wu :: forums
        (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        riddles >> easy >> Smarter than Mensa
        
(Message started by: Olclops on Sep 30th, 2002, 8:47am)
Title: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Olclops on Sep 30th, 2002, 8:47am
1. Which of the following five words doesn't belong with the others, and why?

pail  skillet  knife  suitcase  card


2. One of the figures below lacks a characteristic common to the other figures. Which one, and why?

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/images/riddles/mensa_test_1a.gif



3. One of the figures below lacks a characteristic common to the other figures. Which one, and why?

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/images/riddles/mensa_test_1b.gif


//////// PROBLEM REPRINTED HERE BY MODERATOR



I'm stumped on the words one. I've gotten two valid solutions for each of the geometric ones.

Hints for those: Try counting, mirror planes, right angles, etc.

Any hints for a second solution to the five words would be appreciated. I got the obvious one.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Pietro K.C. on Sep 30th, 2002, 1:32pm
  The words were: pail, skillet, suitcase, knife, card, I think.

  I don't see an obvious solution. All words except "card" contain the letter "i", for one thing. All words except "skillet" are words you would hear on an everyday basis, for another (I had to Google it, and there is in fact a website: http://www.gfq84.dial.pipex.com/skillet.html :)). All words contain either a "k" or a "k" sound, except for "pail".

  I suppose if we go far enough down the lexical analysis, we can provide justification for every single word not to be in there. So let's get semantic.

  I think there are plastic versions of everything except "skillet". All of them have handles, except "card". In normal situations, only "knife" can be used as a weapon.

  What on Earth is the "right" answer?
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by continuum on Sep 30th, 2002, 6:57pm
Here are the solutions I found for questions 2 and 3:

2)
#3 becomes different if you rotate 180 degrees;
#4 doesn't include a triangle;

3)
#1 doesn't include a circle;
#4 becomes different if you rotate 90 degree;
#5 doesn't have a straight line;
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by william wu on Sep 30th, 2002, 11:57pm
Here are a few more potential answers:

1) "suitcase": it's the only compound word
2) figure 3: if you rotate it by 180 degrees, you don't end up with the same thing you started with
3) figure 4: it's the only one made completely out of circles

there are still many more good answers; maybe later i'll let you guys know what the "official" solutions are, according to the raisin bran box
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Olclops on Oct 1st, 2002, 10:45am
More solutions for #2:

Figure 1 doesn't contain a quadilateral
Figure 6 is the only one with an odd number of straight lines

Another for number #3:

Figure 5 is the only one without 4 mirror planes (it only has two)
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by continuum on Oct 1st, 2002, 3:30pm
I think we should be careful with the 'is the only one that' stuff... One could end up with something like 'pail is the only one that starts with p'. Of course all the others satisfy the property 'does not start with p', so pail is different from the others in that way, but it doesn't sound reasonable to me...

I think the objective is to choose a property that the other four satisfy AND concerns them.

Though 'start with p' is satisfied by the subset (skillet knife suitcase card), it's unlikely that someone, if showed the words, would say: 'look, that set has an interesting property: given any of its elements, it (the element) doesn't start with p!'.

For example, for the set (a e i O d), I think the letters O and d could be considered correct answers for obvious reasons. However, I don't think the letter a would be a correct answer, if one justify with: ''a doesn't appear on the word 'boiled'.''
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by sluggedbarley on Oct 2nd, 2002, 4:55pm
im not sure on the pictures but as for the words suitcase is the oddball cause its a compound word thats my guess anyways
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by gnuzealot on Oct 4th, 2002, 2:47pm
My guess for #1 is: Card

It's the only object of the bunch that does not have a handle.
How's that for obscure  ;D
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Carl_Cox on Oct 4th, 2002, 6:46pm
1:
card has an odd number of vowels.  (Criteria: all even number of vowels)
card is the only one that would be moved by (normal) wind (criteria: stays in most wind)
knife is the most obvious and only intentional weapon (Criteria: not a weapon)

I'm not so sure about the "skillet isn't common" because I grew up with it and don't recall confusing people when referring to one.  What are other reasons that pail and skillet may be chosen?

heh - i had to correct spelling skillet twice because i spelled it skillit.  That's what a college education got me.  
::)
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Kozo Morimoto on Oct 12th, 2002, 6:10am

Quote:
Which of the following five words doesn't belong with the others, and why?


The question asks about the words themselves, not the objects that the words refers to, so anything that requires the knowledge of the meaning of the words are incorrect.  So answers like handles, wind, weapon are strictly not answering the question.  However, these answers would be valid if the question was "Which of the following objects doesn't...".
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Carl_Cox on Oct 17th, 2002, 10:20am
You're right, in part.  The question, strictly speaking does not refer to objects.  However, words do refer to objects, and thus invoke associated details.  I would argue that this remains a valid criteria for choosing a word.  If they wanted ONLY words and not associated objects, they should have either made that statement or used words with no meaning (gibberish).

Because english is a horrible, horrible language!
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by thelonious on Oct 17th, 2002, 10:14pm
Answer to question one, card does not belong because it is the only word that does not satisfy the condition of "Not rhyming with the word 'lard'".  Then again, pail is the only word that sounds the same as another word.  Not a homonym, but the other thing.
Obviously, the answer to question 2 is, the characteristic common to all but one of the shapes is "Is not a religious symbol."
And for question 3, symbol 5 is the only symbol that when reproduced in postscript, would present a problem determining which part of the object should be filled or not.  It is also the only object that cannot be reproduced by mirroring one half on the XY and YX axis.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Icarus on Oct 19th, 2002, 12:45pm

on 10/17/02 at 10:20:40, Carl_Cox wrote:
Because english is a horrible, horrible language!

:o
Whoa! Get up on the wrong side of the bed that morning?

English is a great language! It has more than twice the number of words in common usage of any other. And because of this we can give shades of meaning, and express ideas more freely, than possible in any other language. It is the only language that delights in adopting words and phrases from other languages. Most people consider this "polluting the purity" of their language, but English speakers adopt foreign phrases with a gusto! English did not become the lingua franca of the world by being "horrible".

The problem here is badly designed tests, not the language they are in. You can create questions as bad as these in any language on earth.

(Sorry, you hit a hot-button for me!  ;))
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by william wu on Oct 19th, 2002, 1:16pm
Agreed, English is a fantastic language. I think the aspect of it that we should really highlight though is the tenses. Because we have so many tenses, we can be more precise about who did what and exactly when. So it's great for technical communication. Despite the ambiguities that we come across sometimes (e.g. see "Grammar Distinctions" riddle), English beats a lot of other languages out there when it comes to being precise. For instance, Chinese is a weak language for technical communication because knowing what tense you are in is often left up to context; given a lone sentence you may have no clue whether it happened or is happening or will happen. Russian could be even better than English because they have even more tenses.

Love your answers thelonious :)


Quote:
Obviously, the answer to question 2 is, the characteristic common to all but one of the shapes is "Is not a religious symbol."
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Pietro K.C. on Oct 19th, 2002, 2:38pm
  True, I think English is a great language, especially because many of its words are both short and emphatic. I don't know about the tenses, though, as almost all latin languages (i.e. Portuguese, which is my mother tongue) have many more tenses, as does Russian (as Will pointed out).

  But, speaking of hot buttons...

  English did not become the "lingua franca of the world" by being horrible, but it sure as heck wasn't by being good, either. Do you think that, in the time of the Roman Empire, latin was the lingua franca because of its preciseness? Or that french was in vogue around the 1800s because it was so very chic? That the so-called "civilized world" spoke greek in the time of Eudoxus because of the pretty letters? Come on now.

  This concern against "polluting the purity", which you mention in such a despising tone, is merely a struggle against cultural imperialism. We use other idioms' expressions just fine, but when 90% of those are English expressions, something is wrong, is it not? As if it were not enough that the rest of the world is forced to accept U.S. decisions in military and economic issues, we have swallow their lifestyle and ways of thinking?

  Don't be so naive to think that, when some English expression finds its way into everyday usage in the context of another language, it does not carry with it some cultural judgment or value. When that happens too often, a country starts to lose its identity, in favor of one which can hardly be considered "better" (I'm not saying it is worse, what I mean is that it is absurd to compare).

  Anyway, Icarus, I think you should have a little more background on the OTHER languages before saying the English is the most this, the best that. It is only the scientific method.

