Words with Multiple Meanings Pose a Special Challenge To Algorithms (theatlantic.com) 173
Sample this: Me: So that's the marshmallow but you're going to eat it with this graham cracker and chocolate.
[My son looks at me like I am the dumbest person alive.]
Sebastian: No, I'm going to eat it with my MOUTH.
[End of play.] That's from "S'MORES. A Real-Life One-Act Play", a conversation between Hamilton impresario Lin-Manuel Miranda which his young son Sebastian. In that brief interaction, young Sebastian Miranda inadvertently hit upon a kind of ambiguity that reveals a great deal about how people learn and process language -- and how we might teach computers to do the same.
The misinterpretation on which the s'mores story hinges is hiding in the humble preposition with. Imagine the many ways one could finish this sentence: I'm going to eat this marshmallow with ... If you're in the mood for s'mores, then "graham cracker and chocolate" is an appropriate object of the preposition with. But if you want to split the marshmallow with a friend, you could say you're going to eat it "with my buddy Charlie." The Atlantic elaborates: Somehow speakers of English master these many possible uses of the word with without anyone specifically spelling it out for them. At least that's the case for native speakers -- in a class for English as a foreign language, the teacher likely would tease apart these nuances. But what if you wanted to provide the same linguistic education to a machine?
As it happens, just days after Miranda sent his tweet, computational linguists presented a conference paper exploring exactly why such ambiguous language is challenging for a computer-based system to figure out. The researchers did so using an online game that serves as a handy introduction to some intriguing work currently being done in the field of natural language processing (NLP). The game, called Madly Ambiguous , was developed by the linguist Michael White and his colleagues at Ohio State University. In it, you are given a challenge: to stump a bot named Mr. Computer Head by filling the blank in the sentence Jane ate spaghetti with ____________. Then the computer tries to determine which kind of with you intended. Playful images drive the point home. [Editor's note: check the article for corresponding images.]
In the sentence Jane ate spaghetti with a fork, Mr. Computer Head should be able to figure out that the fork is a utensil, and not something that is eaten in addition to the spaghetti. Likewise, if the sentence is Jane ate spaghetti with meatballs, it should be obvious that meatballs are part of the dish, not an instrument for eating spaghetti.
[My son looks at me like I am the dumbest person alive.]
Sebastian: No, I'm going to eat it with my MOUTH.
[End of play.] That's from "S'MORES. A Real-Life One-Act Play", a conversation between Hamilton impresario Lin-Manuel Miranda which his young son Sebastian. In that brief interaction, young Sebastian Miranda inadvertently hit upon a kind of ambiguity that reveals a great deal about how people learn and process language -- and how we might teach computers to do the same.
The misinterpretation on which the s'mores story hinges is hiding in the humble preposition with. Imagine the many ways one could finish this sentence: I'm going to eat this marshmallow with ... If you're in the mood for s'mores, then "graham cracker and chocolate" is an appropriate object of the preposition with. But if you want to split the marshmallow with a friend, you could say you're going to eat it "with my buddy Charlie." The Atlantic elaborates: Somehow speakers of English master these many possible uses of the word with without anyone specifically spelling it out for them. At least that's the case for native speakers -- in a class for English as a foreign language, the teacher likely would tease apart these nuances. But what if you wanted to provide the same linguistic education to a machine?
As it happens, just days after Miranda sent his tweet, computational linguists presented a conference paper exploring exactly why such ambiguous language is challenging for a computer-based system to figure out. The researchers did so using an online game that serves as a handy introduction to some intriguing work currently being done in the field of natural language processing (NLP). The game, called Madly Ambiguous , was developed by the linguist Michael White and his colleagues at Ohio State University. In it, you are given a challenge: to stump a bot named Mr. Computer Head by filling the blank in the sentence Jane ate spaghetti with ____________. Then the computer tries to determine which kind of with you intended. Playful images drive the point home. [Editor's note: check the article for corresponding images.]
In the sentence Jane ate spaghetti with a fork, Mr. Computer Head should be able to figure out that the fork is a utensil, and not something that is eaten in addition to the spaghetti. Likewise, if the sentence is Jane ate spaghetti with meatballs, it should be obvious that meatballs are part of the dish, not an instrument for eating spaghetti.
