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
[Kim] Human? - NO
[Rosie] Activity? - NO
An expression?
[Software] Expression? - NO
Is the animal of a species that exists in the world today?
Good question
[Kim] Animal species exists today? - NO (however, I am just a little wary of the exact form in which the question was asked)
Is the animal mythical?
[Raak] Mythical animal? - Hmm - NO, unless you mean 'is it fictional?', in which case, the answer is YES
A specific fictional animal?
(i.e., an individual animal like "White Fang")
Animal common in fantasy literature?
[CdM] Specific animal - YES
[G3] Common in Fantasy Literature? - NO
Begins with a P?
Does the animal appear predominantly in books?
[Tuj] THE question? - NO
[Kim] booky animal? - NO
From a children's movie?
[CdM] From children's film? - NO (and he claims he doesn't speak American)
Is the animal a human construction?
[Kim] Human Construction? - YES (in the sense that I think you mean)
Also YES in another sense *a few chuckles from the audience* and NO in a very obscure sense.
Confused enough now?
An animal bred for some purpose?
Is it an animal of legend (as distinct from myth)?
[G3] bred for some purpose? - NO
[Kim] Legend rather than myth? - NO - If anything the reverse, but neither is a good description
Is the animal a member of a real species (dog rather than hipporhinocecow, for example)
trying to hone in based on some previous answers...
And I never claimed any such thing. I speak American almost fluently.
[CdM] Member of real species? - YES
[CdM] "hone in"? **bang!!**
[Raak] ooops...
An animal of folklore?
[Raak] Although... maybe I was just demonstrating my command of fluent American for INJ. According to the M-W Dictionary of English Usage
The phrase [hone in] seems to have become established in American English, and is apparently beginning to be used in British English (Garner has a British example). If you use it, you should be aware that some people will think you have made a mistake.
Not surprisingly, the folks at Language Log have have also discussed it quite a bit. One of the interesting things is that though the verb to home has been around a long time, home in and hone in are both recent coinages. None of which is meant as a serious defense in my particular case, by the way; had I noticed it, I would have certainly chosen home in in preference.
Not well-honed
[Kim] Folklore? - NO
Is this animal primarily known for some artistic representation of it?
[CdM] artiswtically represented - NO (except for fairly wide definitions of 'artistic' and 'representation')
Is it a species of animal, rather than a single example?
[Kim] Species? - The answer would technically be a species, but it is known by a single example
From an adult film?
Not an "adult" film, you understand. Just an adult film.

