Sunday, September 05, 2021

NPR Sunday Puzzle (Sep 5, 2021): Who is it?

NPR Sunday Puzzle (Sep 5, 2021): Who is it?
Q: Name a famous person (8,4). The last name is a regular uncapitalized word with a single vowel. Change that vowel to make a new word that is humorously defined by the person's first name. Who is it?
I was going round and round on this one for awhile

Edit: Canines often go round and round before settling down to sleep. Also a hockey puck is round. The puzzle is similar to an NPR puzzle from May 18, 2008
A: WOLFGANG PUCK --> WOLF GANG = PACK

313 comments:

  1. Here's my standard reminder... don't post the answer or any hints that could lead directly to the answer (e.g. via a chain of thought, or an internet search) before the deadline of Thursday at 3pm ET. If you know the answer, click the link and submit it to NPR, but don't give it away here.

    You may provide indirect hints to the answer to show you know it, but make sure they don't give the answer away. You can openly discuss your hints and the answer after the Thursday deadline. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What comes to mind is Superbad = Hell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was, of course, thinking of Superbad Jonah Hill = Hell, Hello...

      Delete
  3. I have the following complaint about how this puzzle was worded: In The World Almanac And Book Of Facts 2021, in the section "Noted Personalities - Entertainment Personalities of the Present (pgs. 258-270), celebrities are listed by last name, first name. The ONLY ENTRY to be entirely lowercase is "lang, k.d."

    The puzzle should have been worded, "Ignoring case, the last name is spelled the same and sounds the same as a regular uncapitalized word with a single vowel." If the intended answer is to be found in that list, you'll find the first letter of both the last and first names to be uppercase along with all but that one of the other entries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What about e.e. cummings or bell hooks?

      But, I agree, not a "Sunday best" puzzle construction.

      Delete
  4. RIP Willard Scott

    A certain weather phrase might serve as a roundabout hint to this week's puzzle.

    ReplyDelete
  5. chung-hee park ? pork :-)
    if you say it fast it sounds like Chun King
    df not a TMI today

    ReplyDelete
  6. I guess it is not Derrick niederman?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Are both words, once the change to the vowel is made, spelled correctly? I have an answer where neither are, though both sound right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's no mention of sounds, unlike last week's puzzle.

      Delete
  8. A comment on last week's puzzle reminds me of the answer.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I still haven't solved it. Very few people seem to fit the 8/4, so I made my own variation on the puzzle this week: Snoop Dogg --> Digg --> to snoop, to dig(g) :D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. while thoroughly irrelevant, the snoop digg comment reminded me that former Rep., the late Charlie Diggs of Detroit was part of a family that owned the Diggs' Funeral Homes

      Delete
    2. Didn't they get investigated for being an underground operation?

      Delete
    3. Speaking of the departed. Can you name something stationary that may surround a cemetery? And then name something that you may see moving around inside a cemetery and they both may be referred to by a homophone. What are these two things and the homophone?

      Delete
    4. Yes, it was an Inter-nal Affairs investigation.

      Delete
    5. It turned out to be an open and shut case.

      Delete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Good morning, Blainesville stalwarts. It's a holiday weekend--it's time off from the puzzle for me as the wording seems too fuzzy and foggy. Perhaps the fog will lift later. . .

    ReplyDelete
  12. a goog search for famous person 8 and 4 found one name
    but fard is too obscure to b th answr

    ReplyDelete
  13. I agree that the wording is bogus; the last name can be *decapitalized* to become a regular word. You can change a different letter to get my opinion of this puzzle.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Another person famous for the same thing also has a one-vowel, dictionary word surname!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Taking a shower did it for me. I am underwhelmed by the answer. How about you, Blainesville regulars?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My definition of "humorously defined" varies greatly. More of a "huh."

      Delete

    2. In agreement with you, Word Woman, and for those who also might be interested:

      When I solved it, I did not have the “Aha” moment that signals a satisfying puzzle solution. Coincidentally, I had been considering the philosopher associated with the “Aha” moment, the one whose name is one of few that are 8,4 and whose theories I had in a former life taught, but I couldn’t make it work (and one aspect was, well, clearly not ready for prime time). At that point, I got it. But, I’m sorry to say, no “Aha” moment.