Learn Lojban today! (Score:2)
Want a context-free language, easily parseable, with plenty of computer-driven tooling, without this irritating English ambiguity? Lojban is learnable today: https://mw.lojban.org/papri/la... [lojban.org]
In all seriousness, it is mind-blowing to me that our tribe of computer scientists continue to expend so much effort deriving meaning from English utterances. If we only wanted to encode meaning in a computer-manageable way, we could have been doing it decades ago.
Re:Learn Lojban today! (Score:4, Insightful)
Want a context-free language, easily parseable, with plenty of computer-driven tooling, without this irritating English ambiguity?
Sure, but I also want to be able to converse with people on the street. Since statistically nobody speaks lojban there is no sense in learning it. If I were going to spend effort learning another language, it would be one people actually use.
Re: (Score:3)
Geez, what's with other languages having words/nouns "male" and "female" for things....with no rhyme or reason.
I've tried to figure that out for decades and it makes no fucking sense.
Now that today, somehow we have > 2 genders [rolls eyes], are those languages changing that, or making a telephone gender neutral?
Re: (Score:1)
Geez, what's with other languages having words/nouns "male" and "female" for things....with no rhyme or reason.
In Spanish, a car is male, a bus is female, and a Volkswagen is LGBTQ.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Latin use of possessive pronouns provides less information than the Germanic use. Nobody in his right mind questions the gender of the daughter (or cares about the gender of a spoon), but they might be very interested in the gender of the person who says it. The only time gender is of any use is when two identical words have different meanings according to the gender ("le tour" and "la tour"), and those represent what? 0.05% of all nouns?
Re: (Score:2)
Grammatical gender is trivial for computers, even in languages with > 2 genders. German, for example, has masculine, feminine and neuter. Swahili (like other Bantu languages) has more than a dozen noun classes, which are similar to genders. And trivial for computers, because computers memorize easily. What they don't do is relate words to the real world, and that's why ambiguity hurts them more than it does us.
Re: (Score:2)
They think English is hard...??
Geez, what's with other languages having words/nouns "male" and "female" for things....with no rhyme or reason.
I've tried to figure that out for decades and it makes no fucking sense.
Now that today, somehow we have > 2 genders [rolls eyes], are those languages changing that, or making a telephone gender neutral?
But that's not a cause of ambiguity. "La table" is a table. Your computer just needs to learn the gender of a word. It's pointless, but not ambiguous. You don't use "la table" sometimes and "le table" at other times.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that all conjugations are pointless but you're picking on the wrong guy. You cherry-picked the verb "to be". All other English verbs have at most 4 possible inflections (drink, drinking, drank, drunk). And "to be" still has only seven inflections compared with 10^100 in Spanish.
Re: (Score:2)
Replying to myself: sorry five possible inflections with the 3rd person singular (drinks).
Re:Learn Lojban today! (Score:4, Insightful)
Computer scientists focus on this because it highlights a really interesting difference between how our brains represent information and how computers do. The reality is human minds have no problem holding onto a word or phrase in a state of semantic superposition. For instance, if someone tells you to "turn left at the bronze rooster", you will keep an eye out for a business with that name, or an actual bronze statue of a rooster. Computers don't have this ability, to declare
Int x = 54 or 75 or 23;
Intuitively, and the ability to do so seems to give our minds a lot of unique powers.
Re: Learn Lojban today! (Score:3, Insightful)
Cyc (Score:2)
Cyc [wikipedia.org] has been working on this for quite a while and actually has products available.
Another example of the challenges:
She saw the bicycle in the window and wanted it.
What did she want? The window or the bike?
Re: (Score:2)
Because if you look at it, without further context, this is also ambiguous for humans, we just expect it to be the bike, but it could actually be the window she wants.
Same with the sentence "Batman hits the villain with a wrench"
Re: (Score:2)
The generally open way is to spawn an independent process for each known interpretation of an unclear term, then evaluate the conclusions of each thread at the end. If no expected value forms a coherent result, or more than one value forms a coherent result, use some form of requesting clarification.