  Well, as I said, hot button. Sorry about the ranting. :)
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Icarus on Oct 20th, 2002, 2:46pm
Sorry, Pietro. I did not mean to imply English was superior to other languages. Only that English has many strengths and does not deserve being denegrated as "horrible". My real hot button is not berating English, but an attitude of some in America that we are somehow backwards rubes trampling over the cultured gardens of the rest of the world. While I am sure Carl did not mean this, his comment touched on one of the things these self-deprecators like to proclaim.

Anyway, there is more I could discuss about this and your other comments but this is definitely not the forum for it, so please forgive me my veering off-topic, and let us return to puzzling. :)
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by towr on Oct 21st, 2002, 9:44am

on 10/19/02 at 12:45:34, Icarus wrote:
It is the only language that delights in adopting words and phrases from other languages
that's just so not true..

The best thing about english is the written form has hardly changed in some 500 years.. which makes it easy to read old books..

The worst thing, I'd have to say, is that written form and spoken form more often than not don't agree in any 'logical' way..

Two examples to illustrate that point:

Quote:
George Bernard Shaw pointed out that "ghoti" could be pronounced "fish".

"Gh" pronounced "f", as in enough
"o" pronounced "i", as in women
"ti" pronounced "sh", as in station

Another example, published in the James Clarke column of The Star runs as follows:

The name Turner, can be spelled "Phtholognyrrh"
"Phth" pronounced "T", as in phthisis
"olo" pronounced "ur", as in colonel
"gn" pronounced "n", as in gnat
"yrrh" pronounced "er", as in myrrh


it's a puzzle in and of itself..
(they're forgetting context though..)
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by jeremiahsmith on Oct 21st, 2002, 10:46am

on 10/21/02 at 09:44:26, towr wrote:
George Bernard Shaw pointed out that "ghoti" could be pronounced "fish".  

"Gh" pronounced "f", as in enough  
"o" pronounced "i", as in women  
"ti" pronounced "sh", as in station


Like you said, Shaw forgets context. "Gh" is only an f sound at the end of words, "o" is only "i" in that one case, and "ti" is only "sh" when it's part of "-tion". No English speaker would ever look at "ghoti" and think it was pronounced "fish"; they'd probably say something like "goatee".


Quote:
Another example, published in the James Clarke column of The Star runs as follows:

The name Turner, can be spelled "Phtholognyrrh"  
"Phth" pronounced "T", as in phthisis  
"olo" pronounced "ur", as in colonel  
"gn" pronounced "n", as in gnat  
"yrrh" pronounced "er", as in myrrh  



With the exception of the "gn", all of those are strange exceptions to the rules...how many words do you know that have "yrrh" and pronounce it "er"? You can't generalize specific cases to general rules. And "gn" is only "n" at the beginning of words...in "gnostic" the n is silent, but in "agnostic" you say the g.

English isn't nearly as bad as these two writers try to make it seem.

Wow. We totally hijacked this thread, huh?
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by towr on Oct 22nd, 2002, 8:24am
well.. let continue the hijacking :p
Lets look at: through, tough, thorough, hiccough etc.. (there's a rather nice poem about it somewhere..(after checking there seem to be many actually, use google if interested)) There's no consistency in the pronounciation of '-ough'.. Not even when considering the context.. (Rather a large problem for speech synthesis in my experience.)
There are languages where when you say the phones corresponding with the letters you read you'll get the correct pronounciation all the time.

And here's a riddle, to at least stay in the spirit of the forum, if not the thread ;)
what word is: GHOUGHPHTHEIGHTTEEAU
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Pietro K.C. on Oct 22nd, 2002, 3:37pm
  Potato...  :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

GH from hiccouGH
OUGH from thorOUGH or thOUGH
PHTH from PHTHisis
EIGHT from EIGHT :P
TEAU from plaTEAU

ThOUGH I suspect you stuck an extra E in...

Anyway, I don't think this kind of ambiguity makes English horrible. I mean, you use this stuff every day, it's not that hard to remember... heck, I do, and I DON'T speak/read it all the time.

  Now, for some further hijacking. Sorry, Icarus, I misinterpreted your post. It's just... well, you read the news, I'm sure. I'm brazilian.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by continuum on Oct 22nd, 2002, 6:00pm
I am Brazilian too and totally agree with Pietro... ;D
But, don't think all Brazilians have the same opinions on everything! It would be a big mistake for any country, but especially for Brazil.

English really has much more words than most languages. There are both germanic and latin terms for most things, for example. (Pardon me if I'm wrong, I am not a native english speaker.)

I agree when Pietro says latin languages like Portuguese are more complete in the tense stuff. And I think both the verbal stuff and the vocabulary are both important resources for literature, though I personally prefer the first :)

About the pronounce problems with English, I would say languages like French and Portuguese are not much different.

And hey, Pietro, I agree with you about the speaking, but you read in English very often! For example, how much time of your day do you spend reading these forums, huh? ;D

Another thing I like in English is that it does not have accents.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Icarus on Oct 22nd, 2002, 7:15pm
You did not entirely misread my post. I overstated my point, and you were correct to bring it to my attention. English is not the only language that commonly brings in foreign phrases (though I still think it does so more freely than others). And I agree with you that the essential character of any language should be preserved. English is a convenient language for international discourse simply because it is so widely known, and this because of economic and political reasons. I apologize for ill-considered remarks that suggested more.

My take on the strengths and weaknesses of English:

1) English is large. My comment about it having twice the number of common words as any other language is a measured fact, not something I made up. You can view this as a strength or weakness. I see it a strength, since the wide variety of words provides for greater breadth and subtlety of meaning.

2) English does accept new words easily (which is why it is so huge). While this is a growing trend in other languages, and as Pietro points out, unfortunately most of the new phrases in other languages are coming from English, this has been a strong trait of English throughout it's history. And is, I think, a part of the "essential character" of English.

3) While I trust that William is correct about English having more tenses than Chinese (Mandarin or Cantonese, or both?), I already knew what Pietro has pointed out: the Romance Languages all have considerably more tenses than English. I would rate English at best a "middling" on this one.

4) Concerning the age of English. Yes, you can read 500 year-old texts in English. That's about the limit: Old English requires special training, and I've heard it is harder to learn than some foreign languages. Most languages can go back much farther than that. Greeks can read Euclid and Plato far more easily than English speakers can read Chaucer. This is the price you pay for easily adopting new words and phrases. English may well be the youngest of the international languages (native to more than one country).

5) Spelling: Yes English spelling is bad. Another adverse side effect of its polyglot nature. But I would contend that many other languages are as bad or worse. French comes to mind as a language which seems to have more silent letters than spoken ones! English may be low down on this scale, but it has plenty of company!

6) Ambiguity: As Pietro has also pointed out I don't have the knowlege to say for sure, but my impression is that most languages have as much ambiguity in them as English. Certainly the French, German, and Greek lexicons I have list several different meanings for most words, just as an English dictionary does.

7) Phonic quality: True, English lacks the beautiful rythyms of the Romance and Oriental languages, among others. But it does have its own beauty none-the-less. Anyone who can listen to Shakespeare performed well and say that English is harsh on the ear is being unfair in their judgement. (Please noone tell me how you think Shakespeare is boring. I am talking only about how it sounds here, not the content.)

8) Ease of learning: I've heard that English and Mandarin are the two most difficult languages to learn. I have no idea as to the truth of this, but it is certainly dependent on the background of the learner. If it is true, then I am very glad English is my native language!
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by william wu on Oct 22nd, 2002, 10:05pm
Yes, the Romance languages have more tenses; having studied Spanish for 4 years, I dunno why I forgot to note that in my earlier post. Well, the most widely spoken language in terms of numbers of people is Mandarin, just because China has so many people. It beats English by a 2 to 1 ratio (1 billion vs 500 million). So if there was some epic battle between Chinese and English for the position of the world's international language, I guess I'd be rooting for English due to its superior clarity in technical communication, although Chinese is really beautiful.

