|
I know thee/thou/etc. were the second-person singular back when "you" was only plural, and trying to fiddle with what sounds natural in my head I think it's nominative case? So you'd use it when a singular person, to whom you are speaking, is the subject of a sentence. Alternately, yeah, when being a pretentious squink.
|
#
¿
May 30, 2018 00:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 01:56 |
|
|
nweismuller posted:All right. One and only one of A and C will be using the lance. If A is using the lance, B is using the bow. However, B and C will not use the bow at the same time. This means A is using a bow and C is using a lance. The one hunter whose weapon is undefined is B, who, as far as we have been told, could use either. (He'd only use a bow if A used a lance, but A will never use a lance, so.) This means the only possible answer is Baudoin. Agreed. Laid out a bit more step-by-step (though the logic is the same really): 1. if A uses lance, B uses bow 2. exactly one of A and C uses lance at any given time 3. B and C never both use bow 4. A can never use lance (if A uses lance, then B uses bow per 1 and C uses bow per 2, thus contradicting 3) Thus, A always uses bow 5. Combining 2 and 4 means C always uses lance 6. B can use whichever weapon he wants at any time (only 1 and 3 place restrictions on B and both are contingent on weapons A and C can never use)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
I do feel like it's interesting that everyone who's answered so far (myself included) has arrived at the same answer but all sort of worked it out in a different order? A: A!=T, D=T B: B=W, C=F C: two F D: two W A must be W (T would always claim T, F would never claim "not T" (though could claim to be specifically W)); first statement is thus true so second false, thus D is not T If B's first statement is true, then B is W, then C must be T (statements must be T/F so C isn't F, and we know there's no more than two of any tribe so C can't also be W), but if C is T then there's two F so B can't be W: contradiction If B's first statement is false, then B is not W, and thus B must be F One of C and D must be false, as they are in conflict with the statement that only one tribe has two present. But if D is true, the two W must be himself and A (as A established D is not T); this means C is T and always speaks truth. Thus C is T and this makes D F. A=W, B=F, C=T, D=F
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
The pairs listed as being the same race/job have to belong to the one with three, otherwise there's not a spot left for either one in the pair listed as different. Thus Saladin and Barbarossa are both Atarri, Tamburlane and Jenghiz are both merchants, and Attila is the only one who can be a Tercelid warrior. And the full list extrapolated from that just for kicks: Saladin: Atarri warrior Barbarossa: Atarri merchant Tamburlane: Tercelid merchant Attila: Tercelid warrior Jenghiz: Atarri merchant
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2018 14:42
|
|
|
ManxomeBromide posted:Final order: Morgenstern, Bad Bob, Spittoon, Jezebel, Old Irregular. This is one of those that I think probably gets much easier with a grid; I didn't take the time to draw one out myself and I kind of shortcutted in my logic mentally a few times I didn't bother to write out in my notetaking so it's not quite worth putting up my details, but this matches the result I got.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2018 03:36
|
|
|
ManxomeBromide posted:I started with a grid but the ordering requirements confounded my gridding. In particular, no explicitly stated rules constrain Spittoon at all. Maybe I picked the wrong axes. It's not uncommon for one of the items to only be mentioned in the description in those sorts of puzzles, but yeah I started doing one just to see and the overlapping ordering requirements in clues 4-6 are too key to the puzzle and don't really work well in that format.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2018 03:47
|
|
|
Yeah I walked through it before moving onward with the thread and I can't work out any details on two of the dragons; I did take grid screenshots throughout because I figured "sure, why not" though so give me a minute and I'll at least put that up on lpix and edit it in here when I'm done. EDIT: It took me a bit because I completely hosed the order of some of my screenshots by missing one or two so I had to redo them all, and I wanted to expand my notes into proper sentences, but it's done. ArashiKurobara fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Jun 28, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 01:56 |
|
|
Nakar posted:This is pretty fantastic, by the way; the site is cool as well, I was wondering if there was a better way to do these things than in Excel or something. Can I just link to this in the next post? Go right ahead! And yeah it took me a bit of poking around Google but I figured someone out there had to have made something browser-based at some point for this stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2018 03:49
|
|