked this question.

Humanly constructed? Yes.
P-begun? No.

Unique? Yes is the best answer, although there is a case to be made for No.
Fictional? Yes. *applause*

Work of fiction? Yes *applause*
Apocryphal? No.
Connected with politics? *amused laughter from audience* Some would say yes. Others (perhaps more?) would say no. One reasonable answer is "I don't know". Another is "if you like".
One word answer? No.

[IS,P!] At least as a working definition I take 'human construct' to mean something that requires the human brain for its existence. Most abstract things seem to be human constructs, but not all are. I would say that 'pain', for example, is not a human construct. There are thorny issues when we get into the old debate about whether mathematical issues are created or discovered. Is the following a human construct: on a Euclidean plane, any right-angled triangle has the property that the square on the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares on the other two sides? I'm not sure.

(CdM) The property of plane right-angled triangles that you mention exists regardless of whether humans are aware of it or not. Maybe a better example would have been imaginary numbers which have no physical meaning until humans invented them and ascribed a meaning to them (a frequency, for example) but are a supremely useful mathematical tool.

Religious? *more audience laughter*. It is not a religious work, but if you are asking if it has religious connections, I point you to the answer to "connected with politics", above.
Written in last 100 years? Yes.

[Rosie] Well, but there is also something odd about saying the Pythagorean theorem is not a human construct. As I say, the question of whether mathematics is invented or discovered has troubled philosophers of science for a long time, and I don't think it's as straightforward as you suggest, even in this case. Is the number "2" a human construct? But I'm getting out of my depth here, so I'll let the real mathematicians weigh in if they like.

Rosie] Isn't the concept of a 'right-angle' a human construct?

Last 50 years? No.
Originally written in English? *audience gasps and starts disputing amongst themselves animatedly* The best answer is clearly no, but a case could be made for yes.
A novel? No.

Just a wild stab in the dark...

Speaking of wild stabs...

[Chalky] No, I don't think it's that. :-)

Poem? No.
Kid-intended? *audience laughter*. No.
Jabberwocky? *audience snickersnackering* No.
Scots wha hae? *audience chants "Jon-ny Wil-kin-son, Jon-ny Wil-kin-son* No.
Where am I? Sleeping. I live on the other side of the world from most of you lot, remember.