Expounding on Icarus's note about the difficulty of Chinese: On a spectrum of aesthetics to practicality, Chinese has all its eggs in the aesthetics realm. Its relatively disorganized system makes it very difficult to learn. There is no alphabet, so you memorize words on a character by character basis. This requires a tremendous amount of memory, considering how many strokes traditional characters can have. If you've never seen a particular word before, then unlike in English, you can't even pronounce it, much less know what it means! Pronouncing words correctly is another challenge in itself: every sound has four possible pitches, each of which correspond to completely different meanings, and within the pitches there are usually many homonyms ... homonyms galore. In my Chinese courses here at Berkeley, I've observed that many of the students with no prior exposure to the language can't pronounce most words correctly, even after 10 units (two sems) of study. However this may be more due to relatively limited one-on-one instruction time here because classes are so impacted at this public university. Some more about characters: All the characters are united however by "radicals": elemental characters and strokes which can be combined to produce new characters. Dictionaries are usually indexed by these radicals. To look up a character, you must figure out which of the radicals that comprise the character is the dominant radical. However sometimes there's ambiguity, and linguists can't even agree on what's the dominant radical in a character. So you could end up using trial and error to find the character you're looking for. Now, after you've studied Traditional Chinese characters for a couple years, you could go to China and discover that you still can't understand the newspapers, because in an effort to increase literacy, China has adopted Simplified Chinese, which can look quite different. So to really know Chinese, you have to study two sets of characters for every meaning! Finally, Chinese is actually a family of languages like the Romance languages, and Mandarin and Cantonese are just two of thirteen disjoint languages. So unless you feel like learning them all, you still won't be understood in many areas of China. (However, most peculiar is the fact that all these Chinese languages are united by the same writing system, such that if a Mandarin person doesn't understand a Cantonese person, the Cantonese person can just write down a sentence and the other will understand. No other language family in human history has had this characteristic.)


Despite all these nightmares, I think it's still a great language, because its beauty outweighs all its shortcomings. (Hopefully I've piqued your interest now.) Check out

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/chinese/intro.shtml


to see what I mean. Emphasis on the ideograms, which I've showed to many a white man and they are usually very impressed. :) (Actually, the majority of native speakers don't know about this stuff either, because they never bothered to think about the origins of these characters ... even my Chinese professors here had no clue.) They really are like puzzles! I always ask myself, why does this character look like the way it does? For instance, why would the word for "to know" be comprised of the "arrow" and "mouth" radicals? Well, "when you have knowledge, your mouth is sharp and far-reaching, like an arrow". I love this deep Oriental philosophy stuff. You may have to install a Chinese language plug-in for your browser to correctly view the right-hand columns of the tables.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by towr on Oct 23rd, 2002, 2:39am
I always thought english was one of the easiest languages to learn.. Its grammatical structure is relatively simple compared to many languages..

The problem with learning languages like chinese is that most people that don't allready speak a similar language can't differentiate between the pitches of phones. It simply isn't an issue in western (and many other) languages, so we learn to hear them as the same letter..
Babies can actually differentiate all the sounds, but they forget how to do this after some three months, I think.. They pick up which sounds are important to differentiate from the speech of their parents and forget the rest. And its very hard (if not impossible for some) to relearn. The next problem is producing those sounds, pretty much the same problem again. If you haven't learned they are different you can't pronounce them different..
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Pietro K.C. on Oct 23rd, 2002, 8:35pm
  Ye, English really isn't all that hard to learn, compared to Romance languages, for example. One simple reason is verb conjugation, which I think most people who speak only English are barely aware of. Consider the verb "to walk", which in Portuguese is "andar". The prefix "and" is called the root, and "ar" something I forget, but all verbs in Portuguese end in "ar", "er", "ir", and there are at most a dozen that end in "or". In different verb conjugations, the root does not change (well, for regular verbs, that is), but the suffix varies wildly. In English, the possible forms of "to walk", in the simple present, are:

I walk
You walk
He/She/It walks
We walk
You walk
They walk

In portuguese, however:

Eu ando
Tu andas
Ele/Ela anda
Nós andamos
Vós andais
Eles/Elas andam

In English, the future tense is achieved by placing a "will" in front of the infinitive of the verb:

I/You/He/She/It/We/You/They WILL walk

In Portuguese:

Eu andarei
Tu andarás
Ele/Ela andará
Nós andaremos
Vós andareis
Eles andarão

In English, to indicate the past tense, you generally just append an "ed" to the end of the verb's infinitive. In Portuguese, there is another set of conjugations. Similarly, conditionals and potentials, which in English are achieved by the use of the "might", "may", "must", etc. correspond to a variety of other verb tenses and conjugations in Portuguese. Not exactly a walk in the park! :) We don't differentiate between pitches, though, and use the arabic alphabet, which I guess makes things easier.

  Another thing is the accents, which continuum mentioned: the word "organ", in Portuguese, is "órgão". "Blessing" is "bênção". And so on. I've actually heard the exact opposite, that English is one of the easiest to learn, though I'm in no position to judge either - I only know English, Portuguese and French, and the last two are very similar.

  As side points, I think every language on Earth is subject to ambiguity; and also, I love the phonic quality of English! The words are short, emphatic, full of impact - it has a lot of attitude, or, in the hands of Shakespeare (who just rules, I bought a cheap copy of his complete works about a year ago), emotional thrust.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by continuum on Oct 24th, 2002, 10:24am
I've also heard the opposite, that English is easier to learn.

I speak Portuguese, English and Esperanto (though I am not an esperantist!) and Italian (the last just in a basic level). I am studying German right now.

Esperanto is the clearly the easiest one. It has a lot of simple and regular rules like "all substantives terminate in 'o'" (like "juno"=young person), "all infinitive verbs terminate in 'i'" (like "ami"=to love), "all adjectives terminate in 'a'" (like "juna"=young). "Juno" and "juna" are formed after the root "jun-", putting a vowel to form either a substantive or an adjective.

Except for Esperanto, English is the easiest idiom I know. And many people I know would agree. It doesn't mean English is the easiest of all the natural languages (Esperanto is artificial), though.

Oh, I have to disagree that english sounds bad too. I also enjoy the "short and emphatic" words, like Pietro said. It is quite good for poetry and music, for example.

So, ending, this is the present tense of  "marsxi" (to walk), in Esperanto:

mi marsxas = I walk
vi marsxas = you walk (for both singular and plural)
li/sxi/gxi marsxas = he/she/it walks
ni marsxas = we walk
ili marsxas = they walk

note:  "sx" = s with a circumflex accent, "gx" = g with a circumflex accent. "S" and "sx" are different letters of the Esperanto alphabet.

For the past "marsxis" means "walked" and for the future "marsxos" means "will walk".
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by wowbagger on Oct 25th, 2002, 4:40am
continuum: Viel Spaß dabei! :) Wie lange lernst Du denn schon?

Personally, I think English is rather easy to learn - until you reach a certain level, of course. This is mainly because of the simple conjugation as pointed out by Pietro.

Sure, you can circumvent complicated conjugations by using a personal pronoun and the infinitive of the verb. That's not what I would call mastering a language, however.

In German, we definitely have more complicated conjugations than in English. Still, the future tenses are formed using modal auxiliaries. We don't have accents in German, but we do have "Umlaute": ä, ö, ü. The sound of the vowels changes discernibly. Pronouncing sounds that are not used in your mother tongue is probably the main obstacle when learning to speak a foreign language. In this respect German isn't too difficult I would say. According to foreigners I talked to, German grammar is really difficult. :-/

Generally I'm quite fond of the use of accents or even different letters. Well, it shouldn't go too far - like having to learn a whole new alphabet, possibly not based on letters, but on morphemes and whatnot. Don't get me wrong, I'm really intrigued by what a variety of possibilities people have come up with to communicate. Just think of the hieroglyphics or Gomeran whistling.
If the use of accents helps you in pronouncing the word correctly, I'll vote in favour of accents! I'd say that's the case (at least most of the time) in French and Spanish.

On the phonic quality: Germanic languages sound very different from Romance languages. No matter what one's personal taste is, I'm convinced that every (natural, not programming ;)) language has it's own beauty. Maybe that's not obvious if you only hear it, there can also be concinnity hidden in grammatical constructs, waiting to be revealed by some able writer.

On a related topic: I really enjoy watching foreign movies with subtitles (undubbed), even if I don't understand any words or maybe just some (e.g. Korean or Icelandic). Unfortunately, the opportunities to do so are very scarce around these parts. :(
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Icarus on Oct 25th, 2002, 3:58pm
On the question of how hard it is to learn English as a second language, I certainly have to bow to those of you who have actually done it! Thanks for setting me straight. I heard that bit about it being difficult many years ago, and I no longer remember from where. Although this thread is now thoroughly hijacked, it's been an interesting discussion! (Just shows that a little irrational ranting can actually do some good :D)
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by GRAND_ADMRL_THUORN on Oct 26th, 2002, 7:29pm
Well heres my first post, let me start of by saying Ive enjoyed reading the brilliant answers in the forums. Some of you are truly gifted. This is a great site William! And I feel honored that I have a chance to give an equally brilliant answer to the question you guys are having some trouble with.  :'(


Which of the following five words doesn't belong with the others, and why?


                pail skillet  knife  suitcase card


A pail holds/carries water
A skillet holds/carries food
A suitcase holds/carries clothes
A card holds/carries message
A knife DOES NOT hold or carry anything  ;D


What do you think?
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Kozo Morimoto on Oct 27th, 2002, 2:57am
Maybe it all depends on which language was your first.  Coming from a Japanese speaking background, I find English to be expremely hard - my mum still has trouble speaking it after 20 years.

