Would you folks please help settle a dissagreement

Question

0The challenge was put before us to create a proper english sentence which used the conjunction "and" in its conjunctive form five consecutive times without "stuttering".02br02br00The person posing the challenge eventually proposed the following solution;02br02br01font00I instructed them to place a 'double space' between the title words 'Poodles' and 'and', and 'and' and 'Peepholes'.02font02br02br02br02br00It is my contention that the word 'and' has only been used three times as a conjuction and that the two other 'and' s (the ones in quotes) are not conjunctions but rather nouns as they refer to the collection of letters that make up the word 'and' which are in fact being separated by the conjunctive use of the word 'and'.02br02br02br02br00Someone has to to settle this and your help will be appreciated.0-

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

0 01blockquote

00the word 'and' has only been used three times as a conjuction 12blockquote

10That's correct. The requirement for use as a 01u00conjunction02u00 and the requirement for 01u00consecutive02u00 use makes the problem unsolvable.02br
02br
00 CJ0-

Kooyeen · Answer

0 01blockquote

01cite10Anonymous12cite11font10I instructed them to place a 'double space' between the title words 'Poodles' and 'and', and 'and' and 'Peepholes'.12font12br
12blockquote

10Hi, 02br
00but you could also say that since the space is between 01u00title words02u00, the title you are considering is "Poodles and Peepholes". So, you could say that "and" is a conjunction in the title you are considering, but is not actually a conjunction in the sentence above. All of those "ands" are conjunctions, but not in that sentence. Two of them are used as conjunctions in the title discussed.02br
00Anyway, there wouldn't be any other solution apart from that, in my opinion. That's the only one that makes sense. 050010id1

Pandagirl · Answer

0Ha!  we hyad the same question on another forum a couple of years ago. It drove me nuts but yes the final answer is that the answer is correct.  The ands are ok and they are all conjunctions.  I remember there was a long argument about it.0-

PastorJ · Answer

0 This one is as old as the hills.  It resurfacees every year or so. (I think I first saw it in the Readers Digest about 10 years ago but then it was the Dog and Duck).  There is nothing wrong with using 5 ands together like that and they are all conjunctions because the conjunction between Dog and Duck is taken out of the name, and seen alone.  0-

Smarts · Answer

0The quoted 'ands' are the words being separated.02br
02br
00An interesting slant is that one could write the same thing in this way..02br
02br
00the 'and' and the 'and'.....02br
02br
00The quoted 'ands' cannot be conjunctions.0-

Clive · Answer

0Hi,02br
02br
00When faced with a puzzle like this, one approach is to try to challenge or re-interpret the ground rules or phrasing. If I try to argue this way, will anyone support me?02br
02br
00It seems to me that the word 'consecutive' is not always used to mean 'continuously', 'one directly after the other'.02br
02br
01font00There were five consecutive explosions02font00 does not mean they followed immediately after each other, but rather suggests that they were separated by intervals of approximately the same length. In that case, perhaps one could say 01font00'He bought milk 01i00and 02i00eggs 01i00and02i00 bread 01i00and02i00 cheese 01i00and 02i00soup01i00 and 02i00beer'?02font02br
02br
00What do you think?05002br
02br
00Best wishes, Clive010id1

CalifJim · Answer

0I think it's a great idea, mostly because I already thought of it myself! 05002br
00 So I certainly could buy that argument -- although you forgot the cake and the pie and the chocolate and the potato chips and ...02br
02br
00 CJ010id1

PastorJ · Answer

0Very good reasoning clive, and I have not heard it used in this argument before!02br
02br
00But I take consecutive to mean that things happen in succession, with nothing happening in between. I dont think that the time between happenings is important. For instance 5 members of the house of Windsor might reign England consecutively, although their reigns could be of different lengths and there could be different amounts of time between the death of one and the corronation of the next.0-

Word&amp;WayUSA · Answer

0Oh dear, I see the dreaded 'Big K' has been at work again! 02br
02br
00It's time wasted when you argue with him Smart and he's actually right this time.02br
02br
00I like your point, but when you say "the and", what you are really doing is shortening the phrase "the (word) and".02br
02br
00I don't think that 'and' can ever be anything except a conjunction.02br
02br
00Pastor.... are you 'SW' ? Why have we not found this page before ? (Quil)0-

Smarts · Answer

0I think that when we refer to the word "and" it (the word 'and') can't be conjunction. It becomes the object. 01u00The "tree"02u00 and 01u00the "and"02u00 seem to be the same in terms of grammatical structure.02br
02br
00I am prepared to be corrected of course.02br
02br
00BTW: I am the originator of this thread0-

Would you folks please help settle a dissagreement

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions