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 ....
[Raak] Security? sort of [Dujon] Magnetic stripe? It's a bit late for me to look it up [mainly because I'm off to bed now], but YES - I think it could have one of those things
[Dujon] Drivers licence? NO [CdM] Photograph? NO [Rosie] Library card? NO [Raak] Nectar card? NO [Irouléguy] AA membership card? NO
Re: the point I made last night about being damn close to an ID card. Having slept on the matter, as it were, perhaps I should clarify: It identifies something but not necessarily someone
[rab] Does size matter? *audience applauds the question* It IS and then it ISN'T [see my reply to Irouléguy up the page] As an additional clue - not that it's needed at this stage because we're nearly there - in most countries, we think of it as somewhat smaller than a credit card.
[Graham III] use/see on daily basis? Use - YES. See - depends on viewpoint - ie. if you were manufacturing it, then yes. But normally NO - not daily, but certainly occasionally.
Raak has the very words on the card. Well played. IMHO four days including a weekend is about right for this game. Of course, it depends on whether one is available to reply promptly, which I hope I was
I think I've simulposted which may make nonsense of my words. [Editor] Nothing new there then.
[Irouléguy] It's not really your place to say :-) I'm content with Raak's reply *giggles at lower social status bit. In retrospect, that was funny. * [Raak] See? That Iroulé bloke has distracted you - how about the geographical thing?
[I] Not a geographical feature. (There's not many of those that are smaller than a toaster!) [C] I'm serious about the social status! This thing really does rank below the humble toaster.
[I] An owner would have many. [r] Very practical. [R] If they have them, they would. A clarification of my last answer to CdM: a typical home would not have any, but a typical one of these might well be in someone's home.
[R] Not related to particular occasions. [r] Not for looking through. [C] Yes! A particular sort of person would deliberately have these. [B] Not gender-related. [Q] Yes, there is stuff written on it (using the word "written" rather generally). [S] Not a book or box of matches.
[I] In a sense, some people do use these for work. [C] *at last, the audience exercise their applause muscles* It is a form of currency! [Q] You can't eat or drink it, and one wouldn't want to smoke it.
[Chalky] *applause* It's a banknote of some kind. The wood was indeed a reference to paper. *A ripple of anticipation as Chalky seizes on the significant earlier answer.*
Thanks Raak. We seem to be on the same wavelength :-) [I thought I knew the solution when you replied half an hour after my 'banknote' question. But I did wait for 3 hours.) Now - we have this:
I must confess I was rather the worse for wine maudlin the early hours of Sunday. Many of his friends decided to go ahead with an already planned get-together Saturday night which was absolutely the right thing to do. OK - let's be having some more questions ... perhaps beginning with the sex/occupation of this person ...
[Graham III] Albert Einstein? NO but ... very very close *gasps of genuine anticipation from audience* Scientist AND academic - aren't all scientists academic?
[Quendalon] Yes, I know Schrodinger was Austrian [as I am also aware that the other two were German ]- which is why I said that all 3 were the wrong nationality. I rather thought I was being helpful ... and didn't expect it to come back and bite me on the bum... :-) [Q] Fermi? NO [Phil] Freud? NO [[Projoy] Dutch? YES! *audience girds its loins* [Quendalon] Arrhenius? NO
[Tuj] Last century? NO, but examine your assumptions. [Quendalon] Chemie? NO, except possibly indirectly (I say that for completeness - not a helpful line of thought) [Chalky] Emotional? NO [Rosie] Creative? NO, not obviously. [Dujon] Stigmata? NO, dur. ;-)
[Quendalon] YES/NO - named after two people. Finding them is unlikely to be a fruitful avenue of questioning, but maybe a pertinent fact later on in the game. [Rosie] Knowledge-hungry? NO
[Chalky] Game? NO [Software] Theory? NO [All] Game Theory? Two wrongs don't make a right [Quendalon] Representative? Certainly has some related aspects, but not a connection you would naturally think of if someone mentioned this.
Is it connected with economics but not necessarily with money?