First of all, Japanese does not have articles.  English there are two articles - definite and indefinite.
i.e.
You went to A station.
You went to THE station.

In Japanese you just say "station you go"

Then there is the article for vowel/consonant.
An apple or An hour or A dog.  Why complicate it by having an article, then complicate it even further by changing it depending on the first letter of the word?

Then plurals.  In Japanese you have one car or you have many car.  No distinction.  In English you make it complicated by having plurals.  Then you complicate it even further by having different plurals for different words like axis, octopi, dice, and foot becomes feet.

Then English have complicated tenses like 'learn' becomes 'learnt', and 'learned' is a completely different word altogether. Go becomes went (how, why?) .  Then different rules for how to add 'ing' at the end of words.

Then there are the weird rules for is/are/am.  Why doesn't it just use "he is" and "I is" and "you is" instead of having different words for the same thing?

Also, what's the deal with words like inflammable and flammable when they 'look' like antonymns but they are synonyms.

How about having multiple word for the same thing like fog, haze and mist?  Why isn't it just light fog, or heavy fog?

Too many examples for pointing out that English is odd and hard to learn.  Not enough structure, not phonetic, too many special rules.  Hard to pronounce like 'R's and 'L's and 'Th's.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by continuum on Oct 27th, 2002, 7:32am
Wowbagger, I have no sufficient knowledge of German to understand your first phrase. I think the second one means "how long are you studying it?".

I've spent less than ten hours studying German so far. My vocabulary is not very good yet.

Here in Brazil, the movies have subtitles, except for those shown in the ordinary TV and those for kids. One can watch movies with subtitles by going to the cinema, renting a movie or paying for cable TV.

Kozo, we are not saying English is piece of cake to learn, but compare it with languages like the romance ones and German, for example.

In Portuguese, Spanish, Italian and French there are also definite and indefinite articles. But that's not all... There are different articles for masculine and feminine.

In english you say: "a student". In Portuguese you would say "um/uma estudante" ("um" for a male and "uma" for a female one). In portuguese there are also plural articles ("uns" and "umas" for the indefinite ones). The definite article "the", when translated to Portuguese can be either "o", "a", "os" or "as", depending on the gender and on the number:

the boy, the boys, the girl, the girls => o menino, os meninos, a menina, as meninas.

In portuguese the adjective must "agree" (I don't know a better term) with the substantive:

the red car, the red cars, the red house, the red houses => o carro vermelho, os carros vermelhos, a casa vermelha, as casas vermelhas.

The other romance languages are alike.

In Italian, the articles also have the depence on the next word (that doesn't occur in Portuguese, though):

uno studente, un treno, un amico, una ragazza, un' amica => a student (male), a train, a friend (male), a girl, a friend (female).

In Portuguese there are also many irregular verbs:

ser => to be
eu sou => I am
tu és => you are
ele/ela é => he/she is
nós somos => we are
vós sois => you are (plural)
eles são => they are

A regular verb terminated in "er" is conjugated like "vender" (to sell):
eu vendo
tu vendes
ele vende
nós vendemos
vós vendeis
eles vendem
That is: vender=>vend+{o,es,e,emos,eis,em}

When I say English is easy, I am not saying that there are no difficulties in learning it, but rather that a majority of languages are even harder.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by towr on Oct 27th, 2002, 7:55am

on 10/27/02 at 02:57:19, Kozo Morimoto wrote:
Then there is the article for vowel/consonant.
An apple or An hour or A dog.  Why complicate it by having an article, then complicate it even further by changing it depending on the first letter of the word?

purely a pronounciation artefact I think.. It's easier to pronounce "an apple" than "a apple".. Just like "ou est-t-elle" in french is easier to say than "ou est elle" (t in est is silent)
Though that doesn't necessarily mean you need it in writing language..


Quote:
Then plurals.  In Japanese you have one car or you have many car.  No distinction.  In English you make it complicated by having plurals.  Then you complicate it even further by having different plurals for different words like axis, octopi, dice, and foot becomes feet.
axis, octopus etc are foreign words (latin for instance) And they kept their original plural in most cases.. (You see the same in most european languages)
I don't really see why it should make a difference to add an extra word to denote plural, or add inflection to denote plural.. Some way you have to be able to communicate that there's one or more (which can be some or many).


Quote:
Then English have complicated tenses like 'learn' becomes 'learnt', and 'learned' is a completely different word altogether. Go becomes went (how, why?) .  Then different rules for how to add 'ing' at the end of words.

Then there are the weird rules for is/are/am.  Why doesn't it just use "he is" and "I is" and "you is" instead of having different words for the same thing?

A irregular verbs.. They're always the most fun of any language.. English does relatively well compared to German imo..
The oldest languages only used irregular verbs as I've heard it, but as time went on more and more verbs were needed. So it became too hard to learn them all (and all their different forms). So the more infrequent verbs became governed by rules, but the frequent words remained irregular (or at least far more irregular). Though there is a trend in many (western) languages to , euhm, regularize words.. Well at least in Dutch I notice it a lot (since that's my native language), and also some in English.. The 'proper' past-tense bites the dust a lot.. 'Proper' of course exists only in the eyes of the (well, some) linguists, since normal people only care if they understand each other, not if someone from a past millenium could still understand them.. Language evolves..


Quote:
How about having multiple word for the same thing like fog, haze and mist?  Why isn't it just light fog, or heavy fog?
When something is an important fenomenon its easier to have one short word to convey a message than having to use multiple words.. I'm sure you can find similar examples in japanese.. I'm sure any language has some..


Quote:
Too many examples for pointing out that English is odd and hard to learn.  Not enough structure, not phonetic, too many special rules.  Hard to pronounce like 'R's and 'L's and 'Th's.

English has  different structure, I wouldn't say less or too little.. And any sounds you don't know are hard to pronounce (but not so in and of themselves)..

I think it comes down to what you started with:

Quote:
Maybe it all depends on which language was your first.  
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Icarus on Oct 27th, 2002, 8:52pm
First of all: Welcome to the board Grand-Admiral! Sorry that your message has been overlooked in this continuing thread-hijacking. Very clever. (Has someone come up with a good reason to choose pail or skillet yet?)

Kozo: Guess I should have waited to hear from someone whose native language was not Indo-European before concluding English isn't so hard to learn after all. Some of your complaints are shared by native English speakers (and not just the morons whose self-deprecation is the reason I got set off in the first place), particularly those about how irregular English is, and about words like inflammable and flammable, which look like opposites, but in fact are synonyms. (Another example is "regardless" and "irregardless".)

Some of your other complaints are things which I view as strengths of English, even if they do make it harder to learn. Particularly having extra words. In addition to Towr's remarks let me add that the terms "haze" and "light fog" do not mean the same thing, and neither do "mist" and "heavy fog". A haze is generally lighter than a "light fog", and can refer to other atmospheric effects than just water in the air (smog also causes hazes, for example). A mist is more accurately described as a very light rain with tiny drops, than as a fog (where the water is suspended in the air, not falling). I personally would not like to have to say "it's very lightly raining with tiny drops outside" instead of "it's misting outside". I'm sure also that if you looked, you would find examples where several words in Japanese all translate to one word in English, with the differences in meaning lost. Even with my very limited knowledge of other languages I have found examples of this running both ways. For example, Greek contains at least three words: philos, agapos, eros, which all translate to English as "love". The inability in English to differentiate between the these three types of love is a real lack and leads to a great deal of confusion.

