|
Post by Nalkarj on May 1, 2017 21:01:55 GMT
bin Laden's note to W: Hello Asshole I'm wrestling with the Peacock riddle. I keep finding myself saying, "I've got it! Wait. Got what?"By the way, Jervis, may I ask if you're at the same point that I am re: this riddle? That is, the first half of each line besides the first goes with the first half of the line after?
I wouldn't usually ask this kind of question, but I just cannot fathom anything more than that. Unless it's that the second half of each line attaches to the first half of the line after it? But that can't be it because the grammar's all off, and it makes no sense of the first and last line. Err...
|
|
|
Post by brimfin on May 1, 2017 21:51:21 GMT
Okay, here is my interpretation of Pete's riddle: At first glance, the poem looks insane. But I then noticed that some of the ends of the stanzas made sense if you put them with the beginning of the next line. So I shifted the ends of the stanzas to the next lines and the poem became the following:
I saw a comet with a fiery tail I saw a cloud drop down hail I saw a mighty oak tree with ivy circled round I saw a spider creep along the ground I saw the ocean swallow up a whale I saw a Venice glass full of ale I saw a well sixteen foot deep I saw their eyes full of their tears that weep I saw a house all in a flame of fire I saw the Sun as big as the Moon and higher I saw the man out in the midst of night I saw a peacock that saw this wondrous sight
Now there are two ways I can go with this, though they are similar.
One is that since I already made adjustments to the poem, I can make one more adjustment - change the last "saw" word to "was." Then the poem ends: I saw a peacock that was this wondrous sight.
To mean that means that the man looked at a strutting peacock and saw various things in it. For example, the peacock's feathers are full of things that look like eyes - hence the "eyes full of tears that weep." Some of the eyes resemble a comet with a tail, or a whale. Its many tendrils resemble a spider, etc. I don't know if I'm required to explain every line, but I think that is the gist of it. The poet is talking about seeing a peacock and all the wondrous sights within.
Now, if I'm not allowed to change the word "saw" to "was", I can say that he was looking at a peacock looking at another peacock; hence, that second peacock was the peacock who "saw this wondrous sight."
Is that correct? By the way, I didn't try salzmank's puzzle because I had heard a version of it years ago and already knew the answer. Pete's puzzle was one I had never encountered.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 1, 2017 22:05:32 GMT
Okay, here is my interpretation of Pete's riddle: At first glance, the poem looks insane. But I then noticed that some of the ends of the stanzas made sense if you put them with the beginning of the next line. So I shifted the ends of the stanzas to the next lines and the poem became the following:
I saw a comet with a fiery tail I saw a cloud drop down hail I saw a mighty oak tree with ivy circled round I saw a spider creep along the ground I saw the ocean swallow up a whale I saw a Venice glass full of ale I saw a well sixteen foot deep I saw their eyes full of their tears that weep I saw a house all in a flame of fire I saw the Sun as big as the Moon and higher I saw the man out in the midst of night I saw a peacock that saw this wondrous sight
Now there are two ways I can go with this, though they are similar.
One is that since I already made adjustments to the poem, I can make one more adjustment - change the last "saw" word to "was." Then the poem ends: I saw a peacock that was this wondrous sight.
To mean that means that the man looked at a strutting peacock and saw various things in it. For example, the peacock's feathers are full of things that look like eyes - hence the "eyes full of tears that weep." Some of the eyes resemble a comet with a tail, or a whale. Its many tendrils resemble a spider, etc. I don't know if I'm required to explain every line, but I think that is the gist of it. The poet is talking about seeing a peacock and all the wondrous sights within.
Now, if I'm not allowed to change the word "saw" to "was", I can say that he was looking at a peacock looking at another peacock; hence, that second peacock was the peacock who "saw this wondrous sight."