      Delete
    3. I kinda like this puzzle. "Informally defined" might be more appropriate than "humorously defined," but it's pretty clever anyway.

      Delete
    4. Lancek: The puzzle could be revised.

      Delete
  16. Julius Caesar, by William Shakespeare.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting -- I would have chosen a different play!

      Delete
    2. Okay, I thought I had a weird answer, perhaps an alternate answer, because I was underwhelmed by the wordplay. But reading Crito, above, I think I have the intended answer.

      Thank you, Crito. You are a good person.

      Delete
    3. Crito,
      If you are thinking of the play I believe you are, I saw the full version performed here in Seattle a few years ago, and it is so much better than the movie.

      Delete
    4. I just saw this play a month ago, outdoors, masked. It was a great production. I won't say where until Thursday.

      Delete
  17. Keep the original last name capitalized, think of a certain character to whom it might refer, then think of another name for that character. You'll probably begin to sing a celebratory song!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought of the same connections, but I stopped short of the song. BTW, thank you for reminding me last week of Hofstadter's book. I pulled it off the shelf and began re-reading it (after more years than I care toi remember).

      Delete
    2. No worries! It's an amazing book, and I haven't read it since high school...I'd like to think that I would get a lot more out of it now.

      I was going to mention a drag queen rather than the celebratory song, but figured that might be a tad niche :).

      Delete
    3. missed the original post. so I was uncertain whether it was Richard Hofstadter or Douglas Hofstadter. There is a connection between the two, paranoia. Richard H wrote of the paranoid style in American politics. Douglas of course wrote Goedel, Escher, Bach. Kurt G, famous logician, did of starvation as he was convinced someone was trying to poison him. If only he knew stochastic optimization. < but I have no idea what this puzzle's solution is>

      Delete
  18. Hm, I think I got it. I can definitely see a loose connection to last week's puzzle.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Think of an actor and an actress with similar sounding surnames. Put their first names together to name a fictional character. Please do not divulge your answer before the Thursday deadline.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This puzzle should be pretty easy for someone on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You will know when you discover the answer to the puzzle. Otherwise TMI. Is TMI a word?, he asked with a devious grin.

      Delete
    2. Not as easy as you suppose.

      Delete
    3. Depends on what "easy" means to you.

      Delete
    4. Paul, In this instance "someone" is singular, as it should always be.

      Delete
    5. I'm lost; give me an example of an erroneous plural usage of "someone".

      Delete
    6. Paul, I am very surprised you may not be aware that "someone" is not plural, but singular. So are anyone, anybody, everyone and others.

      Delete
    7. I can think of the pronouns they and them referring to someone.

      Delete
    8. They and them are plural and not to be used to refer to someone. But if ignorant persons continue, as they will, to destroy our well constructed language, then the rest of us will have to put up with it. It disgusts me. Data and media are plural, but try and find someone in those fields who appears to know this simple fact.

      Delete
    9. I'm very surprised you are unaware that I know "someone" is singular.
      Your move.

      Delete
    10. I am relieved. Perhaps I misunderstood your post. I still do not understand it.

      Delete
    11. Many people use the pronouns they and them to refer to someone, whether or not you like it. Taking the time to learn a person's pronouns is a key part of understanding the best way to communicate with my students. It matters a great deal to them.

      Delete
    12. Of course they do, and if you cater to that ignorance then you are not teaching, but facilitating the decline of our language. Singulars and plurals do not compliment each other. It doesn't get more basic than that.

      Delete
    13. And you can double that Wow here. Any you keep telling us you went to Smith. Don't they teach English there?

      Delete
    14. You know what (fellow children), I'm still waiting for an example of an erroneous plural usage of "someone".

      Delete
    15. Paul,
      What I was trying to get across is that in your post if it was to imply that anyone of us Blaine's bloggers was what you meant by "someone", then that was a plural that was probably not what you had in mind. The "someone" would have to refer to a particular blogger, rather than to any of us here.