I also feel that articles are an advantage to languages that have them. "Go to the station" and "Go to a station" transmit more meaning to the listener than "Go to station" would. Admittedly in most situations, the full meaning would be clear from context. But there are cases where it is not, and thus it is nice to have articles to provide the meaning. And as has been pointed out, at least in English you don't have to keep track of what gender the nouns are, and match the article to them! Also, as Towr said, the "a" versus "an" is a pronunciation thing. "A Apple" is a clumsier to say than "An Apple".
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by wowbagger on Oct 28th, 2002, 2:39am

on 10/27/02 at 07:32:21, continuum wrote:
Wowbagger, I have no sufficient knowledge of German to understand your first phrase. I think the second one means "how long are you studying it?".

You got the second sentence right. :) In the first one I was wishing you a lot of fun (in studying German).


Quote:
In portuguese the adjective must "agree" (I don't know a better term) with the substantive:


I think that's called "declension" in linguistics. In German, adjectives have different forms for singular/plural, but the same for the three genders (masculine / feminine / neuter).

Irregular verbs are a lot of fun in German indeed. ;D
Some forms are very rarely used and could prove difficult to find out by asking people in the street. Examples: 1st/3rd person sing. preterit (past tense) of "backen" (to bake): "buk"; 1st/2rd person sing. subjunctive ("Konjunktiv II") of "fahren" (to go/drive): "führe". Some of the really unusual forms are more or less being replaced by regularly formed variants, although they mostly sound wrong somehow. In the spoken language, poeple normally don't care much and paraphrase, e.g. Konjunktiv of auxiliary "werden" + infinitive instead of Kunjunktiv II: "Ich würde fahren" instead of "Ich führe".

What I really like about German is firstly the almost infinite possibilites of forming compounds and secondly being able to build sentences with quite a few subordinate clauses, postponing the predication til the end. Yeah, I know some people don't like that at all. :D
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Icarus on Oct 28th, 2002, 4:33pm
I suppose German's syntax is a lot like using RPN notation (yes, I know that's redundant) in mathematics. It's annoying and hard to understand until you get used to it. Then you discover how powerful it is.

Just in case someone is not familiar with RPN "reverse Polish Notation", it is a method entering mathematical expressions which places the operators at the end. Some calculators use this because it eliminates the need for parentheses. Example: to calculate (2+3)*5 on one of these calculators, you would put in

2[enter]3+5*

Historical note: Its called "reverse Polish Notation" because it is the reverse of "Polish Notation", which puts the operator first, then the operands. Polish Notation gets its name because it was invented by Polish mathematician Jan Lukasiewicz (1878-1956). His name was too difficult for most English speakers to pronounce, so they started calling it Polish notation instead.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Garzahd on Oct 28th, 2002, 5:29pm
Wow, a language discussion. And German and Japanese are the two languages I know at least a little of.

(for the record, I've studied German in school for about 5 years, and Japanese at home for about 4 weeks, plus innumerable anime episodes, which don't count.)

It's always interesting to see the angles of how the "other language" is that much more difficult; I see the German der/die/das as an annoyance that I'll never get used to, but to German people, it just makes sense because that's the way they've always used the word. In Japanese, I have a hard time understanding how the extensive use of kanji makes written communication so much simpler; but nonetheless there are lots of kanji that one simply has to know in order to read the language.

Phonetically, I think both German and Japanese do better than English. Once you learn the fundamental differences of each language, generally within the first month of study, you're unlikely to mispronounce most German or Japanese sentences. (disclaimer: I still haven't studied Japanese long enough to know exactly when to raise the tone of my voice in the middle of a word, which is occasionally important.)Whereas in English, many words can be confusing to pronounce, or have multiple pronounciations depending on context, etc. I guess there are a couple places in German where homonyms can be confusing: "Er ist ein Apfel" as opposed to "Er isst ein Apfel".

I always enjoy finding particularly logical transitions from one language to another. For example, why bother learning three different words for "sick", "nurse", and "hospital", when even a beginner can understand perfectly well the difference between the German equivalents "krank", "Krankenschwester", and "Krankenhaus"? I always feel particularly satisfied at my choice of languages to learn when I encounter something I've never seen before, but can immediately identify. German compound words are notorious for this.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by wowbagger on Oct 29th, 2002, 2:32am

on 10/28/02 at 17:29:03, Garzahd wrote:
I see the German der/die/das as an annoyance that I'll never get used to, but to German people, it just makes sense because that's the way they've always used the word.

Yes, it's often about habituation, really.


Quote:
I guess there are a couple places in German where homonyms can be confusing: "Er ist ein Apfel" as opposed to "Er isst ein Apfel".

Sorry, but that example is erroneous. After "essen" you have to use the accusative, not the nominative: "Er isst einen Apfel." So in this case grammar helps in distinguishing the homonyms.
A good example where the stress is important is the verb "umfahren" as in "Ich will das Hindernis umfahren". If you put the stress on the stem ("umfahren") you say "I want to drive around the obstacle.", whereas a stress on the prefix ("umfahren") means something like "I want to knock the obstacle over". Note, however, that the past participle is different: "umfahren" as opposed to "umgefahren". Furthermore, the prefix "um" can separate from "fahren" (e.g. in the imperative) only if the stress is on the prefix.

Some homonyms can be distinguished by their gender: der Kiefer - die Kiefer; das Mark - die Mark. Unfortunately, there is more than one meaning of "die Mark" or "der Ton".

Quote:
I always feel particularly satisfied at my choice of languages to learn when I encounter something I've never seen before, but can immediately identify. German compound words are notorious for this.

You're right, that can be very useful. I particularly enjoy discovering grammatical constructs or phrases that allow for concise yet elegant wording. BTW: Feel free to send me a message and correct my English - I hate to repeat the same errors over and over again, deeming my usage to be correct and eventually getting accustomed to it.

(For the record: I studied English (7y), French (7y) and Spanish (4y), all in school. Oh and German (9y I'd say) :) )
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Garzahd on Oct 29th, 2002, 10:59am

Quote:
Sorry, but that example is erroneous. After "essen" you have to use the accusative, not the nominative: "Er isst einen Apfel."


Alright, so make it feminine so the articles will be the same. I apologize for my horrible grammar; I need to live in Germany for a couple years so I can get used to the Right Way of doing things.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Jason Vichinsky on Oct 29th, 2002, 11:30am
Obscure answre to numer one:  skillet, kniefe, suitcae and card, are all objects which one woudl expect a cookware salesman to have, pail is not.    LOL
Pails, skillets, and knives are commonly made from metal, cards are not.
Cards are used to communicate written information, pails skillets and knives are not.

In number two only one of the drawings contains paralel lines.

In number three, only one does not contain a circle.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Jason Vichinsky on Oct 29th, 2002, 11:42am
NUMBER ONE, possible answers:

Pail, knive, skillet commonly made from metal, cards are not.

Card used to communicate written information, the others are not.

NUMBER TWO:

Only one drawing contains parallel lines, the fifth.  It is also the only one with no intersecting lines.

NUMBER THREE:

Only the first one contains no circles.

Only the third one lacks any perfect geometrical shapes on its interior.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Jonathan_the_Red on Oct 29th, 2002, 3:17pm

on 10/27/02 at 02:57:19, Kozo Morimoto wrote:
Then plurals.  In Japanese you have one car or you have many car.  No distinction.  In English you make it complicated by having plurals.  Then you complicate it even further by having different plurals for different words like axis, octopi, dice, and foot becomes feet.


I can't let this one go by unchallenged. Sure, we have different words for plural nouns. But we also have:

One bottle, two bottles, three bottles.
One card, two cards, three cards.
One person, two people, three people.
One car, two cars, three cars

Note that "one, two, three" are the same in all these cases. They'd all be different in Japanese. Sheesh, I'd rather remember a few simple rules for forming plural nouns than remember a dozen different sets of ordinal numbers.


Quote:
Also, what's the deal with words like inflammable and flammable when they 'look' like antonymns but they are synonyms.


"Inflammable" comes from the verb "to inflame." The prefix in- is not necessarily negative.


Quote:
How about having multiple word for the same thing like fog, haze and mist?  Why isn't it just light fog, or heavy fog?

There are subtle differences between fog, haze, and mist. I suppose it must be very difficult for non-natives, but each word conjures a different mental image for me. And, of course, there's the poetic value in being able to select from many different words.



Quote:
Too many examples for pointing out that English is odd and hard to learn.  Not enough structure, not phonetic, too many special rules.  Hard to pronounce like 'R's and 'L's and 'Th's.


So tell me, how do you pronounce "sukoshi?" Do you pronounce it differently depending on what follows it? How do you pronounce "desu?" Why is the final vowel sound almost silent? And we have just as much trouble with the "ts" sound as you do with our 'R's and 'L's and 'Th's.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Garzahd on Oct 29th, 2002, 4:01pm
LOL!