Is that correct? By the way, I didn't try salzmank's puzzle because I had heard a version of it years ago and already knew the answer. Pete's puzzle was one I had never encountered. brimfin, I too had considered the notion of changing saw to was, but I decided not to go with it because no other part of the puzzle would be reversed like that. I thought it would either be all backward or all forward (only one saw changes, but the rest stay the same?), though of course I could be wrong. I also noticed the "eyes" in a peacock's feathers, but I didn't think it all matched. I did not, in all truth, think of your second explanation of two peacocks.
|
|
|
Post by jervistetch on May 1, 2017 22:10:25 GMT
Did you peek at brimfin's solution, Salzmank? I will if you will.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 1, 2017 22:14:34 GMT
Yeah, I peeked. Go ahead and take a look! Much of our reasoning was the same, but I'm still confused.
|
|
Pete
Sophomore
@petermorris
Posts: 111
Likes: 30
|
Post by Pete on May 1, 2017 22:14:39 GMT
I suppose Pete 's solution was just a joke, then? I read it after I figured the solution out Western Australia is more or less upside-down with respect to the White House.
|
|
Pete
Sophomore
@petermorris
Posts: 111
Likes: 30
|
Post by Pete on May 1, 2017 22:27:49 GMT
Okay, here is my interpretation of Pete's riddle: At first glance, the poem looks insane. But I then noticed that some of the ends of the stanzas made sense if you put them with the beginning of the next line. So I shifted the ends of the stanzas to the next lines and the poem became the following:
I saw a comet with a fiery tail I saw a cloud drop down hail I saw a mighty oak tree with ivy circled round I saw a spider creep along the ground I saw the ocean swallow up a whale I saw a Venice glass full of ale I saw a well sixteen foot deep I saw their eyes full of their tears that weep I saw a house all in a flame of fire I saw the Sun as big as the Moon and higher I saw the man out in the midst of night I saw a peacock that saw this wondrous sight
Now there are two ways I can go with this, though they are similar.
One is that since I already made adjustments to the poem, I can make one more adjustment - change the last "saw" word to "was." Then the poem ends: I saw a peacock that was this wondrous sight.
To mean that means that the man looked at a strutting peacock and saw various things in it. For example, the peacock's feathers are full of things that look like eyes - hence the "eyes full of tears that weep." Some of the eyes resemble a comet with a tail, or a whale. Its many tendrils resemble a spider, etc. I don't know if I'm required to explain every line, but I think that is the gist of it. The poet is talking about seeing a peacock and all the wondrous sights within.
Now, if I'm not allowed to change the word "saw" to "was", I can say that he was looking at a peacock looking at another peacock; hence, that second peacock was the peacock who "saw this wondrous sight."
Is that correct? By the way, I didn't try salzmank's puzzle because I had heard a version of it years ago and already knew the answer. Pete's puzzle was one I had never encountered. Not quite correct, but you're getting pretty close. Here's a hint. Will you come back? Will, you come back!
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 1, 2017 23:20:14 GMT
Did you peek at brimfin's solution, Salzmank? I will if you will. Did you end up taking a look? What say you?
|
|
|
Post by jervistetch on May 2, 2017 0:31:17 GMT
I haven't peeked yet but I just started pouring wine so I'm sure that I'll buckle and cave sometime soon.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 2, 2017 1:37:48 GMT
I haven't peeked yet but I just started pouring wine so I'm sure that I'll buckle and cave sometime soon. Got it! Just let me know when/if you do.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 2, 2017 2:00:49 GMT
OK, folks, let's put our thinking caps back on. Pete said that it had something to do with comma, or at least punctuation, placement ("Will you come back? Will, you come back!"). So let's punctuate it halfway through each sentence, starting with a comma, as that's what Pete used. Going with the first sentence, let's try, "I saw a peacock, with a fiery tail," but, as we know, that wouldn't make much sense. So let's go with what brimfin and I both deduced, that part of one sentence goes with another, but adding in the comma. To wit, "I saw a comet, with a fiery tail." However, that's no different from what we had before. Now, we could switch it around, as I suggested before--in our case, "With a fiery tail, I saw a comet." I was considering that sort of thing until I realized that the grammar was all messed up. Also, I can't for the life of me figure out the first and last sentences. "I saw a peacock" makes sense as a complete sentence, but "...that saw this wondrous sight" is utterly nonsensical. The only solution I can conceive is that these are all, indeed, part of brimfin 's peacock. Any closer, Pete ?