[GIII] Having reread Q's question and your answer I'm still none the wiser. :-) I get your advice to pursue other lines of questioning, but I'm puzzled as to why my pretty straightforward question is hard to answer (I don't doubt that it is; I'm just puzzled as to why). So let me look for clarification. We've established that this is named after two people. Does the name (or some word/variant directly derived from the name) of at least one of these individuals appear on the card?
[CdM] Connected with economics but not necessarily with money? NO, more the other way round Does the name (etc.) of at least one of these individuals appear on the card? YES!
[CdM] By way of a clue, if you were to remove one consonant from your original question (and twist the grammar to fit), I would have been able to answer YES, and you would have been further advanced. Because of that consonant, the answer (strictly) would have to be NO, but only because of pedantry and semantics. I therefore declined to answer in the hope of being helpful...
[Phil] YES! *audience applauds wildly, as Phil has got the key fact behind the name! [Rosie] M&S? NO [Irouleguy] Gresham & Law? NO, but: [Chalky] Barclays Bank? YES! *Audience goes wild, applauding and generally fawning over Chalky*
CdM, GIII] According to Wikipedia, the expression "Gresham's Law" dates back only to 1858, and was coined (ho ho) by British economist Henry Dunning Macleod. Two people involved, only one surname in the answer, about money rather than economics - I was slightly straw-clutching, and it seemed possible. Well done, Chalky - you're on a roll at the moment!
Has there beem some confusion between Barclays Bank, which is as old as the hills and owes it name to one individual, and the squillionaire Barclay brothers, who own the Torygraph amongst other things. I only arsk.
[Rosie] Not according to Wikipedia. "The bank took its name from Alexander and David Barclay, who provided credit to transatlantic slave traders." I checked Barclays own site, but they don't seem to want to talk about their history...
Blimey - I wasn't really trying to win that one - particularly as I've been in the chair rather a lot recently. It's a busy week ahead for me [mainly away from my PC], so would anyone else like to take over?
[Graham III] I've just looked back to the beginning of this game and now understand why the audience felt duty bound to 'generally fawn' over me when I answered correctly. Pure guilt. For what, you may ask? For not even a merest rustle of surprise and astonishment when my, and the very first question, was SO CLOSE! Even the esteemed CdM knew I was right on the button. And they didn't applaud him either. :-) :-)
So if I am allowed to nominate - I shall choose CdM - and if he isn't available to take up the baton, I shall launch another one
Well, I do tend to check in about 8 times a day, and I haven't done one for yonks, so I vote for me ;-) If no-one objects, I'd like to set the next challenge as ABSTRACT with ANIMAL and VEGETABLE connections
[Kim] Human construct? YES [Bigsmith] P? NO [Raak] Artistic work? NO [GIII] Piscine? NO [CdM] Phil O'Sophy? NO [Chalky] Your bunch? Very impressive, but NO [INJ] Anarcho-thingy-whatsit? NO
[Chalky] Done for a living? NO - a murmur of appreciation from the audience for an almost useful question [Dujon] A skill? NO [Rosie] Legislative activity? NO
[Chalky] Entertainment? NO A couple of amused chuckles [CdM] Recreational activity? Having looked up definitions of "recreation", I fell compelled to say YES, but it might not be what springs to most minds as recreation.
Is the definition of recreation under which you answered YES to one of the previous questions as a result of the second sub-definition within the second definition in Chambers?
[CdM] Writing involved? Not necessarily, but it would be normal. [Kim] Fictional animal? NO [GIII] Did I mean "a new creation"? NO. In fact, using the Chambers definition, I would say a definite YES to CdM's earlier question on reacreational activities, rather than my earlier vacillation.
[CdM] Drinking Beer? NO (remember, it's not done for a living) [CdM] Philately? NO - considerable applause from the suddenly-revived audience [Chalky] Music-making? NO
[Bigsmith] A hobby? YES *some applause* [Bigsmith 2nd half of question] Gaining a level of expertise? I suppose so, but I wouldn't focus on that if I were you. [GIII] Accumulation of items? YES *vigorous applause*
[Raak] Made primarily of paper? After a little extra research, YES, the items accumulated are usually primarily made of paper (carefully-worded answer) - *some applause and a little discussion amongst audience members* [Chalky] Anorak-wearing? NO - *appreciative laughter* [GIII] Beermat collecting? NO
[GIII] Items or writing on them? Strictly speaking the answer should be YES. But as it's Friday, I'll answer that the focus would be on some feature (e.g. writing) on the items. *Some more applause*
[GIII] Oshibana? NO [Rosie] Ticket collecting? NO. On reflection, I think the activity is a bit anoraky, but I don't think it's required. [Irouléguy] written or printed? Printed [Quendalon] Mass-produced? YES
This is strongly implied by previous answers, but I wanted to confirm. Also, interestingly (or perhaps not), when I first asked about recreation, I almost said hobby.