I've had exactly the same difficulties with Japanese counters.

"ts" is a lot easier for me after studying German.
And there does seem to be a method to the madness of silent vowels, I just haven't figured it out yet. :-)
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Kozo Morimoto on Oct 29th, 2002, 6:20pm

Quote:
. Sheesh, I'd rather remember a few simple rules for forming plural nouns than remember a dozen different sets of ordinal numbers.


But English has  ordinals as well!  You don't have 1 slice of bed linen and you don't have 1 sheet of bread!  Japanese has ordinals, just like English, however Japanese don't have plurals unlike English.  That's why in my previous post I only mentioned the differences and not the similarities.


Quote:
There are subtle differences between fog, haze, and mist. I suppose it must be very difficult for non-natives, but each word conjures a different mental image for me. And, of course, there's the poetic value in being able to select from many different words.


I know they are different, however, isn't the difference just in thickness/density.  If you say "there is a light fog over the freeway", would somebody correct you and say "you're an idiot, its not a light fog, its only a mist!"  Different mental images you form, aren't they just different in density/thickness?


Quote:
So tell me, how do you pronounce "sukoshi?" Do you pronounce it differently depending on what follows it? How do you pronounce "desu?" Why is the final vowel sound almost silent?

I don't understand your question - its pronouced as how its spelled. Su, Ko, Shi.  Everytime you see these syllables, its always pronounces exactly the same.

Desu is pronounces de su - de like in 'desk' and su like in 'super'.  Su in desu and su in sukoshi are pronounced exactly alike.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by towr on Oct 30th, 2002, 8:06am

on 10/29/02 at 18:20:48, Kozo Morimoto wrote:
I know they are different, however, isn't the difference just in thickness/density.  If you say "there is a light fog over the freeway", would somebody correct you and say "you're an idiot, its not a light fog, its only a mist!"  Different mental images you form, aren't they just different in density/thickness?


Icarus allready said it, but since you probably missed that
:
Quote:
In addition to Towr's remarks let me add that the terms "haze" and "light fog" do not mean the same thing, and neither do "mist" and "heavy fog". A haze is generally lighter than a "light fog", and can refer to other atmospheric effects than just water in the air (smog also causes hazes, for example). A mist is more accurately described as a very light rain with tiny drops, than as a fog (where the water is suspended in the air, not falling). I personally would not like to have to say "it's very lightly raining with tiny drops outside" instead of "it's misting outside".


There is another aspect in which they differ..
Fog can als be a state of bewilderment, whereas when you're in a haze (from f.i. anger) your judgement is clouded (rather than bewildered)
Dictionaries are always a good resource to explicate ones thoughts (else I often can't get further then saying words feel different)  http://www.m-w.com/
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by william wu on Jan 8th, 2003, 2:14pm
(problem reprinted here to refresh memory)

part 1: which word doesn't belong?

pail skillet knife suitcase card



part 2: which diagram doesn't belong?

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/images/riddles/mensa_test_1a.gif




part 3: which diagram doesn't belong?

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/images/riddles/mensa_test_1b.gif




on 10/27/02 at 20:52:35, Icarus wrote:
(Has someone come up with a good reason to choose pail or skillet yet?)


A reason for pail - I don't know if it's a good one: it's the only word without a consecutive pair of consonants.

Reasons for suitcase:
- It's the only one that separates its empty interior from its exterior.
- It's the only one with a 4-bit number of letters (8 = 1000). All the others have a 3-bit number. :)


Official answers according to the Mensa psychologist:
Part 1: card, since all the others have handles.
Part 2: Diagram 4, because its the only one with no triangles.
Part 3: Diagram 5, because its the only one you cannot rotate 90 degrees to get the same shape back.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Pietro K.C. on Jan 8th, 2003, 7:28pm
Dude! I actually came up with the so-called answer about the handles! I have to admit it was the one I found least likely to be the correct one... just goes to show ya... :) :) :)

I guess a reason for pail (at least the usual kind of pail that I'm used to) would be that it is the only object of genus 1. :) Skillets, knives and cards usually have genus 0, and most suitcases I know have genus 2 (the main handle is comprised of two thinner handles that separate when you open the suitcase). Well, maybe that is pushing it a bit too far...
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by jon_G on Jan 8th, 2003, 7:56pm
I come into this forum and see and read most of the answers and answers to other questions, then the answer comes. It is like looking at a battle field the next day when it's quiet. :)

2 out of 3 he..
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by B. JEFFERS on Oct 17th, 2003, 5:29pm
what is the correct spelling of the term axis when speaking of several axis? ???
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Speaker on Oct 17th, 2003, 6:40pm
AXES

This is also the plural for ax (for cutting down trees).

I got that answer from Merriam. Unless its a trick question. Then I say there is no correct spelling, only correct pronunciation when speaking of several axes. In which case, the correct answer would be ACKSEEZ. But, if you really want to improve yourself, go ax ya mudder.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by TuCelts on Nov 9th, 2003, 3:01pm
Pail. Although it is most likely simply my own perceptions, I havent used the term pail since I was a child. Most adult situations that I can think of use the term bucket.
Additionally it is the only item that, when sitting on a table in a "normal" position, i.e. on its intended bottom, has a height measurement that is significantly larget than its length or width. Well, those are my only reasons to pick pail, since you asked for them, Icarus.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Icarus on Nov 9th, 2003, 5:55pm

on 11/09/03 at 15:01:30, TuCelts wrote:
Well, those are my only reasons to pick pail, since you asked for them, Icarus.


??? Help me out here. I'm a geezer compared to most people on this site. So you can expect my memory to fail me every so often. ::) When and where did I ask for them? ???
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by william wu on Nov 9th, 2003, 7:13pm

on 10/27/02 at 20:52:35, Icarus wrote:
(Has someone come up with a good reason to choose pail or skillet yet?)


From:

Re: Smarter than Mensa  
« Reply #32 on: Oct 27th, 2002, 8:52pm »
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Icarus on Nov 10th, 2003, 9:40am
>:( Cocky young whippersnappers!  >:(
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by masterdragon on Jan 3rd, 2004, 2:45pm
Well, I'm from Hong Kong. Nice to meet you guys.

For the 1st question, i stick to the answer of handles. Does that show different personalities for people thinking this question in different ways?  ;D

2nd question, I like the 180 degree turning one. Don't ask why......

3rd one...... well...... the first thing came into my mind is the #4 having only circles aand no straight lines.

And as a good forum reader, i will give my opinion in the language thing as well. I was born in Shanghai so I'm a Chinese. I can speak Chinese, Japanese and English.

First, I think Japanese is DEFINITELY the most difficult language im the world! From the historical scope, Japanese can be regarded as a "branch" of Chinese. All those Japanese characters are copied from Chinese characters. You guys are so ambitious that you use Chinese characters to simulate English system and you still want to keep those Kanji! (if you know Japanese you will know what I'm saying.) Moreover, Japanese is the language with MOST vocabularies. It can simply make ANY word in ANY language become its own one! (like the Nettowaaku and the Intaanetto) Moreover, if I say Japanese has the worst system of grammar in the world, i thikn little people will object, even my Japanese friends. Remember, what we aim in a good language is to EFFECTIVELY communicate with it. Japanese will take 20 seconds to tell you there is a car running to you, by then you will be dead.

English is really a great language with nice vocabularies. However, my problem still goes with grammars. Some of the special rules has no meanings.

That's why I love Chinese the most, with its artistic characters!  ;D
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Sir Col on Jan 3rd, 2004, 5:22pm
For number 1, knife is the only word that does not have any obvious Latin root (etymologically speaking):
Pail is from patella = small dish/plate (originally pail meant a small warming pan)
Skillet is from scutella = flat dish/saucer
Suit is from sequi = the act of following (fashion), case is from capsa = case/box
Card is from charta = sheet of papyrus

However, knife, is from an Old Norse word.

Of course, it's the only sensible answer when you think about it.  ::)


On a more general theme, does any intelligent person actually take IQ tests seriously?
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by rmsgrey on Jan 5th, 2004, 7:08am
Depends on how you define intelligence - if you define it as doing well on IQ tests, then I'm sure there are at least a few who do. If you define it as being an active member of Mensa, then I suspect the majority take IQ tests seriously.