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 2, 2017 14:32:48 GMT
OK, folks, let's put our thinking caps back on. Pete said that it had something to do with comma, or at least punctuation, placement ("Will you come back? Will, you come back!"). So let's punctuate it halfway through each sentence, starting with a comma, as that's what Pete used. Going with the first sentence, let's try, "I saw a peacock, with a fiery tail," but, as we know, that wouldn't make much sense. So let's go with what brimfin and I both deduced, that part of one sentence goes with another, but adding in the comma. To wit, "I saw a comet, with a fiery tail." However, that's no different from what we had before. Now, we could switch it around, as I suggested before--in our case, "With a fiery tail, I saw a comet." I was considering that sort of thing until I realized that the grammar was all messed up. Also, I can't for the life of me figure out the first and last sentences. "I saw a peacock" makes sense as a complete sentence, but "...that saw this wondrous sight" is utterly nonsensical. The only solution I can conceive is that these are all, indeed, part of brimfin 's peacock. Any closer, Pete ? Pete? jervistetch? brimfin? You there? How's my logic so far?
|
|
Pete
Sophomore
@petermorris
Posts: 111
Likes: 30
|
Post by Pete on May 2, 2017 14:39:52 GMT
A lot closer. You're nearly there.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 2, 2017 16:34:24 GMT
A lot closer. You're nearly there. Oy! "Close but no kewpie doll," as a friend would say... (Yes, a very ridiculous expression.) I'm trying to think of what I'm missing here. I suppose it has something to do with those first and last lines?
|
|
|
Post by brimfin on May 2, 2017 16:52:17 GMT
I might have it, or I might be way off base, but it'll have to wait until I get home. I can't do a spoiler from my phone.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 2, 2017 16:54:49 GMT
I might have it, or I might be way off base, but it'll have to wait until I get home. I can't do a spoiler from my phone. Frabjous day! Calooh, callay! Hey, if you don't want Lewis Carroll quotations every other post, look elsewhere...
|
|
Pete
Sophomore
@petermorris
Posts: 111
Likes: 30
|
Post by Pete on May 2, 2017 17:31:01 GMT
Oy! "Close but no kewpie doll," as a friend would say... (Yes, a very ridiculous expression.) It's a very sensible expression. It comes from carnival games where you might, for instance, hit the bullseye three times to win a prize. The phrase is what a carnival barker might say if you get two bullseyes and one near miss. In older times the prize was a cigar. Not so much these days.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 2, 2017 18:16:49 GMT
Oy! "Close but no kewpie doll," as a friend would say... (Yes, a very ridiculous expression.) It's a very sensible expression. It comes from carnival games where you might, for instance, hit the bullseye three times to win a prize. The phrase is what a carnival barker might say if you get two bullseyes and one near miss. In older times the prize was a cigar. Not so much these days. Well, yes, I do know what a kewpie doll is, Pete. I just meant that I've never heard anyone else say that. My friend was a schoolteacher who used to say, "Close but no cigar," until someone told the principal he was encouraging smoking by saying it (!), so he started saying "Close but no kewpie doll" instead. So, yes, probably sensible, but still silly.
|
|
|
Post by brimfin on May 2, 2017 21:38:08 GMT
Okay, here I go ready to soar or crash and burn: I am a mirror. As the peacock stands in front of me admiring his reflection I see all the symbols and images on his tail feathers, which I describe in the earlier stanzas. Finally, I say that I saw the peacock that saw this wondrous sight. I see him because he's standing in front of me admiring his reflection. He "saw this wondrous sight" because he was looking at his reflection in a mirror and saw the same things I saw, albeit backward of course. Is that the answer you seek? Because I think it's pretty darn good. But I worry about it because it wasn't really in line with the clue you gave me.
|
|
Pete
Sophomore
@petermorris
Posts: 111
Likes: 30
|
Post by Pete on May 2, 2017 22:29:35 GMT
Inventive, but no. Another hint?
|
|