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
Unique?
Human?
Symbolic?
[CdM]Yes, unique.
[GL]Yes, human.
[Software] Hmmm... I presume could be considered a symbol of sorts.
Alive now?
[jim] No, but in a sense will always be alive.
Ronnie James Dio?
[jim] No, not RJ Dio.
Did they die before 17th May 1983?
[GL] The person in question was reported to have died prior to 17 May 1983, but will likely always be immortal.
An entertainer?
[INJ] No, not an entertainer.
Jesus Christ?
No, not Jesus Christ.
Fictional?
[Juxtapose] Yes, fictional.
When you speak of this fictional human as "always being alive" and "immortal", do you mean that there is something about this particular character that is immortal, as opposed to the character being immortal simply by virtue of being fictional? If you see what I mean.
[CdM] Mostly just by being fictional, but perhaps a little more than just a character in this case.
Did the character originally appear in a book?
[jim] Yes, the person first appeared in a book.,
Main character in a book?
Does the person's name appear in the title?
[Juxtapose] Yes, the person's name is in the book title.
[Software] Yes, the person is the main character in the book.
Was the book in question published prior to the year 1900?
[Juxtapose] The book was first pubished prior to 1900.
Was this person a mariner?
Does this person appear in more than one book?
By the way -- not as criticism, just as observation -- I would classify any fictional character (or place, or thing) as primarily abstract, with xxx connections as appropriate. Is that how others also think about these classifications?
[CdM] Research indicates that it was one book, published in two parts.
Is the person female?
[Juxtapose] The person is male.
British or Irish author?
[jim] Neither British or Irish author.
Originally written in English?
Oedipus?
[jim] Not originally written in English.
[GLogin] Not Oedipus.
Begins with P?
[CdM] I concur
[Tuj] Not beginning with "P".
The Count of Monte Cristo?
You missed Dujon's "mariner" question, by the way.
[Dujon] The person was not a mariner.
[CdM] Not "The Count of Monte Cristo"
Hercules?
Written before 1800?
[FGZstar] Not Hercules.
[INJ] Yes, written before 1800.
Written before 1700?
Original question, I know. Though irach did say "published in two parts", and we can't go too much further back before "published" stops being a meaningful concept.
[jim] Yes, both parts first came out in print prior to 1700.
Don Quixote?
Just a wild stab at a windmill in the dark...
[jim] The baton...or lance in this case is passed to you...Don Quixote it is! The books Part I, El Ingenioso Hidalgo don Quijote de la Mancha and its sequel were published for Cervantes ten years apart, in 1604 and 1614 by publisher Francisco de Robles. Incidentally, Don Quixote was one of the first bestseller books for which pirated editions soon appeared in the marketplace. The fact that I considered Don Quixote as being a little more immortal than just famous for being a fictional character (in response to CdM's question) is that the personality trait adjective "quixotic" has also been derived from his name.
Takes lance with extreme caution
Thank you, thank you. Another result of the first book's being so popular was a rash of what you might call "unofficial sequels", of rather poor quality. The second book was written in part as a response to these.
I hope it's not considered too much bad form to guess like that straight after having a question answered. Actually, I couldn't think of any two-part foreign language books of that sort of antiquity, and was about to guess the Bible, although certain that wasn't it, just to eliminate the possibility, when another candidate suddenly struck me.

Anyway, I am now thinking of an ABSTRACT, with ANIMAL and VEGETABLE connections. Game on.

Is the animal human?
'En un lugar de La Mancha, de cuyo nombre no quiero recordarme...' - I've always liked that as an opening line - it's the 'no quiero' that gives it its interest.
[Animal human] In one connection, specifically yes. In another connection, yes, but not specifically so. In a sense, specifically no.
Does the answer contain a verb?
Is it a well known phrase or saying?
[Contains a verb] No verb.
[Well known phrase] No. That is, the name of the thing is certainly well known, and you might make a case for its being a phrase or saying, but the thing itself is not one.
Minotaur?
[Minotaur] No.
Character in a book?
[Character] No.
Does the human animal connection refer to a specific individual?
[Individual] The "specifically human" connection is to a specific individual human, yes.
Begins with P?
Ends with Y?
[Tuj] Pno.
[Gusset] Noy.
A general reference to an unspecified constituent of a group (e.g. 'one of the mob', 'a club member')?
[General reference] No. There's a sense in which the AOTC could be said to refer to a group of closely related entities, but it would usually be considered as a single specific thing.