      Delete
    16. Wow, that makes very little sense to me right now; give me some time to collect my thoughts.

      Delete
    17. You say you know "someone" is singular, which it is, but that means it cannot refer to all of us here, but only to one of us. Singular and plural do not belong together, no matter how butchered our language has become. I think you know this. WW, clearly does not. I hear on NPR all day long the hosts misuse our language, most often by mixing singular and plurals. How can our education system have deteriorated to such a low degree? I even hear this kind of garbage coming from prepared statements from former presidents, such as Barack Obama when he was still in office, and he went to Harvard. Saying you hear this all the time is not a defense for bad usage, but a capitulation. I am appalled by this, and I make no apologies.

      Delete
    18. Paul, your original point is taken.

      sdb, I am happy to provide a reference to Merriam-Webster.

      See especially 3a "They, their, them, themselves: English lacks a common-gender third person singular pronoun that can be used to refer to indefinite pronouns (such as everyone, anyone, someone). Writers and speakers have supplied this lack by using the plural pronouns.

      "and everyone to rest themselves betake" — William Shakespeare

      "I would have everybody marry if they can do it properly." — Jane Austen

      "it is too hideous for anyone in their senses to buy"— W. H. Auden

      And, of course, 3b, 3c, and 3d.

      Language changes. I'm ok with that.

      Delete
    19. ^^^See also "The use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of indefinite gender and indefinite number is well established in speech and writing, even in literary and formal contexts. In recent years, these pronouns have also been adopted by individuals whose gender identity is nonbinary, as illustrated in sense 3d above."

      Delete
    20. Thank you, Word Woman. I was waiting for you to articulately squash the bigotry.

      Delete
    21. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    22. I, too, decry the change in our language that has destroyed the natural and logical usage rules of number that were ordained by Someone. Even sdb is doing it, over and over again!

      Once and for all: "you" is plural, and cannot ever be used to refer to someone. Thou shouldst be ashamed of thyself.

      Delete
    23. Demi Lovato is now a they/ them. I am so confused.

      Delete
    24. Well, I seem to have ignited a firestorm. Two things: In my original post, I did mean that there was on this blog one person in particular I was thinking of that I thought should have an easy time with the puzzle. “Someone” in that context may very well have been equivocal. I probably should have worded the post somewhat less ambiguously. But more than that I could not say; it would have been TMI. And those who have already solved the puzzle probably know the person I’m referring to. As to this ongoing debate, I have little to add. Linguisitic change is inevitable. Some change is for the better (e.g., it might meet some perceived lack or need), but not all change is necessarily for the better. E.g., for my own bĂȘtes noires witness my objection to collapsing the useful distinction between “uninterested” and “disinterested,” my ongoing abhorrence of casual constructions like “between you and I” and “center around,” and even my dislike of “like” as a subordinating conjunction instead of “as”; may such solecisms and catachreses never become the acceptable standard, at least in formal writing. (Speech and rhetorical forms are another matter.) The pronominal problem is a thorny one. It’s part of a shift in the culture that recognizes more explicitly the humanity of those who are, in the parlance of the day, non-binary. We are in period of transition, and transitions can be difficult. (Just ask a woman who’s given birth about “transition.”) When I retired, a colleague who had retired a bit before me said that what finally got to her was technology; I told her what did me in was pronouns.

      Delete
    25. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    26. As for they/them, they've always felt themselves to be merely half a Lovato.

      Delete
    27. For those that dislike the usage of they/them as third person singular pronouns, what alternative do you suggest? I don't like the sound of using "it" to refer to a person. It makes them sound like an object, and I don't want to objectify them.

      Delete
    28. Hypocrisy is alive and well:

      "someone is not plural, but singular. So are anyone, anybody, everyone and others."

      "Singular and plural do not belong together."

      And, now to my favorite line. "ANYONE of us Blaine's bloggers"

      Delete
    29. During this long time of Covid, my home alone pronouns are "me, myself, and I", and after lengthy conversations with myself I become "we". Out in public my pronouns are "he, him, and his" Occasionally referred to as "Hey you." It is all good.