(We now know that this animal is fictional, but not from a book, children's film, or known from an artistic representation...)
Would the aminal/species be known conventionally as a "dinosaur"?
[CdM] Film for adults - NO
[Kim] Dino? - NO
So, by a process of elimination....
From a teenage film?
Is the animal the subject of a poem?
Building on CdM's summary, if I have this right, the individual animal has never actually existed but is a human construction, represented not in books or artistic representation (which I take to mean painting, drawing, sculpture, etc) and not in any film made for children, adults or teenagers but in some other artistic form; moreover, the species to which the animal belongs is a real species, but the species does not exist in the world today, nor is it what we would call a "dinosaur".
Trojan horse?
From TV?
At last
[Kim] Subject of poem? - NO *some chuckles in the audience*
[G3] Trojan Horse? - NO
[CdM] TV - YES *sighs of relief*
The summary is correct, except around the 'species' (and this is my fault). It's probably best to say that the genus is real and current, but this particular creature isn't. After all, it doesn't exist, so has never been classified, so I'm extrapolating here - is it a species or a sub-species - search me. However, I suspect that you would probably think of it as part of an existing species.
Is/was there a real animal or animals who played the part of this fictional animal on TV?
(e.g., Flipper the wonder horse, Lassie the bush kangaroo) (I'm assuming not, because otherwise I think INJ would have led with Animal rather than Abstract ... but INJ's original definition did seem to leave the door open for lots of things.)
Mister Ed?
Was it a TV cartoon?
Associated with a particular actor?
Is the TV show named after the animal?
[CdM] Real Animal played part? NO (or I certainly hope not)
[Phil] Mr Ed? - NO
[Raak] Cartoon? - NO
[Projoy] Particular actor? - NO, not as such *Some muttering in the audience*[Kim] Named after animal? - NO
Mr. Blobby?
Is the animal a puppet?
Was the audience muttering because a known actor voiced this character?
Is our elusive friend a puppet?
Whoops! Sorry, Kim.
I'm also going to request a clarification on the classification. Though you have classified this primarily as abstract, does (or did) it still have some physical (presumably vegetable or mineral) existence? (Although maybe that is just a very roundabout way of asking Kim's question for the third time!)
[Raak] Mr Blobby? - NO
[Kim] Puppet? - NO
[CdM] Voiced by well-known actor - NO
[Dujon] - still no
CdM - Some physical existence? - YES *some applause* (but the classification is still correct)
Was this animal played by an actor in costume?
Not a real animal, not a puppet, and not a cartoon. Not many possibilities left.
Was the animal invisible?
Do we take your earlier rejection of "cartoon" to include all forms of amination?
Is it a logo or mascot?
I am thinking along the lines of something like Pudsey the bear (though not him of course as he begins with P).
One of the Playschool toys?
Just as an observation, we have nothing indicating that this is a children's show, though I think we are all tending to assume that it is.
[CdM] Gorilla-suited? - N)
[Raak] Invisible? - NO
[Kim] animated? - NO (I don't split hairs in this game)
[Bigsmith] Logo/Mascot - NO
Playschool? - NO
[CdM] Good point, well made.
Pantomime horse?
Well this is proving harder than I had ever imagined
[Software] Panto pony? - NO (precluded by answer to CdM's previous question)
Not a real animal, not a puppet, not a costumed actor, not invisible, not a cartoon or other animation. We are obviously missing something here but I am drawing a blank.
Was this animal ever seen (in some form or another) by the TV viewers?
Avian?
getting warmer
[CdM] Was the animal seen? - YES (it will become clear)
[irach] birdy? - YES *relieved applause*
"Phoenix rising from the ashes"?
[irach] Phoenix? - NO
Did the animal have an individual name?
"Eagle eye"?
Did the TV show feature a representation of this bird (e.g., a picture) rather than the bird itself?
[Raak] Named? - NO *a few murmurs in the audience*
[irach] Eagle eye? - Never heard of it, so NO
[CdM] Representation? YES(ish), a picture? - NO
There are 3 words on the card, including the indefinite article.
Is this from a comedy show?
[CdM] comedy show? - YES Loud and relieved applause*
Is it visible during the show?
[Phil] Visible? - YES
A Liver Bird?
[CdM] Liver Bird - Good guess, but NO
Was this seen in a pet shop?
"Dead Parrot" a la Monty Python?
Close enough for jazz
I don't want to draw this out so I declare irach the winner! The answer on the card was A Norwegian Blue
[CdM] The category that had not been suggested was 'a prop/model'
(To explain the convoluted intro 'a Norwegian Blue' can also be an orienteering course or the nickname of the earliest fossil proto-psittacoid, which was found in Scandinavia.)
One baton totally bereft of life handed on to irach.
Simulposted with:

That must be it, though I am guessing that "A Norwegian Blue" are the actual words on the card. (That's irach's win, not mine, if correct.)
Well, that one was put to rest at last. The psittacoid in question pining for the fjords is now in birdie Valhalla.... The next one is ANIMAL with an ABSTRACT Connotation.
Human?
A single individual animal?
Is the answer a phrase?
[CdM] Non-human.
[IMJ] More than one.
[Rosie] Sort of a phrase.
Lemmings?
A single species of animal?
A team or pack?
[Tuj] Not lemmings.
[CdM] Not a single species.
[Rosie] A team of sorts, not a pack.
Domesticated animals?
Likely to be seen in the wild?
(in counterpoint to INJ)
[INJ] Not domesticated.
[CdM] Yes, and no.
Fictional?
Dickybirds?
Land animal?
[Tuj] Fictional in part.
[Rosie] Not dickybirds.
[Software] Yes. Land animal
Does it begin with P?
To business.
[Tuj] 'Pologies, but no "P" whatsover, in either the beginning, middle, or end.
The Circle of Life?
Ouch.
[Tuj] Not the circle of life.
An animal of which there are both domesticated and wild examples?
[Kim] Only wild or presumed wild.
Does the name of an animal (or several) appear on the card?
[INJ] Yes, the animals are named.
Indigenous to the UK?
"Wild? I was absolutely livid!"
Do they form an heraldic or symbolic group?
[Bigsmith] Not indigenous to the US individually, but togeter, yes, very British.
[INJ] Yes, they form a heraldic or symbolic group.
Lion and Unicorn?
[Software] The Lion and the Unicorn it is. The baton is passed
Bu**er! That means I'll have to think of something. Right, after 30 seconds deep thought here it is:

VEGETABLE with ANIMAL and ABSTRACT connections.