Is the answer a mythical creature?
[Mythical creature] No.
Does the name of the human connection appear on the card?
Is the specific human a man?
[Name on card] No.
[Male human] Yes.
A leader?
Does the vegetable connection refer to a specific vegetable (such as a single identified tree, for example)?
[Leader] The person in question could certainly be considered a leader, but if you mean to ask if he is principally known as the leader of some group, nation, army etc., the answer is no.
[Specific vegetable] No.
I should clarify that when I say that the name of the human does not appear on the card, I mean precisely that. It would not be unnatural to describe the thing in terms of the person, but the name of the thing as I am envisaging it on the card does not contain the person's name.
IS it relating to a specific type of vegetable?
Is the human fictional?
[Specific type of vegetable] No.
[Fictional human] No.
Was the human involved in the invention or creation of the thing?
Was this thing invented?
(rather than, say, discovered)
[Human involved] Yes. Some murmurs of appreciation from the crowd
[Invented] I'm not sure "invented" is the right word, but it was more invented than discovered, although there is a strong connection to discovery.
Is the vegetable connection in regards to its shape?
[Shaped like a vegetable] No.
(In the sense that the thing can be said to have a shape, which is debatable.)
Was it "invented" in the last century?
(assuming that question makes sense)
[Last century] It did not come into being during the 20th century.
Are we broadly in the realm of science?
[Science] Yes. Audience applauds
Is the science in question astronomy?
Mathematical?
Newton's Law of Gravity?
[Astronomy] No.
[Mathematics] No.
[What goes up...] Nope.
Medical-related?
Biological Evolution related (a la Darwin?)
[Medical] No.
[Biological evolution] Yes. Cheers from the audience
Natural Selection?
Family tree?
[Natural selection] No, but there is a very strong connection. Audience are on the edges of their seats
[Family tree] No. Audience sit back again
The book title, "On the Origin of Species"
Yes! It is the book "On the Origin of Species", or to give it its full title, "On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", only that wouldn't fit on the card. Charles Darwin, of course, being the specific named human (not actually named on the card, but could have been); Darwin tactfully refrained from directly addressing human evolution in the book, hence the "specifically non-human" connection. Not that the book wasn't controversial enough anyway. One naturally selected baton goes over to irach.
Holy Galapagos! By the beard of the land iguana! Me again? The next one is quite simply ANIMAL.
Human?
(oblig)
[INJ] Not human.
Skippy the bush kangaroo?
Mammalian?
[jim] Not the aforementioned marsupial, or any other kangaroo.
[GL] Not mammalian.
A fish?
A monotreme?
[GL]Not a fish.
[Dujon] Not a montreme.
A blue-footed booby?
A Bird?
[CdM} Not a booby- blue-footed, or otherwise.
[FGZstar] Not a bird.
An insect?
A reptile?
Begins with P?
Arachnid?
[CdM] Yes, an insect. Audience raises collective antennae attentively...
[GL] Not a reptile.
[Juxtapose] Not an arachnid.
Is it found in New Zealand?
Was it ever hidden in New Zealand?
Is it a beetle?
Because that would really narrow it down. Also, why are you avoiding Tuj's question?
[Tuj] Does not begin with "P".
Yes, it is found in New Zealand.
[all] Hmmm... I don't really know.
[CdM] It is not a beetle.... (Mark...Antennae, no Coleoptera).
A weta?
A form of Stonefly?
[Juxtapose] Not a weta.
[Dujon] Not a stonefly.
Is it poisonous/venomous?
[CdM] Yes, it is poisonous.
A Fire Ant?
[FGZstar] Not a fire ant.
By poisonous, do you mean as in it will poison you if eaten, as opposed to venomous where it will bite you and poison you
[FGZstar] It will poison one if eaten.
Is it endemic only to New Zealand, or is it found in other countries?
[FGZstar] It is also found in other countries.
Is it a caterpillar?
[FGZstar] In one stage of its being it is a caterpillar, yes.
Would this be a butterfly that holds its wings flat when at rest?
If Duj would happen to be wrong, would it be a moth, such as the Hawthorn Caterpillar's moth (can't remember the name)?
[Dujon] Not that I know of.
[FGZstar] Not a moth.
Do the words on the card describe a butterfly?
[CdM] The words on the card refer to a specific butterrfly.
arrow_circle_down
Want to play? Online Crescenteering lives on at Discord