If you have some reasonable constraints, this can be faked with array evaluations instead of individual variable evaluations. I think there is some fairly standard method of "bounded algebra" that works by retaining the calculated and upper and lower certainty range at each step, expand that concept and you can state Int x= [54,74,23]; with answers for each at the end of the function.
Informative AC.
And this is the mechanical approach for most of what we call "AI" these days: take a vector representing the input, do some linear algebra, normalize, do some more matrix multiplication, normalize, rinse, repeat, until you get an output vector representing the probability of each interpretation. Then adjust the weightings in your matrices based on whether you guessed right.
Re: Learn Lojban today! (Score:3)
One thing I notice is that our brains don't seem to rely on this type of *explicit* enumeration. Assume it is a statue, and imagine the trillions and trillions of possible permutations, each a different size, pose, or with one different feather from the last, that you would still recognize as a rooster. We don't hold all those in our brain at once. The only thing I've seen in CS like it is with quantum computers, where you've prepared a state with a million different outcomes, from an original uncorrelated
Re: (Score:2)
One thing I notice is that our brains don't seem to rely on this type of *explicit* enumeration. Assume it is a statue, and imagine the trillions and trillions of possible permutations, each a different size, pose, or with one different feather from the last, that you would still recognize as a rooster. We don't hold all those in our brain at once. The only thing I've seen in CS like it is with quantum computers,
Yolo 9000 can recognize thousands of different objects in near-realtime on a raspberry pi (or in effectively realtime, 30 fps, on a fast machine with a titan x.) Pattern recognition is something our brain does well, but computers are getting to the point where they can do it cheaply.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
There's an XKCD for this https://xkcd.com/191/
Other languages (Score:2)
In Japanese, the "with" meaning "using this tool" would be the particle "de". "with" meaning "together" would be the particle "to", but without further elaboration, there's still ambiguity between "eat two ingredients together" and "two participants eat together" depending on how the sentence got constructed. Who knows an actual language people use that makes this completely unambiguous?
Re: Other languages (Score:1)
These two people can be on the same side in WWII (Score:1)
These two people can be on the same side in WWII:
"I'm going to fight with the Allies."
"I'm going to fight with Hitler."
Re: (Score:2)
that was the point. This illustrates that for fighting, "with X" can mean who you're allied to or who you're opposing (admittedly, the opposition form is less common than "against" or no word at all "I'm fighting Hitler").
I'm fighting with my wife (Score:2)
An example for clarity:
Bob: What's wrong?
Steve: I'm fighting with my wife.
Dative, and no there is no ambiguity (Score:5, Interesting)
THis really isn't that complicated. It's not that words have two meaning but there are different cases. In many languages there is a dative suffix for words taking a supporting roll. I threw the ball out the window. case endings can cleanly separate subject (I), direct object (ball) and participating clause object (window). IN english we lack a dative suffix on most words. So we have helper words and word orders to tell us which are the dative.
In the case of all the examples give, "with" here is just saying the object named participated. "fork, meatball, Buddy". It doesn't say how it participated. That is completely not the content of the sentence.
the point I'm making is that the sentence scans identically. It's not ambiguous. It's exact. It's entirely possible that I ground up my buddy to make meatballs out of him and that I actually like eating small forks. That information is not intended to be present. It would come from external context. The senstence is not ambiguous.
Re: (Score:2)
"supporting roll.'
lol
Dative, and no there is no model. (Score:1)
Context comes from our knowledge about those objects. We know a great deal about utensils. We know about what's food and what isn't based upon both what we've eaten in the past, as well as what society mores allow. It's one of the reasons the first delving into AI consisted in codifying a lot of human knowledge into a idiot savant, but brittle outside it's sphere of knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
See this for how hard English is. Funny, but fits the topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
And don't get me started on the word "FUCK", which is just about every word type in English: Noun, Verb, Adverb, Adjective, Exclamation, point of emphasis ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And being quite so promiscuous, FUCK can be treated as a hairy wart—commanding attention without in any way being instrumental—in just about every sentence more elaborate than "See Jack fuck Jill."
Re: (Score:2)
The F word is just a synonym for smurf. It is the easiest word to use, in any language.