At times like this, I take great comfort in remembering that under the d20 role-playing system, Intelligence and Wisdom are entirely different attributes, and it's perfectly possible to have a character capable of, say, understanding quantum mechanics, but to stupid to come in out of the rain...
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Icarus on Jan 5th, 2004, 10:05am
If you define intelligence as being a member of Mensa, then your intelligence is suspect! ;)

One thing I liked about the movie "Forrest Gump" is that it provides an excellent example of a wise idiot, and also examples of smart fools. I have also met several real people who fit in one or the other of these two categories (an example of a smart fool may be found in the 0.999... thread - follow the link for the last listed misconception).

As far as I can see, wisdom and intelligence are independent attributes.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Speaker on Jan 5th, 2004, 10:38pm
With all this discussion of defining wisdom and intelligence, I decided to look in the dictionary. The answer I got seemed counter-intuitive to me.

I always considered wisdom to be the ability to make sense of a new idea, or the ability to learn or understand a new situation or concept. And, that intelligence was accumulated scientific or philosophic knowledge.

Webster gives the opposite of these. Merriam says that a person with wisdom is one who has studied (and learned) much. And that a person with intelligence is one who is fast on the uptake or a quick study.

Sort of the opposite of what I thought. Am I alone in this? Of course the second definitions give the concept I was expecting, but it still surprised me.


Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by towr on Jan 6th, 2004, 1:40am
I wouldn't call someone who knows a lot of facts intelligent, I would call that knowledgable. Only if he can also apply (that) knowledge would I call him intelligent.
Computers these days can contain a vast amount of knowledge, but I wouldn't really call them intelligent, as they can do remarkably little with it. Whereas someone who can use the knowledge that's available on computers is a lot more intelligent, even if he doesn't have that knowledge (in his memory) himself.
Of course some knowledge is certainly required to exhibit intelligence, but the main component imo isn't knowledge but understanding, insight and skill. If knowledge where a collection of 'dots', intelligence would be 'connect the dots'. It's about understanding how 'facts' relate to each other, and how you can manipulate a situation/problem.

I'm not really sure about wisdom. It's one of those "I know it when I see it" kind of things, hard to define.
I suppose it's some sort of insight into life. How to live and how not to. Looking at the bigger picture, not just the small subproblems which may turn out not to really be that important..
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Sir Col on Jan 6th, 2004, 9:25am
I would agree with most of what you say, towr.

There are three mutually exclusive facets to the human mind: creativity, knowledge, and intelligence. You meet people with varying degrees of each. I don't believe that people learn to become intelligent or creative, nor do they acquire an encyclopaedia of knowledge, it is a measured gift that they're born with. A young child grows into an intellectual giant, not because they've learned to be intelligent, but because they've acquired knowledge to couple with their already inherent intelligence. Some people acquire masses of knowledge, but don't necessarily have intelligence to match it; talented linguists and historians come to mind. What makes a great artist, is not someone who is purely gifted with creativity, but one who has this gift and has an immense knowledge of other peoples' works. Each has its own place and is to be appreciated for what it is; that includes its limitations.

Plato, in his Apology, said:
He who knows not and knows not that he knows not:
He is a fool... shun him.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not:
He is simple... teach him.
He who knows and knows not that he knows:
He is asleep... wake him.
He who knows and knows that he knows:
He is wise... follow him.

The Bible says, in Proverbs 3:13-15 and 17:
Blessed is the man who finds wisdom, the man who gains understanding, for she is more profitable than silver and yields better returns than gold. She is more precious than rubies;
nothing you desire can compare with her.
Her ways are pleasant ways, and all her paths are peace.

I believe that last part is the measure of all things: in real wisdom we find true peace.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Icarus on Jan 6th, 2004, 3:51pm
Towr's definitions are essentially those that I use as well. Neither intelligence or wisdom require knowledge, though both are more easily expressed with knowledge than without.

Knowledge is the accumulation of facts.
Intelligence ("understanding" in the Bible passage) is the ability to recognize patterns or fit together facts to obtain new knowledge.
Wisdom is the ability to make good decisions.

It would seem that the last two ought to go together, but as I said before, I have met wise idiots and smart fools. Indeed, I have met them in such abundance that I would guess the correlation between intelligence and wisdom is very weak.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by rmsgrey on Jan 8th, 2004, 7:11am
I've been heavily influenced by the meanings of intelligence and wisdom in the AD&D 2nd edition rules (direct precursor to d20), as clarified by the Skills And Powers add-on. Each of the 6 attributes is split into two subattributes: intelligence into reason and knowledge; wisdom, intuition and willpower.

I actually tend to disregard willpower when I think of wisdom (a wise man will tend to have a strong will rooted in deeply held correct beliefs, but a stubborn man could simply be foolish), and with intelligence, knowledge is again more effect than cause (a smart man not only knows things, but also "knows" those things he deduces from them, but an idiot savant could recite all sorts of obscure facts, but not be able to go beyond what he has directly experienced)

In my experience, what I regard as intelligence can substitute for what I regard as wisdom to some extent - either by thinking through a situation in advance, or by taking time to think something through when it comes up - the problem is that what a wise person will immediately recognise as the most pertinent issues and their solutions, a smart fool will take a long time to get around to and may even overlook entirely.

By my definitions, a computer is very intelligent, but not even remotely wise.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Sameer on Jan 8th, 2004, 11:04am
You should explore SANSKRIT too  8)
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Speaker on Jan 8th, 2004, 3:47pm
A friend of mine at work has been studying Sanskrit. He told me he found a Sanskrit font and can now type in Sanskrit on his PC.

Do people still use this language? I thought it was ancient and no longer in use.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by towr on Jan 9th, 2004, 12:59am
I'm not sure, but I think many hindu and buddhist text are in sanskrit.. SO it would still be used as a written language much like latin.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by THUDandBLUNDER on Jan 9th, 2004, 2:10am

Quote:
I'm not sure, but I think many hindu and buddhist text are in sanskrit..

Hindu scriptures such as the Upanishads and the Vedas were written in Sanskrit.
The original Buddhist texts were written in Pali, IIRC.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Sameer on Jan 9th, 2004, 6:30am
Yes all the vedas which talks about universe, medicine, science, mathematics, even grammar rules and what not are in sanskrit. Its language of ancient India. I studied it for 5 years and still don't know even .1% of it. :'(

It is remarkable and there are still many sanskrit scholars in India. I have even seen news in Sanskrit and only understood half of it LOL. I bet there are sanskrit societies and degrees in sanskrit somewhere.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by jtrook on Jan 13th, 2004, 10:04am
For 3:
#5 is the only one that has three parts(bear with me)

#1 lines inside a square
#2 circles inside a square
#3 lines inside a circle
#4 circles inside a circle
#5 circles inside a square inside a circle

To me the answer #4 because it is all circles is not unique because you could just as easily say #1 because it is all lines.

I think the answer should be unique.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Icarus on Jan 13th, 2004, 5:28pm
The point of this thread (despite the hijacking) is to find reasons why each of the answers could be considered the correct one. I.e., we're bitching about how badly written this "IQ" test is. The problem with these tests is that only the not-so-smart can really do well on them, because the smarter people can find good reasons for giving each of the answers, so instead they have to try and figure out which answer the test designer wants to right. Thus they become an exercise in determining the psychology of a person you have never met and know practically nothing about.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by paul on Feb 10th, 2004, 3:26pm
the odd-one-out thing is  a knife, i'm not sure what a skillet is but don't you put things in the others? pail of water. skillet of ??? suitcase (clothes etc) card (writing?)
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Icarus on Feb 10th, 2004, 8:48pm

on 02/10/04 at 15:26:28, paul wrote:
i'm not sure what a skillet is


So, is English not your native language, or have you never had to cook a thing in your life?
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by towr on Feb 11th, 2004, 12:30am
You don't have to know the name of an object to be able to use it..
Or you can just call it a frying pan..
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by rmsgrey on Feb 12th, 2004, 8:11am
I've never cooked using something I call a skillet in my life - I wouldn't know a skillet if it hit me over the head, but I have cooked quite a bit, and may well have used one without knowing it.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Icarus on Feb 12th, 2004, 3:34pm
I wouldn't have thought that "skillet" was a mostly American term. As towr has said, it is also called a "frying pan". If you've done much cooking, you've used one!
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Speaker on Feb 12th, 2004, 8:22pm
It funny you mention getting hit over the head with a skillit, because after cooking that is its most common application. At least if you put any value in Hannah Barberra or Looney Toons.  :D
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Llew B on Jun 29th, 2004, 7:34am
The first answer that occurred to me for question #1 was "card" because all of the other words have "i" as their third letter.  