[CdM] Is the collected item entirely vegetable? There may be small traces of mineral, namely printing ink and ingredients in paper, but otherwise YES. (Hobby would have been a much easier question to answer). [Raak] Made of cardboard? NO [Quendalon] Sport cards? NO [Chalky] Top Trumps? NO
[Everyone] As I mentioned earlier. the items accumulated are normally primarily made of paper. The items collected to provide that accumulation are not, but are still almost entirely vegetable. If that doesn't confuse the matter, I don't know what will ;-)
[Chalky] A disrespected hobby? NO - The couple of people who chuckled were (like me) amused by the thought of someone exhibiting their collection for entertainment purposes. Probably not very helpful chuckles, but chuckles nonetheless. [Quendalon] Sucrology? YES - Congratulations, it is the collecting of sugar sachets and sugar cube wrappings. The sweet smell of success is yours. The difference between the collected items (mostly not paper) and the accumulated items (mostly paper) is that sucrologists remove the sugar post-collection and pre-accumulation. The UK Sucrologists Club has around 320 members, publishes a quarterly newsletter called "Sweet Thoughts", and offers a link to (amongst others) the Berlin Museum of Sugar.
[Chalky] Bigger than a toaster? Bigger? How do you mean? Area? Thickness? Width? Height? Bulk? Mass? More famous? ;-) [Dujon] Urinal cake? NO. [Phil] A human(s)? NO. [Rosie] Life? NO.
[Kim] Bodily functions? NO. [INJ] Unique? NO. [Raak] Ends with P? NO. *audience laughs* [Irouléguy] More than just one animal involved? There are several ways to interpret this question; I think the least misleading answer would be YES. [Tuj] Likely to find one in a house? NO.
[Rosie] Involved in writing? NO. [Chalky] Used in a place of work? NO, at least not in any modern workplace. [Dujon] An illustration? NO, I wouldn't describe it as such, though I suppose an argument could be made. [CdM] Found throughout the world? Technically YES, although a NO would be less misleading.
I possibly should have said "multiple and unique instances". For example, a solution which would require the answer YES would be "Impressionist paintings", or "skyscrapers", a solution which would require the answer NO would perhaps be "Tyres" or "Lenovo T62 Thinkpads". On reflection a crap question.
[G3] Per the "multiple and unique instances" question, it's a good question, but rather ambiguous. I think the thing under discussion falls somewhere in between your two examples.
CdM] Is it visible or audible? Hmm...insofar as it is 'observable', you would have to say it's visible. Audible, no. (Quendalon] Is the animal connection human? Yes
Dujon] Does this change from moment to moment even though retaining its description? *cries of 'oooh' and 'aaah' from the audience* In one sense, that's a very good description of it, but it doesn't get you any nearer. Rosie - A collection of objects? No - this isn't a physical thing or things.
Chalky] An aura of some sort? No Good point - I suspect it won't get him or anyone else any nearer, then. Raak] Is it within the Solar System (understood as everything out to and including the Oort cloud)? Bearing in mind my answer to Rosie's question, yes.
Chalky] anything to do with Astrology? Fortunately, no. ImNotJohn] Does it relate to the movement or path of some celestial object? *applause* YES - though 'relate' isn't perhaps the most appropriate verb.
Quendalon] Named after a specific person? *some giggling in the audience* For a particular value of 'person', yes. ImNotJohn - The ecliptic? No Phil - An apogee? No
ImNotJohn] A transit of Venus? No Chalky] The Clarke Orbit? Well, I never knew that - a fitting memorial. Thanks, Chalky - that led me into a very pleasant Google. What Wikipedia doesn't say is whether there are other inventions/phenomena named after SF writers - does anyone know of others? It's not the answer, though. Quendalon] Currently accepted as scientifically valid/viable/real/true? Correct/accurate/exact/accepted even by flat-earthers and creationists.
