?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
06 Februar 2005 @ 12:01
'Nother 'nalogy  

The first one seemed to entertain some readers, so here's a new analogy:

Hint: .tnavelerri era sevilo ehT

 
 
Nuværende humør: quixoticwhimsical
 
 
 
R.ling_tso on 6. Februar, 2005 10:28 (UTC)
I'm quite sure this is not the answer you intended.
organization where machinists and aerospace workers act in conjunction : junction :: place where two walls of a log cabin meet : meat

Okay, I'll keep working on the real answer.
Q. Pheevrq_pheevr on 6. Februar, 2005 16:13 (UTC)
Re: I'm quite sure this is not the answer you intended.

Well, the last one is exactly what I had in mind. The other three....

Henrytahnan on 6. Februar, 2005 10:32 (UTC)
I don't know why it is that even knowing that the first three are "union : intersection :: dovetail : ...", I can't figure out what that fourth image is. (Well, it's "ham", but that's not the opposite, or the inverse, of "dovetail". Maybe it's Hawkhead brand ham?)
Q. Pheevrq_pheevr on 6. Februar, 2005 16:14 (UTC)

You've got the first two right, but your descriptions of the second pair are a little too specific.

wolfangel78 on 6. Februar, 2005 14:17 (UTC)
union:intersection::join:meet (with a spelling mistake)

Look! A use for formal semantics!
Q. Pheevrq_pheevr on 6. Februar, 2005 16:15 (UTC)

Ding! Ding! Ding!

p.s. - Spelling, shmelling; it's all about the sound.

wolfangel78 on 6. Februar, 2005 17:27 (UTC)
Schmelling, actually.
love, play & inquirytrochee on 6. Februar, 2005 15:02 (UTC)
well, I got the first two right away -- we're definitely playing the same word associations.

I'm still working on the second two.
Q. Pheevrq_pheevr on 6. Februar, 2005 16:19 (UTC)

The second pair are a little bit more obscure... but let us know when you've got them. (Yes, there was a very bad attempt at a hint lurking in that sentence.)

ateo on 6. Februar, 2005 22:56 (UTC)
Hmm, let's say we have two DAGs (or whatever else you prefer to think of... FSs, AVMs...). And we look for the most specific DAG that would....

OK, I'll stop there. Just tell me I got it.
Q. Pheevrq_pheevr on 7. Februar, 2005 06:49 (UTC)

I believe you have.

ateo on 7. Februar, 2005 18:54 (UTC)
Thought so. Playing fast and loose there with parts of speech, homonyms, etc., aren't you?
Q. Pheevrq_pheevr on 8. Februar, 2005 06:50 (UTC)

Oh, of course.