For the second one, figure #3, because all of the other figures can be divided into two haves of equal area by making single straight cuts between points where the interior lines intersect the edges.

For the third one, it was essentially the "official" answer: That only figure 5 is symetrical about less than 4 axes.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Elbee on Oct 11th, 2004, 3:54pm
I'm late to the game here, but wanted to a few more reasons that KNIFE could be the answer:

With the exception of KNIFE, each of the words can be turned into another common word by dropping one or more letters from the beginning or end.  PAIL -> AIL or PA, SKILLET -> SKI or SKILL or LET, SUITCASE -> SUIT or CASE, and CARD -> CAR.

Similarly, all but KNIFE is or contains a four letter word (PAIL, KILL, SUIT/CASE, CARD).

KNIFE is also the only one in which all of its capitalized letters can be written with straight lines.

KNIFE is also the only one not containing a US postal abbreviation for a state (PAIL -> PA/IL, SKILLET -> IL, SUITCASE -> CA, CARD -> CA).
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by ki85squared on May 21st, 2005, 12:17pm
Well, for the second one, I noticed right away that figure 5 is the only figure in which the lines inside of the polygon are not intersecting.

In the third problem, figure five is the only one with both lines and circles inside of the polygon.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Ajax on May 23rd, 2005, 2:33am
I don't know if any of the guys that were discussing about the languages will see my message, but here is my opinion: My native language (or is the correct term native tongue?) is not English. What I believe about english is that it has been fortunate to be the spoken language of two empires. The british empire was one of the biggest ones (maybe the biggest) which formed new countries where, guess what, the spoken language is english: Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and of course USA. That has helped a lot in it's evolution.
But the biggest advantage and therefore the biggest boost is that Hollywood and Silicone valley speak english... The USA is undoubtably the present world leader which is as influential as nothing else: MacDonald's, Coca-Cola, Tom Cruise (just an example), etc. In my country, almost all the films are with subtitles (except for kids programs and soap operas for the elderly people) and I think 95% or more of them are english spoken. And so many words are being used as they are from english.
Maybe 100 years ago french was more popular than english and I think it is still concidered the diplomat's language. However it is not so popular nowadays, something which french people don't realize and insist on expecting from others to speak their language.
In the ancient years, people were speaking greek, not because it was easy, but because almost all the mediterranean sea was filled with greek colonies and that helped the commerce. Even during the roman years, greek was a very popular language, but that because it had evolved and had been learnt almost by anyone.
Now, one thing that makes english easy, is grammar. However, this also deprives a lot of the beauty that others have.
Finally I find people who have as native language latin (french, italian, spanish etc.) originated or german (german,  english I think) originated languages fortunate because it's easier for them to learn other languages. Mine is greek and maybe the only thing that is easy for me is to understand by using only greek is medical terms. As for ancient greek I can understand just the basic stuff.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Fred Fnord on May 26th, 2005, 4:17pm
I got a couple of answers for #1 but they've already been covered.  Frankly, I think the 'designed to contain something' is a better answer than 'possessed of a handle'.

Just another answer for #2 that I haven't seen yet, but which was the first one I thought of: #1 is the only figure that does not contain any (apparent) right angles.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Skeeter on Aug 9th, 2006, 5:37am
one more answer for knife (although it may have been mentioned in the hijacked portions of the thread, didn't read those as carefully as the ones that seemed related to the riddle)

knife is the only one that is not made plural simply by adding an "s" to the end.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by kiochi on Jan 5th, 2007, 7:43pm
for part 2,

diagram #4 is the only one in which the number of regions in the shape is not divisible by the diagram number:

#1 has 13 regions, and 1|13,
#2 has 4 regions, and 2|4
#3 has 3 regions ...
#4 has 9 regions, 4 doesn't divide 9
#5 has 5 regions
#6 has 6 regions
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Locke64 on Jan 5th, 2007, 7:58pm
Without looking at replies:


1. Which of the following five words doesn't belong with the others, and why?

pail  skillet  knife  suitcase  card


[hide]knife.  It is the only item that does not hold things.  (a card can hold information such as ID or $.)[/hide]


2. One of the figures below lacks a characteristic common to the other figures. Which one, and why?

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/images/riddles/mensa_test_1a.gif


[hide] #5: None of the inside lines intersect with each other.[/hide]
or
[hide] #3: It does not have a line of symmetry running from its bottom-left corner to its top-right corner.[/hide]


3. One of the figures below lacks a characteristic common to the other figures. Which one, and why?

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/images/riddles/mensa_test_1b.gif


[hide]No right angles[/hide]
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Whiskey Tango Foxtrot on Jan 5th, 2007, 8:03pm
The third example is my favorite.  I think it really shows how flawed those tests are.  Sure they try to avoid things like this, but even so...
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by rmsgrey on Jan 6th, 2007, 6:34am

on 01/05/07 at 19:58:36, Locke64 wrote:
2. One of the figures below lacks a characteristic common to the other figures. Which one, and why?
[...]
or
[hide] #3: It does not have a line of symmetry running from its bottom-left corner to its top-right corner.[/hide]

Nor do 5 and 6... On the other hand, if you talk about [hide]order-2 rotational symmetry[/hide] then that is the only one that lacks it
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Locke64 on Jan 6th, 2007, 6:48am

on 01/06/07 at 06:34:57, rmsgrey wrote:
Nor do 5 and 6... On the other hand, if you talk about [hide]order-2 rotational symmetry[/hide] then that is the only one that lacks it

Yeah, that's what I meant...
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by crapydost on Oct 5th, 2007, 10:12pm
for 2nd question my answer would be #6 as it has odd number of straight lines in it.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by ThudanBlunder on Oct 5th, 2007, 10:58pm

on 01/05/07 at 19:58:36, Locke64 wrote:
Without looking at replies:
1. Which of the following five words doesn't belong with the others, and why?

pail  skillet  knife  suitcase  card

'Pail' is the only one that has a homonym.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by michaelscwu on Dec 31st, 2007, 2:13am
1. card; only word without the letter i
2. #6; only figure with an odd number of straight lines
3. #1; only figure without a circle or circles
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by Hippo on Dec 31st, 2007, 4:07am
Wow, so spoiled thread:
I don't like the IQ tests so I prefere the language spoiling ;) ... My native language is Czech, this is why slavic languages are easy for me, also indo-evropean languages are not so difficult, too.

Hungarian or even Chines, Japanes ... are very complicated for me because they are realy foreign languages. Obstacles are not only linguistic, but cultural as well.

As Feynman wrote, Japanes has several orders of politeness.

You cannot expect people in central Africa needs several words for snow, but when you live in Alaska ... the same for kinds of rains in London.

Writing has big influence on language as well. Arabic don't write wowels? Chinese don't describe sounds at all. As the language is spread and common broadcasting is rather new, the spoken equivalents differ. This is the 500 history of English as well, words become more pictures than sound descriptions.

As in Portugeese we modify words in Czech rather strange way. The former English was more complicated before its wide spread across the world. The simplification was paid for it.

I have problems with the "the, a" thing as well as it is not part of my native language. The word order is mostly fixed in English - this makes the grammer easier but you loose something as well.

.... ;)
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by ecoist on Dec 31st, 2007, 9:35am
What WTF said:

Quote:
The third example is my favorite.  I think it really shows how flawed those tests are.  Sure they try to avoid things like this, but even so...

reminded me of how I turned Mensa into an acronym: Mentally Extraordinary, No Significant Achievements.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by MichaelM on Jan 1st, 2008, 6:22pm
In the first question the answer should be card because it is the only word in which all the letters are pronounced.
Pail is a homonym of pale hence no need for the I.
Knife doesn't pronounce the K.
Skillet doesn't pronounce the second L.
Suitcase doesn't pronounce the E.

This solution makes as much sense as any other.
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by joeblow on Mar 21st, 2010, 2:10pm
1) card doesnt have an i
2) #4 IS THE ONLY ONE THAT DOESN'T CONTAIN ANY TRIANGLES
3) #1 doesn't have any circles
Title: Re: Smarter than Mensa
Post by malchar on Mar 26th, 2010, 2:37pm
I like the idea of thinking about the words as literals rather than as the objects represented by the words. I think that "pail" is the weirdo because it is the only one that extends into the negative y-axis when written.


Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.4!
Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board