Rosie] The Kirkwood Gaps? No CdM] Is the animal connection the "named 'person'" from Quendalon's question? Not the main one. CdM thinking aloud] It has animal and mineral connections, but no vegetable connections, which suggests the earth is not directly involved. I don't agree - the answer could be 'the equator' or 'the stratosphere', neither of which I would think of as having vegetable connections. This is an abstract, after all - the animal and mineral connections are the physical things without which it wouldn't exist.
ImNotJohn] The Van Allen belts? No Quendalon - Is the Earth the mineral connection? *applause* It's the main one, but not the only one. Rosie - A feature of the surface of the earth? No
Going back to my first question - 'relates to the movement or path of a celestial object' (answered YESish) and assuming that your last answer excludes all man-made celestial objects. Is the anwer the name or description of that path?
Raak] Is it the intersection of two or more things? You could at a pinch define it like that, but it wouldn't be very helpful. Kim - Is it visible with the naked eye? Bearing in mind the earlier qualification of 'observable', yes. Chalky - A light year - or ... a parsec? Inside the solar system? However, a modicum of *applause* for these having something in common with the answer.
INJ] Good question, but no (and your assumption is correct)
Raak] An Astronomical Unit? No Rosie] The rising or setting of some astronomical body? *applause and some cheering* Related to, yes. Quendalon - Kepler's laws of planetary motion? No ImNotJohn - Is it related to navigation? No
Chalky]The man in the moon? No - but it would have been a good one ;) Raak] www - the world-wide wobble? No Phil] Tidal patterns? No Rosie - Atmospheric refraction? No
OK - Is this 'man's' [the animal] perception of something that occurs in our universe [abstract] - meaning, does he need something [mineral] in order to 'see' or 'interpret' this thing [which is abstract]?
Quendalon - Dawn? *some applause* No, but getting warmer... Chalky] OK - Is this 'man's' [the animal] perception of something that occurs in our universe [abstract] - meaning, does he need something [mineral] in order to 'see' or 'interpret' this thing [which is abstract]? ... a one-word answer will suffice ;-)
ImNotJohn] The shadow? Noes Raak - The Green Flash? *Before Googling* No *After Googling Well, there you go - I've never seen one of those. Rosie - Twilight? *applause* For the same reason as Quendalon - both of those are necessarily contained in the answer.
CdM - Daylight Savings Time? (I know it's not right (named after a person?) but the audience reaction might be helpful...)*the audience shrug their shoulders* No Dujon - A full moon? *appreciative murmurs in the audience* This is sometimes contained in the answer Software - St Elmo's Fire? A wonderful Eno song, but not the answer
Kim] Is it Keith Moon? No, nor Freddy Mercury either ;-) Rosie] The dawn chorus? Oh don't deceive me, oh never leave me, how could you treat such a poor maiden - no
A summary
You’re looking for an ABSTRACT with MINERAL and ANIMAL connections. The animal connection is human. It is named after a particular person (for a given value of ‘person’). It doesn’t have a physical manifestation, though it is (arguably) observable in nature, and in that sense visible with the naked eye. It is inside the solar system. The closest guesses so far are that it is related to astronomy, related to the movement or path of some celestial object, and related to the rising or setting of some astronomical body. You might want to think about the scope of the word ‘related’. ‘Dawn’, ‘twilight’ and ‘a full moon’ also received some applause. It is also scientifically valid/viable/real/true (though some of these are more applicable than others).
It does not begin with S, or with a vowel. It is not (leaving out guesses ruled out by the above): a meteorological phenomenon; a collection of objects; an aura; anything to do with astrology; the conjunction of Venus and Mars; the ecliptic; an apogee; a transit of Venus; the Clarke orbit; the Kirkwood Gaps; the Van Allen belts; a feature of the Earth’s surface; the Trojan points; gravity; celestial co-ordinates; Oppolzer's Canon of Eclipses; a form of electro-magnetic effect; the Kuiper belt; the intersection of two or more things (well, you could describe it as that, but it wouldn’t be useful); a light-year or a parsec (though these have something in common with the answer); a name or description of the path of a celestial object; an Astronomical Unit; Kepler's laws of planetary motion; related to navigation; the man in the moon; the precession of the equinoxes; tidal patterns; atmospheric refraction; related to a shadow; the Green Flash; Daylight Savings Time; or St Elmo’s Fire.