Terry Schiavo?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Is the vegetable wood?
Smaller than a toaster?
[Raak] Yowzer!
[Raak] Terry? No
[INJ] Wood? Yes.
[CdM] er.. No.
[Tuj] Toaster? Difficult one, probably Yes.
Are the animal connections human?
Is there only one of these?
A board game?
[Raak] Human? Yes.
[Kim] Unique? No.
[Tuj] Boardo? No.
A tool?
Found in a kitchen?
Long and thin?
[INJ] tool? some may say so, but a sensible answer is probably No.
[irach] kitchen? some would say Yes.
[Rosie] phalic? No.
Edible?
Chopsticks?
*wonders about the short fat approximately toaster-sized chopsticks that irach eats with*
[CdM] edible? theoretically, Yes.
[irach] ching-chang-chew? No.
Part of a foodstuff that is not normally eaten? (eg fish bones)
[Rosie] Fishy? No.
A container of some kind?
Specific to a particular culture or country?
[Tuj] Container? No.
[CdM]Specific country/culture? No.
Serves a decorative purpose?
I'm struggling with the edible wood.
Heart of palm?
[INJ] Decorative? No.
[Raak]Swamp cabbage? Had to Google that! No.
Advent calendar?
About the size of a toaster in all three dimensions, two dimensions, or one?
Found in most homes?*
* for a definition of home based on the Western European model
[G III] Chocolatey date thing? No.
[irach] Toaster sized? In one dimension maybe. Yes.
[INJ] Domestic? Yes. (random claps from audience)
Used in the preparation or serving of food?
Is the abstract connection something to do with the arts?
[INJ] Jamie Oliverish? Nah.
[CdM] Arty-farty? No.
Associated with apparel?
[INJ] wear it? No.
Clue?
Is the abstract connection a phrase or saying?
Does it begin with a 'P'?
Sorry Tuj, but we can only wait so long for you.
[Tuj] Clue? OK. This is a give away: almost everyone has used one of these.
[CdM] Abstract? Not a phrase or saying as such, but a familiar term.
[INJ] P? Not in the answer itself. * audience murmurs.*
Paper of some sort?
Toilet paper?
[Chalks] Paper? Yes. *audience claps*
[GIII] Bog roll? No.
Advent Calendar?
ooops - CANCEL THAT
Box of Tissues
Newspaper?
[Chalks] Advent calendar? You wish! And not paper hankies either. No.
[irach] The fourth estate? No.
Paper Towels?
[irach] Towels? No. Hint: it is paper, approximately toaster sized in one dimension.
Is is typically written on, e..g. foolscap paper?
[irach] Written? Not by hand, but Yes. * audience claps * Foolscap? Are you a lawyer?
A Telephone Directory?
A fortune cookie?
[CdM] Directory? The exact words on the Card!!!

Well done and over to you!! I'm glad that its gone because I'm away from a computer for the next 5 days and there would have been a big gap!

That was unexpected
OK. I am going to designate this as ABSTRACT with ANIMAL connections, while acknowledging that many of you might have deemed this ANIMAL with ABSTRACT connections.
Begins with P?
Anubis?
Mythical?
A well-known phrase?
Pinitial? No.
Anubis? No, but *a tiny smattering of applause*
Mythical? No, but *some audience murmuring and consultation of dictionaries*
Well-known phrase? In a sense, yes, although that's not the best way to think of what you are looking for.
Fictional?
Fictional? In part, Yes; in part, No.
extinct?
Extinct? Er. I think the only reasonable answer is No.
Legendary?
Legendary? Yes, but *some audience murmuring and consultation of dictionaries*
A single, named creature?
Single, named creature? Yes. *applause*
An object of worship?
Object of worship? No (except perhaps in the exaggerated metaphorical sense)
An object of fear?
Object of fear? No.
In place of my rather convoluted introduction, it is probably better to describe this simply as ABSTRACT and ANIMAL.
But does it begin with P?
Pinitial? Still No.
Is its existence controversial?
Controversial existence? Not in the slightest. (I confirmed its existence a few days ago, as a matter of fact.)
Does it have a physical existence?
The MerLion?
Connected with a particular country?
[CdM] I'll believe you this time.
The answers to several of these questions differ depending on whether I am focusing on the abstract or animal component of the answer. My answers to date have been primarily directed at the abstract component (although I don't think any of them would be badly misleading when thought of as applying to the animal component as well.* With that in mind

Physical Existence? The abstract component has various physical manifestations (so I could also add MINERAL connections to the definition). As for the animal component, the best answer is probably No, (or perhaps Yes, of a sort), but had the question been phrased slightly differently I could have much more easily just answered Yes.
Connected with a particular country? Not exactly, but *applause*.
Merlion? No.