      Delete
  21. Thinking about this puzzle (which I have not yet solved) reminded me of the time I heard the Swiss computer scientist, Niklaus Wirth, who created the Pascal language, among other things, introduce himself. He said that Europeans tend to pronounce his name correctly, "Veert", while in the U.S., it tends to come out sounding like "Nickle-less Worth", so in Europe, he's call-by-name, while in America, he's call-by-value. (It's a computer science funny.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. jan, that was a long and clever way to go for that computer science funny--definitely veert it.

      Delete
    2. Heard him lecture a couple of times at Stanford, back in the day. His nikname was Klaus, not Nik, for what that's wirth.

      Delete
  22. Second name I thought of, thank God.
    pjbPointingOutThereIsNoClueHere

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Well, I"m not sure I have the answer, but I'm sending this in.
    Kal-El

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This led me to an answer that fits with the parameters of the puzzle (the 8,4 and one vowel thing), but I don’t think it’s the intended answer. I’m not sure this philosopher would be considered “famous” outside of academic and religious circles.

      Delete
    2. Harrison Furd? Never heard of him.

      Delete
  25. Salvador Deli has a ring too it, no?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suppose I should have written Salvador deli. Salvador's Deli is making me hungry.

      Delete
    2. Did Spongebob attend the Barnacle Ball?

      Delete
    3. I considered Dali. I saw him give a talk at columbia univ. Spoke in many languages in one sentence. Bizarre.

      Delete
  26. If you watch SportsCenter these nights, you will see the initials of this person appear many times on your screen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. perhaps not many times, the initials can be controversial, in some aspect.

      Delete
  27. Documentary hint:
    Re-watched Ken Burns country music segment 1968-1972 "Will the Circle Be Unbroken". Bob Dylan, Johnny Cash, Kris Kristofferson and so much more. Highly recommend.

    Spoiler alert: "Famous person" is not featured in this show. But watch it anyway. And correlate Blaine's hint with this one. Time well spent, regardless.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Took me a while to hunt down the answer. Like Blaine, I had to go round and round.

    ReplyDelete
  29. For some reason I have two email blocks this week.

    The clue seems to be what I heard on the show, but I still wonder if it should be: "Uncapitalized, the last name is a regular word with a single vowel."

    Even though I haven't solved it either way, it makes a difference.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is what Will meant. Don't get hung up on kd lang.

      Delete
  30. Finally got the answer! Once again, not the name the person was born with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Congrats, jan! I am sure you scoured lists from top to bottom.

      Delete
    2. I see what you did there.

      Delete
  31. L’Shana Tovah to everyone here who celebrates this holiday!

    ReplyDelete
  32. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When you figure it out, you'll know why this is TMI.

      Delete
    2. I got it! Now I can join the rest of the group.

      Delete
    3. Unicity as a method of reducing search space round 2
      In round I usd an xampl that was crtain not to b corrct. but som part of th illustration inadvrtntly touchd a puzl nrv. so I will us th xampl that dosn't us any of thos words. try ball bll bill boll and bull. linkd firstnam" Bnjamin targt; bill as in bnjamins =$ bnjamin ball bll boll and bull ar all found in goog so clarly non of ths ar th anwswr < and my eee ky is rally sticking>

      Delete
    4. according to internet: WDFC not rc'd 4 keyboards

      Delete
  33. I finally got it, but the answer I got seems pretty forced. The person is not famous enough to show on any of the lists of twelve-letter celebrities I consulted. I stop now! I wanted to use as my hint a joke I remember from _Mad_ sixty years ago (also attributed to that wit Bullwinkle J. Moose). It's a clever play on Shakespearean words that works in this case on two different levels, but, darn it, is TMI. More Thursday.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Name a famous person (8,4). The last name is a regular uncapitalized word with a single vowel. Change that vowel to create a new word with the same meaning.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Disregarding rappers, which I gladly do, I am afraid the idea of uncapitalized surnames is not working for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are misunderstanding the puzzle. The surname is not uncapitalized. It can be an uncapitalized word, but is not in the name of the person.

