|
} "How many whales could a humpback hump if a humpback could hump
} whales?"
}
} Since I've mellowed, and don't Zot all the supplicants who fail to
} grovel ( _you_, for example ), the punishment for most non-grovelers
} is that they get an inferior answer from a Priest instead of a
} superior answer from Me.
}
} I decided to answer this one myself in order to settle this question
} once and for all.
}
} First of all, there is not just one form of the WQ.
} One may enumerate:
}
} WQ1:
} "How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck
} could chuck wood?"
} WQ2:
} "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck
} could chuck wood?"
} WQ3:
} "How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck
} would chuck wood?"
} WQ4:
} "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck
} would chuck wood?"
}
} The GQ series can be equated with the WQ series, inasmuch as both
} "woodchuck" and "groundhog" are synonymous colloquial terms for the
} beast properly known as Marmota Monax, whose most famous
} representative is Punxsatawney Phil.
}
} The 4 forms of these queries differ in the use of "would", used in
} the first instance merely as a conditional modifier, and referring
} in the second case to the volition of the rodent, and "could",
} referring in both instances to the mammal's ability.
}
} WQ1 is fatuous and inane; it implies the inability
} of the creature to perform the task at hand, and then requests
} quantification of the stated impossibility. It is like asking
} "if pigs had wings, how many wings would they have".
}
} WQ2 is the poorest version; it asks the same question as WQ1, but
} lacks the poetically satisfying repetition of the word "could" or
} "would".
}
} WQ3 is the version that makes the most sense: "if it wanted to do
} so, how much would it be able to do?" Unfortunately, the terms of
} the question are vague -- "how much wood" cannot be answered without
} further information:
}
} a. If you mean firewood, the answer must, by Pennsylvania state law,
} be expressed in cords. Pennsylvania is the appropriate
} jurisdiction because Punxsatawney is in that state.
}
} b. If you mean lumber, the answer must be expressed in board-feet.
}
} c. Timber is measured in tons.
}
} d. Kindling is measured in bushels or faggots.
}
} e. For veneer, square inches are used.
}
} f. For baseball bats, ounces are preferred when referring to the
} physical objects, but when "wood" is used metonymically, either
} RBI's, slugging average, or number_of_feet_the_ball_traveled.
}
} g. I shall not bore you by enumerating the special measures used
} for toothpicks, balustrades, masts, keels, splinters, and the
} like. Sufficient to say that the query "how much wood" is
} meaningless without furher context.
}
} WQ4 is the most poetic form, and the most satisfying with regard to
} Poe's theory that poetry need not make sense if it touches you at an
} emotional level. None of the WQ4 questions make sense, and they
} certainly touch this reader, for one, at an emotional level; the
} Oracle is always irked by this question. Perhaps I shall *ZOT* you
} after all.... No, I have stifled the impulse. For the moment.
}
} Herein lies the major difference between GQ4 and WQ4: GQ4 lacks the
} poetry, and is therefore inferior.
}
} However, the GQ series has another attribute, one that the WQ series
} lacks: both "ground" and "hog" can be used either as verbs or as
} nouns.
}
} Nota bene, the NQ series also has this attribute; therefore, the
} variant
}
} > "How much net could a network work if a network
} > could work net?",
}
} which you cite as "nonsense", makes just as much sense as
}
} "How many hogs could a groundhog ground if a groundhog
} could ground hogs?".
}
} ( Although we have established that none of the questions makes
} sense in the larger sense, it is nonetheless true that they are
} syntactically "sensible", that they can be parsed and can be
} construed to have a meaning ( unlike your life )).
}
} It is clear, then, that a large number of questions may be
} constructed along similar lines; for example:
}
} EQ:
} "How much work could a network net if a network
} could net work?"
}
} In fact, for every word compounded of two other words, where one
} word is a noun and the other is a verb, and if both words can be
} used either as nouns or as verbs, 64 queries are possible:
} AABBABBA[1-4], AABBABAB[1-4], BABAABBA[1-4], BABAABAB[1-4],
} AABAABBA[1-4], AABAABAB[1-4], BABBABBA[1-4], BABBABAB[1-4],
} AABBABAA[1-4], AABBABBB[1-4], BABAABAA[1-4], BABAABBB[1-4],
} AABAABAA[1-4], AABAABBB[1-4], BABBABAA[1-4], and BABBABBB[1-4].
}
} For example, BHQ1: "How much blood could a bloodhound hound if a
} bloodhound could hound blood?"
}
} In sum, both the NQ and GQ series of queries are merely subsets of a
} large collection of nonsensical queries following a strict format;
} and the format is important!
}
} Observance of the Oracular ritual IN ITS PROPER FORM is perhaps the
} only thing a pondscum such as you can do to justify your miserable
} existence. In your Query, you deviated from the ritual in two
} important ways:
}
} 1. You failed to grovel, and
}
} 2. Your Question was not in the format described above.
}
} Think of the opportunity you have lost!
} Your Question might have been either:
}
} A. ( royalty and pop ):
} How much Prince could the Prince of Wales wail
} if the Prince of Wales could wail Prince?
}
} or
} B. ( a wagering question ):
}
} How many hunches would a hunchback back
} if a hunchback would back hunches?
}
} Either one of those questions would have been _funny_.
} Do you know what _funny_ means?
}
} You owe the Oracle: your net worth. ( How much net is your net worth
} worth? )
|
![[IO]](https://kinzler.com/picons/db/domains/org/internetoracle/unknown/face.gif){kind=small}