It is much simpler than most of these. Much, much simpler. You will kick yourselves (you would probably also kick me, for sounding so smug…) Dujon’s definition of “something that changes from moment to moment even though retaining its description” is the closest so far, though my prediction that this wouldn’t be helpful hasn’t been proved wrong yet.
Raak - The horizon? No Raak - Is the "person" a mythical one? *cheers and applause*YES Kim - Is it the Aurora Borealis? No Rosie - Harvest moon? Another great song, but no
Sorry for the delay - Bank Holiday weekend, so I slept in.
Quendalon] Is the mythical figure Greco-Roman? No Rosie] Would this effect be present if we had no atmosphere? Assuming that we were somehow still present, yes. BTW what I asked about earlier is not a Harvest Moon, which is Something Completely Different and again involves geometry etc. Apologies - I'm not a scientist (which may, now I come to think of it, be relevant). CdM] The tying down of the moons of Jupiter? Hush, child oblig
Raak - Thursday? *the audience rise to their feet as one person, cheering deafeningly* ALMOST! Rosie - Yesterday? Possibly the answer, but not when you posted it.
Rosie] Wednesday? No One down, one to go. Yes, and as it turns out, no The winner owes much to Raak. Absolutely! Phil] Friday? Full of woe - still two to go
[Rosie] Carven prow? NO. [Tuj] Begins with P? NO. [Kim] Character of legend? A very good question, but difficult to answer with the given phrasing. I'll have to go with a potentially misleading IT DEPENDS.
[Tuj] Italian? IT DEPENDS. [Rosie] Mentioned in the Bible? YES. [Irouléguy] Is the animal human? YES. [Chalky] More than one? YES. [G3] Dan Brown? NO IDEA, sorry. (Haven't read him.) [Kim] Mentioned in Greek myths? YES.
[Tuj] One word on the card? YES. *applause* [Chalky] A group of people connected in some way? Technically, YES. [Kim] Gods? NO. [Rosie] Romans? As before, IT DEPENDS.
Human? [R] YES, though that may be a touch misleading. Bigger than a toaster? [C] NO Begins with a P? [K] NO. Gosh, that was an oversight Unique? [Q] CERTAINLY NOT Alive? [B] Ooh, tough question. After Quenders' question I'll phrase it as DEPENDS WHICH PARTICULAR ONE YOU MEAN ;) Oh, and psorry.
*giggles while wondering if GIII missed the "smaller than a toaster" thing, or if there's something I never knew about Egyptians...or toasters, for that matter :-)*
I'm at a wedding tomorrow & unlikely to be by a PC on Sunday, so unless someone knocks this one out by very early tomorrow (UK time) I may have to do a revealio.
Oops. I hadn't checked here in a while, and indeed had forgotten that I had an outstanding guess. Also, that was a lurker's victory, for which I apologise.
ABSTRACT with an ANIMAL connection and also ANIMAL/VEGETABLE/MINERAL connections.
Placed? No. Classed? No. Fictional? *some muttering in the audience* The words on the card do not denote something fictional as such, but there are definitely many fictional connections. Myth or Legend? No, but again there are many connections to myth and legend. Unique? No.
Connected with religion? Sometimes, but by no means necessarily. (That is a more positive answer than my first instinct, but I am being influenced by a particular dictionary definition I am looking at right now.) The question does also prompt me to say that I should perhaps have said "...and also ANIMAL/VEGETABLE/MINERAL/ABSTRACT connections".
Thought? No. Mental Activity? I suppose, with a broad definition of mental activity, the answer is yes, but I'm not sure that is helpful. No Man's Land? No. Perhaps there is a bit more of a connection to language than I implied before, simply because this is most often made manifest through language (see "fictional connections").