Re: (Score:1)
The fact that may have you ground up your buddy to make meatballs and put them in your spaghetti or that you may eat your spaghetti in his presence is precisely what makes the sentence ambiguous. In other words, it is ambiguous because you cannot tell the meaning of the sentence without external context.
dom
Re: (Score:2)
the point I'm making is that the sentence scans identically.
Actually, the sentence can be diagrammed three different ways. In a breadth-first search of solution space, all three solutions will be found and considered. Another search layer will then take each possibility and attempt to solve it, given some deeper world knowledge. The probabilities assigned to the diagrams asserting that you served pasta with a helping of fork or your buddy will come out pretty low. Meatballs would result in this particular graph winning.
Since breadth first searches can be pretty exp
Re: (Score:2)
That information is not intended to be present. It would come from external context.
Well that's what language is all about, I can understand what you wrote because we have a common understanding of English. And that extends to expressions, euphemisms, allegories, slang, sarcastic and ironic usage that can't be taken literally or deconstructed into simpler terms. If "I had spaghetti and meatballs for dinner" means you ate them and that's the meaning most everybody agree on then you can quibble all you want about "to have" not implying "to eat", but that's just your opinion of how it should
Re: (Score:3)
Jane ate spaghetti with relish.
This is where external context has to be considered. tone of voice, preceding or supporting sentences, visual cues. Teaching this to a machine is hard, because as human understanding, we can process this as an ambiguity and proceed through the information and fill in the awareness of context later or discard it as unnecessary information or even sometimes we simply carry the dual context forward.
Hannibal Lector invited his neighbors over for dinner.
Re: (Score:2)
The English language is VERY complex, and the additional rules governing its basic means of communication (governing its representations, and what the individual combinations are) can be somewhat arbitrary.
There are over 100 basic concepts in its functional taxonomic hierarchy, and a large number of manners of syntactic use that are caused by them, MOST of which are NOT RECOGNISED FOR WHAT THEY ARE AT THIS TIME, and for a good reason, which is what I'm working on atm..
Did you not realize there's a spec [amazon.com] for the English language? Sure, it's not a normative spec, since there's no governing body (unlike French), but every rule and every exception to every rule is listed in detail.
Re: (Score:2)
Do they have a companion volume for American?
Re: (Score:2)
Doh! you are right. Been too long for me since Latin class.
Re: (Score:2)
This also means that most puns and jokes based on word ambiguity do not work in Russian, which make it a bad language to tell jokes.
Duh, what about the legendary "in Soviet Russia Party jokes" which I have seen in countless variations over the years on slashdot?
Magazines (Score:3)
Me: Your new magazine you got from your grandmother for your birthday came in the mail. Do you want to read it tonight for bedtime?
4yo: [Confused] Magazines aren't for reading.
Me: What are they for?
4yo: [Stated with an tone of obviousness] Magazines are for cutting.
[End scene]
Re: (Score:2)
No point to that. I just would like to see more conversations with children misunderstanding some seemingly basic concepts in dialogue form here.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought magazines were for holding ammunition. How they cut, I'm not sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything cuts. Use more force.
Re: (Score:2)
4yo: [Stated with an tone of obviousness] Magazines are for cutting.
That makes sense to anyone who's done a collage. Getting information from paper is pretty awful; you can't even do a simple substring search without executing it manually. But it can be a nice source of art materials, especially when stuffed with advertisements designed to wrest your attention away from whatever actual content was put in there to attempt to justify it.
Re: (Score:1)
Ambiguity (Score:3, Insightful)
Time flies like an arrow
Fruit flies like a banana.
Re: (Score:2)
These problems are almost as old as AI itself, nearly half a century old, and we haven't made any real improvement in solving them.
Re: Ambiguity (Score:2)
There's not enough data to establish context.
We need a linguistic Enhance button, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
These problems are almost as old as AI itself, nearly half a century old, and we haven't made any real improvement in solving them.
If by that you mean "as old as men trying to talk to women" , which is MUCH older than AI, then yes,I'd agree with you.
Spoiler alert:
They guy was wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
We won the Lottery! ... Why are you excited? *WE* won the lottery. You didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Time flies like an arrow
Fruit flies like a banana.