*Though I have never confirmed the existence of the animal component.
Does the animal represent in any way a particular human?
Particular human? The animal is a particular human, yes. *applause*
Is the human the holder of a certain position or title?
Connected with a particular religion?
Holder of position or title? Not exactly, but *applause*
Religious connection? No.
The Statue of Liberty?
Long shot.
Lady Liberty? Nope.
So is the animal fictional and the abstract nonfictional?
Fictional status of animal and abstract: The animal is non-fictional. The abstract is partly fictional and partly non-fictional.
Something like "Tom Thumb"?
Like Tom Thumb? Not at all. I would call that totally fictional.
Tom Thumb fictional? Perhaps not.
[Software] Ah. Well, that's what I get for taking Wikipedia as the last word on something. But, in any case, I think the answer is No.
{Software] By the way, I love the picture at top right in your link. "Tom Thumb's Waistcoat," it is labeled. But since there is nothing else in the picture to indicate scale, the waistcoat in question might just as easily be too big for Kobe Bryant....
Male?
Male? Yes.
This is proving harder than I expected, so I'll offer a clarification/clue with regard to the mythical/legendary questions. The answer on the card does not refer (in either the abstract or animal sense) to something mythical or legendary in a narrow, literal myth-or-fable sense of those terms. The answer (in both senses) is legendary in the broader celebrated-renowned sense of that term, and possibly even mythical in the very broad sense of that word ("idealized").
Is the human the holder of a particular record or accomplishment?
Holder of record or accomplishment? The human is known for certain accomplishments.
Dead?
Sporting accomplishments?
Dead? Yes.
Sporting? No.
A war leader?
A war leader? Sort of, yes. *applause*
Well, this is starting to get silly.
Did the human die within the last 100 years?
Alive sometime after1908? Yes.
Notorious rather than universally celebrated?
The Unknown Soldier?
Notorious? The human in question is perhaps not universally celebrated, but certainly "celebrated" is a better term than "notorious". The abstract sense is pretty much universally celebrated.
Unknown soldier? Hardly. *some laughter*
Born after 1908?
Born after 1908? The human in question was not born after 1908. The abstract sense cae into being after 1908 though.
Because you will probably have forgotten most of this when you resume this game in a post-Christmas alcoholic haze, here is a review.

The words on the card are sort of a well-known phrase that does not begin with P. The words have both an ANIMAL sense and an ABSTRACT sense. There is no controversy about the existence of either.

The ANIMAL sense is a particular male human, who was born before 1908 and died after 1908. He is known for certain non-sporting accomplishments and was sort of a war leader. He is celebrated rather than notorious, though not universally celebrated. He is legendary in the sense of being celebrated and renowned, and possibly mythical in the sense of being idealized, but he is not legendary or mythical in the more literal senses of those terms. He is not exactly connected to a particular country, but the question earned applause. He is not exactly the holder of a position or title, but that question also earned applause. He has no religious connection. He is not Anubis, the Merlion, Tom Thumb, Lady Liberty, or the Unknown Soldier.

The ABSTRACT sense came into being after 1908, and does have physical (mineral) manifestations. It is partly fictional and partly non-fictional, and it is likewise legendary in the broad senses of the words, but not in the narrow senses. I recently confirmed its existence.
T. E. Lawrence?
T.E. Lawrence? The human is T.E. Lawrence, yes. *sustained applause*. But, though this one is now clearly there for the taking, I cannot declare Raak the winner.
Come on, Raak, get a wriggle on.   ;-)
Lawrence of Arabia?
Lawrence of Arabia is indeed the correct answer. One Aqabaton delivered from the Turks to Raak.
The next is ABSTRACT.
The Riemann ζ-function?
n=∞
Not
Σ
 1/ns
n=1
Cognitive dysfunction?
Could be regarded as a symptom of one.
"Happy New Year"?
Oh, and Happy New Year to all.
Not a happy new year.
A human characteristic?
E.g. numeracy :-)
Not a human characteristic.
An organisation?
Not an organisation.
Anything to do with religion?
According to Wikipedia, no connection with religion.
Christmas?
Not Christmas.
A well-known phrase or saying?
Not a phrase or saying. Well, there's a phrase on the card, of course, but the mystery object is what it refers to, not the words themselves.
Is the mystery object Animal?
No, it's ABSTRACT.
Connection with science or scientific endeavour?
No connection with sciency things.
A human construct?
'cos somebody had to ask it.
Yes, a human construct.
Does the mystery object instil fear?
Any connection with the arts?
[Rosie] (laughter) Does not instil fear.
[INJ] No connection with the arts.
Does the mystery object represent an achievement?
Is this a sporting accolade?
arrow_circle_down
Want to play? Online Crescenteering lives on at Discord