Observable phenomenon? I don't think it is best described as a phenomenon and it is only observable with a very broad definition of the term. Office? No. Linked to ICT? No. More than one human required? No specific human or humans are required.
Something that wouldn't exist without humans? Yes, in two distinct ways. *applause, tinged with relief for the modicum of progress* Connected to eating and drinking? No. One word answer? Yes. *applause* Medical connections? No.
Connected to philosophy? No. Connected to science? No. For most of these "connected to ...?" questions I can imagine some sort of connection. But the card talks about something relatively narrow and specific.
Condition that affects some people but not others? No. It's not a condition. Some people might be more prone to it than others, I suppose, but it is more something that you do than that you suffer from.
A mental process? Sort of. *cautious applause*. This AVMA isn't intentionally trying to be difficult or misleading. The questions are just hard to answer.
Logic? No. Can you tell by looking? No, in almost all cases. Mainly this is because it is almost always made manifest through language, as I said before. Some kind of physical movement? No. Connected to the Earth as a whole? No. It is not so much that there are A/V/M connections as a whole; rather each specific example of this will have an animal or vegetable or mineral or abstract connection.
Something we do every day? Good question, and I actually not really sure of the answer. My first instinct was no. Most of us certainly do not do it consciously every day. On reflection, though, I suspect that it is something we often do without being aware of it, so the answer might well be yes. Abstract noun? Yes. *applause* Curiosity? No. Does it involve stories? Very often, yes (though it might be more accurate to say that stories can involve it). *some applause* Susceptible to cause and effect? I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but I think that the only helpful answer is No. Vowel at the head? Yes.
Sorry this is so tricky. I have scattered a few obscure clues in my answers of the last several days. If the next few questions take you no closer I'll try to think of a better clue.
Type of speech act? No (at least, not as I understand the term). Nevertheless, I think your answers are getting warmer, even if they still need several sweaters. Soulless wit? No. That was just me being long-winded.
Adjective? No. Nor is it one. An -ism? Yes. *applause* Absent-mindedness? Abstraction? No, but *sustained applause and a little laughter* An -ing? No (although there is a gerund that is very closely related to the word on the card, and my answers would probably be identical had I picked that word instead). (In fact, pedantically speaking, I think my answer to, say, your (Iroul's) previous question was probably more about the -ing than the -ism.) AS? No.
[INJ] No, I don't think it was a very good subject, actually. It seemed clever when I thought of it, but abstract nouns like that tend to be a bit too, well, abstract. I perhaps should have pointed you to think harder about my human construct ("in two distinct ways") answer. Otherwise you are right; my answers felt very vague to me, and it is hard to see how you could have found your way any better.
[CdM] Edible? NO [INJ] Abstract a state of the vegetable? If you mean the condition of the vegetable - then only in the broadest possible sense. [CdM] Human animal connections? YES [Irouléguy] The grapes? NO
[INJ] Many plants all of the same type? In a manner of speaking - YES. *audience applauses* [Kim] The Great Pumpkin? NO [Quendalon] Quality or characteristic of a vegetable? I shall say YES with slight reservations because I wouldn't wish to lead you astray :-) [Tuj] Any particular human? Most definitely NO - the human[animal]/mineral element merely supports the main definition, ie. these components make it happen.
[Rosie] A forest or a wood? NO [but you're moving in the right direction re: the 'vegetable'] [INJ] Relate to a particular sense? *audience applauds an excellent question* Not a straightforward YES here - the answer has connections with sensory organs.
[CdM] The answer is in a specific language ;-) Could it be in another? - I don't know, and I don't think it would help if I did [Rosie] Floating like a butterfly? - NO (tipping it over the bar with nonchalant ease)
Since the "could be" I can't get "Hong Kong Phooey, number one superguy; Hong Kong Phooey, quicker than the human eye" out of my head. Thanks, Rosie. I wonder if that's what inspired Software (hello hello? Police Headquarters).
(INJ) (Qu. 1) Not the oldest man in the world. Nothing to do with his age, actually. (Qu. 2) NO, but an event is involved. *Sort-of approving noises from the audience*
[Rosie] Good one, although the audience surely could have given INJ's 'father of the bride' a little encouragement. I'm still confused by the audience reaction to 'son and heir', though.