There is no ambiguity there. Both sentences' meanings are perfectly clear. Their juxtaposition is amusing, but the question of whether an AI can appreciate jokes is a totally different issue.
Welcome to the AI winter again (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Maybe some Seeding Intelligence https://www.wired.com/1997/07/... [wired.com]
"...program only basic behaviors into the device, give it a way to experience sensory perception, and allow it to learn from experience.. "
reductio ad absurdum (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
`I see nobody on the road,' said Alice.
`I only wish I had such eyes,' the King remarked in a fretful tone. `To be able to see Nobody! And at that distance, too! Why, it's as much as I can do to see real people, by this light!'
Yummy in her tummy (Score:2)
jane ate spaghetti with dick.
Now .. what does that mean?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't really that hard though, it only needs a big enough database of idioms.
Almost everything people think of the computers are bad at because nobody is doing the legwork, instead they're trying to cheat with big datacenters and "AI" algorithms. What they need is a big team of linguists to catalog more.
Not only that, but a system that attempts to track state should be able to tell from the context that there would be other references to Jane's poverty or money problems. Otherwise, nobody cares if it get
This was settled 30 years ago (Score:1)
Take a look at it and give yourself a treat.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also the apocryphal story in which one of the earliest Machine Translation systems translated English to Russian and, as an evaluation, translated the Russian result back into English. Input: "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." (= Matthew 26:41) The supposed output: "The vodka is good, but the meat is rotten." Although this never happened, it does illustrate that ambiguity has been known as a problem for computers for many decades.
What (Score:2)
the fuck did I just read?
Context context context (Score:2)
But context gets complicated, quickly. And when things get too complicated, managers and grad students retreat to their happy places. End of AI story.
Re: (Score:2)
If they'd just transfer the expert systems out of AI and into one of the programming majors then it would get done really quick.
fuck that shit. (Score:2, Insightful)
If that shit can't figure the fuck I mean, then shit's on them, so fuck 'em! Fuck those fucking fuckers because no fucks given for that shit. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Hello Captain Obvious! (Score:1)
I've always thought that if you know code and/or other artificial languages the next real challenge is trying to use it to decipher human natural languages. A person learns really quickly the huge amounts of strange quirks and mental leaps we humans have to make just to communicate somewhat rationally. When we actively choose to do so anyway.
There's even whole other worlds of artificially structured "semi-natural" languages used to define things further to prevent and/or promote misunderstanding. An incompl
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't read old Perl, just give up. ;)
Sarcasm? (Score:2)
Oh Reaaallly??
Next, you're going to tell me they have trouble with sarcasm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily online sarcasm was deprecated in 1986, so they only have to parse that when doing books.
Commas save lives (Score:2)
Let's eat Grandma
Hmm...I think this is where things went wrong with Skynet, someone left out the comma!
Re: (Score:2)
Let's eat, Grandma.
Let's eat Grandma.
Hmm...I think this is where things went wrong with Skynet, someone left out the comma!
A panda walks into a café. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and proceeds to fire it at the other patrons.
"Why?" asks the confused, surviving waiter amidst the carnage, as the panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.
"Well, I'm a panda," he says. "Look it up."
The waiter turns to the relevant entry in the manual and, sure enough, finds an explanation. "Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I like the traffic sign "Slow children at play".
Oh yes! There are several such signs in my area. I always get a kick out of those.
Re: (Score:2)
Watch out, the parents are slow too.
Re: (Score:2)
I helped my uncle Jack off a horse.
I helped my uncle jack off a horse.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's eat, Grandma.
Let's eat Grandma
Hmm...I think this is where things went wrong with Skynet, someone left out the comma!
Could be worse. Have you ever helped your uncle Jack off a horse?
"Speakers of English" my ass (Score:3)
Ambiguity exists in all natural languages, and in many forms.
Natural Languages Overlap Contexts to Resolve (Score:2)
We overlap contexts to resolve ambiguities. One could think of English's object orientation like this (with comments to the right of each line):
a dog sat in the yard. // instantiate class "dog" // assign "hair" attribute of the last instantiated instance of the "dog" class // instantiate class dog // refers to the last dog instantiated. // refers to the last dog with the aforementioned brown hair attribut
The dog's hair is brown.
a dog is running down the road.