      Delete
    2. Clue: "The last name is a regular uncapitalized word with a single vowel."
      You: "The surname is not uncapitalized."

      Not my day, I guess.

      Delete
    3. I would suggest you forget the capitalization thing and consider it a red herring.

      Delete
    4. Take the example of Lucille Ball. The last name written uncapitalized is the word 'ball' with a single vowel.

      Delete
    5. Well said. But speaking of that skill, I think Will outfoxed himself this time in trying to be clear. I think he made it more ambiguous.

      Delete

    6. Yesterday morning, I posted:
      'The clue seems to be what I heard on the show, but I still wonder if it should be: "Uncapitalized, the last name is a regular word with a single vowel."'

      For some reason, none of the stalwart Shortz apologists here could bring themselves to say:
      "Yes, the Puzzlemaster screwed up the clue."
      I would like several more of the claimed solvers here to post:
      "The four letter surname in the answer is a properly capitalized word."
      Maybe WS himself could do so.

      Delete
    7. I think the puzzle was poorly written.

      Delete
    8. MJ,
      I think several here posted their displeasure with how the puzzle is worded. I have also hinted at that. We don't have to express our dislike of the puzzle presentations in the same manner as you do. I doubt anyone could read through the posts this week and not come away with the feeling that we are not happy with its presentation.

      Delete
    9. sdb: "I would suggest you forget the capitalization thing and consider it a red herring."
      Could there be such a thing as an unintentional red herring?

      Delete
    10. Exactly! It never should have been mentioned in the puzzle presentation in my most humble opinion.

      Delete
  36. Musical Clue: Alle Kleine Nacht Musik

    ReplyDelete
  37. Replies
    1. I wish I knew what you posted last night and this morning and deleted before I could read them.

      Delete
    2. Only one, Natasha? I would say there are about a dozen.

      Delete
    3. Natasha, rest assured. Whatever is written above has led me nowhere. I still haven't figured this annoyingly worded puzzle out.

      Delete
    4. SDB: Just wrote that I agreed with you about single and plural verb misuse. It is very disconcerting.

      Delete
    5. Natasha,
      Then why did you delete your posts? I would have enjoyed the support, but you keep deleting your posts. No one else does this. It demeans you. Thanks for the explanation, but please stop deleting your posts.

      Delete
    6. SDB: I did not understand wordsmith's reply to my post and thought it might be offensive so I removed it. I understand what you are saying though. I also said I had read MW dictionary about Them and they. I have found it difficult to refer to a person as it, they or them. Rules keep changing. I studied linguistics and have an idea about language and history of language. Still not clear on today's rules.

      Delete
    7. Lorenzo: I thought stating there were lots of TMI posts would be TMI, lol.

      Delete
    8. SDB: linguists predicted this change in language that is prevalent today. Suggestion: Read Edward Sapir's books.

      Delete
    9. Natasha,
      The dictionaries do not make the rules. They only report our usage. The rules are still the rules, and plurals do not go with singulars, but the majority of people are poorly educated and have the real power to damage the logic of English. It becomes even more disgusting when those who use language for their careers, such as news commentators on NPR, etc., butcher English. Apparently English is not being properly taught in our schools now.

      When I got out of the army in late 1966 I took some community college courses. One was taught by a fairly young Caucasian/American woman from Texas who had a masters degree, but spoke in this ignorant way, and all I could do was listen to her and wonder how she got a masters and did not learn proper English. That is the only thing I remember from her class. What a waste. I suggest Pygmalion a.k.a. My Fair Lady for further understanding why language usage matters.

      Delete
    10. SDB: I suggest you read this chapter from Edward Sapir book Language: Chapter VII: Language as a Historical Product: Drift
      (https://www.bartleby.com/186/7.html). Very important for you to follow up on this. I recalled this information today and it helps me understand what has happened the use of language today.

      Delete
    11. correction: what has happened to the use of language today.

      Delete
    12. Natasha,
      Thanks, I will check it out. In the meantime, JD just posted way up above on this subject. See if you find it as amusing as I do.

