• disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    101
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    The landlord of a pub called The Pig And Whistle asked a sign writer to make a new sign. When he saw it he thought that the words were too close together, so he said to the sign writer “I want more space between Pig and And and And and Whistle”.

    • BluesF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Inspired by the story, another landlord decides to name their pub “Pig and And and And and Whistle.” Lo and behold, the sign was cramped… Ther needed more space between Pig and and and and and And and And and and and and and And and And and and and and and Whistle.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 month ago

      I think you or they added two extra ands, because the pub isn’t “Pig And And Whistle.”

              • UmeU@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                I don’t believe that’s accurate.

                There are only two things in the list, pig & whistle.

                They want more space between pig and &.

                They also want more space between & and whistle.

                If we were listing three areas where they want additional space we would need at least one comma, and I would argue for the Oxford comma as well, however we are only listing two areas where we want more space and so no comma is needed.

                Sure it’s nearly unreadable, but I think the punctuation is correct.

                • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  If the same and is referred to twice then it should be a separate sentence clause requiring use of a comma. Since there is no comma there is no indication the and is the same both times.

                  Imagine saying “It was just me and dave and dave went driving” instead of “It was just me and dave, and dave went driving.” Yeah, maybe its the same dave, possibly readable, but its wrong.

            • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Ah see this one makes more sense but since it is a single sentence clause two of them are still redundant.

          • can@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            It is indeed a very convoluted way of making the requests. I would say more space between each word.

      • Signtist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Nah, it’s referring to the first space by grouping the first and second words, “Pig” and “And,” and then referring to the second space by grouping the second and third words, “And” and “Whistle.”

          • can@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            “The Pig And Whistle” asked a sign writer to make a new sign.

            I want more space between “Pig” and “And”

            and

            [more space between] “And” and “Whistle”

            • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 month ago

              Ovahea’s comment as I copy and paste is

              Pig and And and And and Whistle”.

              So if you remove the bonus ands, it becmes “Pig And And Whistle”.

              • can@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                But as someone else pointed out it’s the same “and”. The sign has three words on it. Between the words are spaces. How many spaces are there? What on either edge of each space?

                • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Okay I concede that it works, albeit it requires a comma, but it also works without the redundant ands

  • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    1 month ago

    You can create a sentence with an infinite number of “police”

    Who polices the Police?

    Police Police police Police.

    Who polices the Police Police?

    Police Police Police police Police Police.

    And so on…

  • AirBreather@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    James, while John had had “had”, had had “had had;” “had had” had had a greater effect on the teacher.

  • Purox@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 month ago

    In German the following is a completely valid sentence:

    Wenn hinter Fliegen Fliegen fliegen, fliegen Fliegen Fliegen nach.

    Which translates to when flies fly behind flies, then flies follow flies. The same works for seals:

    Wenn hinter Robben Robben Robben, robben Robben Robben nach.

    • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 month ago

      Some Hungarian prefixes can be piled on without limit, while still creating meaning.

      The word “úszni” means “to swim”.

      Úsztatni - to make someone or someone swim
      Úsztattatni - to make someone make someone swim
      Úsztattattattattattattattattattni - to make someone make someone make someone … make someone swim

      Can be done with any verb, and maybe some other suffixes as well.

        • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 month ago

          It’s basically a mishmash of Ancient Ugric, Turkish, German, Slavic and Romani words with grammar that is an eldritch monstrosity, nobody really knows where it came from, and it is seriously weird.

          There are only two real tenses, but nineteen cases and two different ways of doing imperative, which are kind of equivalent but carry cultural and tonal differences in certain contexts.

      • jorm1s@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Strangely enough, this works in Finnish too:

        Uida - to swim

        Uittaa - to make someone or something swim

        Uitattaa - to make someone make someone swim

        Uitattattattattattattattattattaa - to make someone make someone make someone … make someone swim

        It’s almost as if they are related languages or something.

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      English has Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo

      I don’t know what it means but I’ve been told it is indeed a full sentence.

    • mutter9355@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      The same works in Dutch:

      Als vliegen achter vliegen vliegen, vliegen vliegen vliegen achterna.

      Although my favourite form of that tongue twister is:

      Als vliegende vliegen achter vliegende vliegen vliegen, vliegen de vliegende vliegen vliegensvlug.

      When flying flies fly behind flying flies, the flying flies fly rapidly (“flying fast”).

      • Bob@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        You can say “fleetly” instead of “rapidly”. Actually “rapidly” sounds incorrect when describing flying.

  • BartyDeCanter@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    “That that” can and probably should be replaced with “that which” in almost every instance it is used.

    Edit: or “when that”

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 month ago

    It annoys me so much when I feel I need to write a sentence like that that I go to great lengths to restructure sentences to avoid it.

    …fuck

    • Prethoryn Overmind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      Your grammar and sanity are better for it. Actually, most cases I’m which a double that is used you can probably get away with a single that.

        • Jax@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          “It is true that that’s almost never necessary.”

          I can’t wrap my head around this, logically it’s still a ‘double that’ but the short form makes it palatable to read/say.

  • Rhaedas@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    “That that” spoken are two different sounding words so it makes sense. When it goes from verbal to written and I see it, I will almost always try to rephrase things to avoid that combo. It just jumps out as totally wrong.