(Tuj) Well, my Dad's best man is dead, as no doubt are Henry VIII's. I could have said "Yes, at the time" but that would have been giving too much away.
[R] When not electric, it is powered by (at least one of) hand or foot. (Murmurings in the audience.) Ok, partly powered. [I] Not larger than a toaster.
This weekend I was at a 20th anniversary celebration - we had also been at the wedding, where the best man was the son and heir of the groom (he was a widower).
[INJ] Mainly decorative? Hmmmm... NO Re: CdM's question: My answer, in this instance, means larger in at least 1 dimension, but lesser in volume than a standard domestic washing machine (approx 900 x 600 x 600mm). By the way, you have a very big toaster!
[Chalky Ntural vegetation? Not in its original form. Don't forget that this has been "contructed", although that is not the most ideal word to convey what has happened to the vegetable constituents.
[CdM] <10% wood? NO (Me? Annoyed? Nonsense! *unclenches teeth* [Rosie] Fashioned/sculpted? NO. Probably further from ideal than "constructed", in fact.
[Dujon] Shredded wood combined with something else and moulded? I think that warrants a YES - *relieved applause* [CdM] Always 100% vegetable? Good question. Further research reveals a trace of mineral that I was previously unaware of, plus some pigment that may be vegetable or mineral. But essentially I'd say YES, at least 99.5% vegetable. *some more applause*
The answer on the card is almost entirely vegetable (over 99%) with a trace of mineral, and perhaps some animal. Wood makes up between 10 and 90% of it. It is partially, but not exclusively designed to protect, but is not mainly decorative. Shredded wood combined with something else and moulded got a YES, but it's not perfectly accurate. It also got some applause. Other applause has been for "part of the structure of a house?", although the answer was NO. Also, querying if it was always 100% vegetable received some applause - mainly for being such a good question. It is larger, in at least one dimension than a washing-machine-sized toaster. It is not "fashioned or sculpted" from wood. Technically-speaking it is constructed, but that is not how I would put it.
It does not begin with P; is not a tool, broom, container or crawling board. It does not involve paper, and is not a type of processed wood (such as chipboard), not is it wood mulch. The typical Morniverser probably doesn't own one, but might. It is not used in sport, is not an outdoors object. Also, the non-wood part is not natural vegetation in its original form.
[Dujon] Wooden percentage mainly bark? It can be, but doesn't have to be. [Quendalon] Part of structure of non-house? NO [Irouléguy] Hay involved? NO [Software] A haystack? NO
Correction to previous answer I was only asked if it was bigger than the toaster in at least one dimension, to which I replied YES. No-one has yet established in how many (or indeed which) dimensions the item is bigger than a toaster (or washing machine).
[IRG] Fitted wood flooring? NO May I refer you all back to "Shredded wood combined with something else and moulded got a YES, but it's not perfectly accurate. It also got some applause." I think that's slightly helpful without giving it away. Note also that I have had to do some research in order to answer a couple of questions.
[IRG] Cork flooring? NO - the wood ingredient can be bark (which is what cork is), but doesn't have to be. Also, less than 90% of the total comes from wood.
[Chalky] Vinyl floor? I'm afraid not. [Cdm} Linoleum? YES, dagnammit, YES! It's made of powdered wood or bark, linseed oil, canvas or burlap (both of which are vegetable), with some pigments (hence the traces of mineral). And in 13 hours' time I go on holiday for 2 weeks. ttfn!
Well, I stood on the shoulders of giants that time. Excellent subject choice, and a very educational round. After Phil's clue I thought it had to be lino, but I needed to google to check because I realized I had no idea what it was made of. I'll be back later today to set a new clue. [Phil] Have a good trip!
Mammal? No. Particular gender? No. A fish? Yes. *applause* Begins with P? No. Feline tongue entrapment? No (but my internets were broken for most of the day; sorry) Sleeping dog? No.
[Software] Not a tin roof. [Raak] Yes, a particular building. [Graham III] There are some other mineral components as well, but again very small proportions. [CdM] Not more than 200 years old. [Rosie] You and I could not lift it together. [INJ] Not the Cake Nose Tower!