The dog is fast.
The dog with brown hair is slow.
Re: (Score:2)
Ambiguity exists in all natural languages, and in many forms.
However only English has refined it to a weapons grade.
When most English speakers cant handle words with esoteric or odd meanings, I dont expect AI to.
Query (Score:2)
When humans find the contextual reference vague or ambiguous they usually query for more information. Can't machines do this as well?
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is trying to program computers to do this stuff, so nobody is there to program them to do it.
They just use AI algorithms that put code in a blender, and tests chunks to see if something didn't fail, and eventually they can "train" it to do some simple task. Except they're not "training" anything, they're just establishing the success conditions. So they have a hard time intentionally teaching it a nuance to a trick; they don't even know what tricks it is using!
Eventually some humans will write some c
Re: (Score:2)
I Am Developer (Score:2)
I couldn't have said it better myself! https://twitter.com/iamdevlope... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Word Sense Disambiguation (Score:2)
This is known as word sense disambiguation - there are a number of ways to do so. Training systems for disambiguation is more resource intensive, and in many use cases provides little gain, so most don't bother.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
My Moringa Agent Engine Uses Cascading Contexts (Score:2)
The main context is called "general", akin to "void main( argc, argv)" (in C/C++). Each context consists of a sequence of recognizers (patterns for recognizing user statements), organized from longest (number of pertinent words) to shortest. For example, in MorgaScript (I think (and hope) any programmer could figure out how this works by looking at it):
Context "general"
Synonyms yes: yep, yeah, sure
Synonyms no: nope, nah, no way
Group personName: "Jane", "Joe", "
A challenge, but not impossible... (Score:2)
Welcome back to the 60s (Score:2)
Ironic misuse of "with" (Score:1)
That's from "S'MORES. A Real-Life One-Act Play", a conversation between Hamilton impresario Lin-Manuel Miranda which his young son Sebastian
Surely the word "with" should have been used instead of "which" in that sentence.
Let me make it smooth (Score:1)
When Kiddo was 2 or 3 years old he was using his plastic dinos to make dino tracks in Silly Putty. Eventually he made so many tracks that the Silly Putty was nothing but a bunch of marks. I wanted to make some fresh tracks with a different dino so I said
"Here, let me make it smooth" and I rolled it between my two palms making it into a smooth ball and I showed it to him
"Can I have the smooth?" he asked.
I smiled because he took the word smooth to describe the shape of it, not the texture of it.
This just seems like a context thing (Score:2)
For instance if you say Jane ate spaghetti with veramissimo no one knows what you're talking about until you know whether that's an herb, an adjective, or a utensil
What aoubt this one (Score:2)
A ship shipping ship, shipping shipping ships [fleetmon.com].
Re: (Score:2)
You can try it out on a few natural language sentence diagram applications e.g. http://www.link.cs.cmu.edu/cgi... [cmu.edu] (though that server seems to be unresponsive at the moment.)
Here's one that hits many of the words listed here [wordnik.com].
give or take point get set and mark go for good line plays make the dead run a light roll
/. would stump it (Score:2)
I'll eat spaghetti with hot grits in my pants.
Why should NLP remain sane?
Tricky humans (Score:1)
"Use context? Sorry Dave, I don't know how."
Chicken (Score:2)
I will leave you with some chicken https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com].
Buffalo (Score:1)
Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo.
Similar sentences exist in other languages.
German: Die Männer, die vor dem Schokoladenladen Laden laden, laden Ladenmädchen zum Tanzen ein, meaning "The men, who loaded chests in front of the chocolate shop, asked shop girls for a dance".
Or Wenn hinter Fliegen Fliegen fliegen, fliegen Fliegen Fliegen nach, meaning "When flies fly behind flies, flies fly after flies".
Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian: Bar barbarbarbarbar bar bar barbarbarbarbar,
Re: (Score:2)
"The misinterpretation on which the s'mores story hinges is hiding in the humble preposition with."
In this case "with" acts as a noun -- the word "with" and not a preposition.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]