      Delete
    13. SDB: Lots of articles about indefinite pronouns. Do you have a reference. What is amusing about JD's post?

      Delete
    14. Natasha,
      I started the chapter, but want to go for a bike ride and will finish later, but in the meantime it reminds of this.

      When I was running a skydive business at the Buckeye, Arizona airport out in the desert, I hired a replacement pilot after having to fire one. He was from Ireland, here on a visa. Of course he had a strong Irish accent, but he was easily understood. One day he told me he had a friend who was a pilot from Ireland and was taking some kind of flight training at the airport and would be stopping by later that afternoon. He was telling me this because he said his friend's accent was so odd I would not be able to understand what he was saying. I said nothing, but was not at all convinced this would be the case. Later that day when I was introduced to his friend I fully understood why Eamon had cautioned me. I could not understand a word this guy spoke. It might just as well have been Greek.

      Delete
    15. His post proves my point. He completely misunderstands what he put in quotes. Apples and oranges.

      Delete
    16. I did not understand the post. No matter.

      Delete
    17. Sdb: perfect time for MY FAIR LADY. Starting soon in sf. Loved that musical. May go if safe.

      Delete
  38. Just before I reached my boiling point with this puzzle, I figured it out.

    ReplyDelete
  39. The famous person ought to endorse a line of products with initials that spell an interjection of relief or delight.

    LegoWhoThinksThisPuzzleIsCleverAndAllYetParadoxicallyItSomehowSeemsToLeaveHimCold

    ReplyDelete
  40. The person's last name reminds me of a sport

    ReplyDelete
  41. Finally cracked this in the wee hours of the morning, while not sleeping. Then I found a second answer, that is not as elegant.

    For the answer that I believe is the intended one, I can say with confidence that the last name of the individual has been said on more than one television channel, multiple times. ESPN would be one of the channels.

    For the second answer, I am sure that person's last name has also been said on ESPN multiple times, along with many other networks.

    ReplyDelete
  42. The author of Pygmalion, one George Bernard Shaw,
    Who was careful with number, and gender, and tenses,
    Would not suffer fools who mixed future and present.
    He wrote, in his work “Plays Pleasant and Unpleasant”,
    “It’s enough to drive anyone out of their senses”
    (which should force some pedants to bow, and withdraw).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am sure he used it incorrectly on purpose and was fully aware it is wrong. I sometimes do the same myself. I always cringe when I do, as I am certain he did.

      Delete
  43. Replies
    1. Anyone & their should be anyone & his. Anyone is singular and gender neutral, but their is plural and Shaw was apparently resorting to common gutter usage and probably had his reasons.

      Delete
    2. Yes, One's senses works too, but I do not know the context of the piece.

      Delete
    3. Your sentence ..was fully aware is wrong ..Did you mean was wrong?

      Delete
  44. Replies
    1. Natasha i hope you were not offended by my above message." Ah Satan sees Natasha." Had you see this before??

      Delete
    2. Plantsmith, I did not know what you meant. Thought you were not liking what I said.

      Delete
    3. Plantsmith, I did not know what you meant. Please explain if you can.

      Delete
    4. Able was I ere I saw Natasha!

      Legogel

      Delete
    5. Hi Natasha, that phrase is a palindrome...not an especially lovely one for someone with that moniker.

      Delete
    6. WW: I am not too clever I guess. Thank you so much. I doubt I would ever have understood that sentence. Now I feel stupid but relieved.

      Delete
    7. It ought not have taken this many comments to give you an answer. I did not know what it meant either until DDGing it. If it were a delightful phrase, we all might have heard it.

      Delete
  45. It is from a funny song that Cranberry listed on Puzzeleria this week called, " Bob" by Weird Al. Watch it if you dare.I had never heard it either.
    There are some other good ones there too Like ,Do geese see God? "

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Plantsmith:Now it all makes sense. Thanks. I felt so bad before. Now I can relax. I did not want to offend anyone.

      Delete
    2. I'm surprised you didn't know the name Natasha spells AH SATAN backwards. Hence the palindrome. No offense, just an odd coincidence.
      pjbSaysIt'sAsEasyAsPatCanSpellTapBackwards

      Delete
    3. Cranberry...Glad I did not know before. I might have before but repressed it.

      Delete
  46. Hello my puzzle friends. After two sleepless nights, I've got the answer! This is a rerun from earlier this century. Worded differently, but the same person and vowel change. Thanks for your hints and letting me part of the team.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am surprised it took this long for someone here to notice this. It apparently was coined by Will himself that time, but not this time. I find this interesting because a couple of years or so ago Will told us he remembers his creations, but not always other's.

      Delete
  47. I usually check Forgot this time. Wow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For fun, Natasha, you can always check the pronouns used in the original post. ;-)

      Delete
    2. And while that usage is incorrect, I would use it that way myself in order to not indicate the gender of the answer person. Of course, the proper male pronoun would be the proper method, and not reveal the gender either, as long as the reader understood that it was not indicating gender, but both male and female. Of course, with so many ignorant people as to this simple, and obvious, fact it was prudent to use incorrect pronouns. There are always exceptions to rules.

      Delete
    3. WW: Not sure what you mean. Please clarify. tks.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Natasha, please see the original phrasing of this puzzle from the first time it was presented.

      Delete
    6. "I would use it that way myself in order to not indicate the gender..." >>> Yes, indeed, this also
      works for non-binary folks.

      See also singular and plural used together in these 3 writings noted above and highlighted here; this is not something completely new:

      "it is too hideous for anyone in their senses to buy"— W. H. Auden

      "and everyone to rest themselves betake" — William Shakespeare

      "I would have everybody marry if they can do it properly." — Jane Austen

      Delete
    7. The simple, logical rule does not change because someone breaks it. It is still the rule.

      Delete
    8. But the fact that the greatest writers in the history of the English language think singular 'they' is perfectly grammatical is awfully strong evidence that it is, in fact, grammatical, and that it is thou who art mistaken.

      Singular 'they' is not, obviously, new at all -- it's been around at least since Chaucer! That's about as old as singular 'you'... thus the kernel of my joke. Recent usage, with a determinate antecedent of known gender, is quite new, but now completely established, and to some of us very welcome.

      Delete
    9. You may say they do, or did, if that makes you happy, but you are wrong. Great writers sometimes break the rules on rare occasion for some reason at the time. I do too.

      Delete
    10. Oh, well, I just said it's really good evidence.
      Whereas you have no evidence whatsoever.

      I guess if it's your unsupported judgment on the one hand, and the judgment of Shakespeare, Austen, Wilde, Shaw, Thackeray, Auden, Chaucer, Fielding, Byron, Swift, the translators of the King James Bible... Yeah, that doesn't seem like a close call.

      Delete
    11. And it does not prove you ridiculous point either.

      Delete
  48. Fauci quote tonight; "Three dosages is what should be required."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I had 3 shots/dosages of scotch tonight. Does that count?

      Delete
    2. NAAAH! There you are, wrong again. Have a good day.

      Delete
    3. Well, I do like a peaty single malt. But some folks have said "It's like drinking dirty socks!

      Delete
    4. I hope you don't hang out with people who know what dirty socks taste like.

      Delete
  49. Still clueless. Is this person alive?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dave, What kind of birds are on your profile picture?
      Can not answer your question, sorry.

      Delete
  50. Can not answer your question, sorry.

    Just kidding.

    I think they’re lorikeets. The photo was taken at the Pittsburgh Aviary several years ago. I’ll try to find out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Beautiful. Thanks. I have parakeets and a cockatiel 12 years old.
      Good luck with the puzzle. You can do it!

      Delete
  51. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Natasha i am sorry i revealed to you this unfortunate palindromic nature of your name. This is probably one of the most unfortunate namings i know of. But still Natasha is a beautiful name and i only am acquainted with one Natasha
    You. So i again apologise,
    It reminds me a little of my sister in law's birthday. Not a day she chose or probably few would chersh. -November , 23rd. The date of that fateful day in Dallas when things went sideways. Her birthday's are always a little somber.

    ReplyDelete