|
|
Post by crater on Sept 25, 2023 15:55:14 GMT
My best guess is wings
One of the earliest uses of the word prove was for ballistics tests
|
|
|
|
Post by Gemini Jim on Sept 25, 2023 16:00:45 GMT
I like this answer, because like a lot of riddles, this riddle tricks you into thinking the wrong way. In this case, that the thing that "bends" is both bent and straight at the same time, and not a thing that bends or straightens other things. But I get the feeling the "real" answer will be related to Coyote in some way. |
|
|
|
Post by najmniejszy on Sept 25, 2023 16:15:19 GMT
Has Tom been reading the webcomic Swords? That skull headed Coyote wombat thingy looks very similar to a creature from there. Here's an example strip featuring the Travel Goblin: swordscomic.com/comic/XV/ |
|
|
|
Post by Corvo on Sept 25, 2023 17:01:48 GMT
Anyone guessed "mirror" yet? I'll guess "mirror". It's (most likely not) "mirror"!
...well, either that or "reflection".
...or something else entirely. Called it!
|
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Sept 25, 2023 17:47:31 GMT
A scuba diver! They risk the bends if they go straight to the surface, and should always have a dive partner.
...I got nothin'
|
|
|
|
Post by Corvo on Sept 25, 2023 18:47:30 GMT
A scuba diver! They risk the bends if they go straight to the surface, and should always have a dive partner. ...I got nothin' And they're very self-confident, so they have nothing to prove. |
|
ezpak
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by ezpak on Sept 25, 2023 19:53:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by rabbit on Sept 25, 2023 21:14:56 GMT
Man, this is a tough chestnut. I was hoping for something easy, such as "What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?"
|
|
|
|
Post by ophidiophile on Sept 25, 2023 21:32:14 GMT
My first guess is something like riverbanks? That "if you find one, you always find two" bit makes me think of "sides". I agree. Riverbanks come in pairs, rivers never have anything to prove and the banks don't either, and the banks are constantly being straightened and bent as the river's course changes. In fact, if you straighten a river, it will almost immediately start to form a curve, and if the river gets a big enough bend, it will cut straight across the bend. |
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Sept 25, 2023 21:33:10 GMT
DNA strands?
Yeah, that's probably not it, I just thought of something that Annie specifically could figure out easily, and she's always been good in biology and history... Anyway, I guess those who assume that the riddle has some connection to both Annie and Coyote are right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Corvo on Sept 25, 2023 21:43:29 GMT
Man, this is a tough chestnut. I was hoping for something easy, such as "What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?"
What do you mean? An african or european swallow? |
|
|
|
Post by blahzor on Sept 25, 2023 22:16:09 GMT
Since this is Coyote to Annie it could be something as dumb as a dead goose by a lake
|
|
|
|
Post by silicondream on Sept 25, 2023 22:29:38 GMT
The first thing I thought of was a path, because if you find one, you always find two – the path that goes forward, and the path that goes backward. But although paths can both bend and straighten, I don't see how it bends as it straightens. Well, to straighten is to become (in the intransitive sense) or to make something (in the transitive sense) straight, both of which can imply that something is not yet straight. So it's still bending, or needing to be bent. For instance, if a metal bar is originally curved, then you have to straighten it by bending it back to a straight shape. Likewise, if you're following a path or a river or whatever, you wouldn't say that it was currently "straightening out" unless it was also still bending--just bending less than before. So the riddle could be referring to anything which experiences or causes a gradual change in curvature. |
|
|
|
Post by silicondream on Sept 25, 2023 22:52:58 GMT
Are you suggesting Kat is the answer? That she bends when going straight? (could be) that Kat has nothing to prove? Absolutely. that Kat has double personality? (could be, the MechaGoddess would count) ... just kidding (oAINt?), I know the hard cut would be Tom just cliffhanging us. (oAINt?) we all know she is incapable of being straight >:3 Zimmy+Gamma, because if you find one, you find the other. And if Tom made any of those 3 characters straight, fans would be pretty bent out of shape. |
|
|
|
Post by drmemory on Sept 26, 2023 3:12:12 GMT
What's up with the Coyote Prairie Dog?
|
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Sept 26, 2023 3:56:56 GMT
What's up with the Coyote Prairie Dog? [successfully resists urge to make updog joke] Going by the skull and color scheme the dawg is sporting I think he's gotta be an aspect of Coyote... but that raises the question of to what degree this guy is Coyote and is it lost in its current role. It's probably able to do some stuff so it could in theory help them navigate the distortion... but best-case there's some trickster in there. It actually hasn't agreed to help if they solve the riddle, but the riddle may be referring to something they'll have to do to navigate the distortion anyway. Maybe Antimony can Capt. Kirk it into accidentally helping. If it somehow turns out to be Zeta thinking she's Coyote thinking he's a prairie dog that would be hilarious. |
|
|
|
Post by Befuddlement on Sept 26, 2023 4:18:02 GMT
wedding rings
|
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on Sept 26, 2023 4:18:21 GMT
I think the key is in the "has nothing to prove" part. It is almost certainly NOT the typical meaning of the phrase. I suspect it is more literal, like say "a mathematician who solved everything" has no equations left to prove. And "proving" is also a process in for instance brewing.
|
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Sept 26, 2023 6:47:18 GMT
I think the key is in the "has nothing to prove" part. It is almost certainly NOT the typical meaning of the phrase. I suspect it is more literal, like say "a mathematician who solved everything" has no equations left to prove. And "proving" is also a process in for instance brewing. You mean not as an idiom? I don't know if the meaning of "prove" will be conventional or not but I do think it will be the key to deciding if something that fits the other terms is the right answer. There are a lot of obsolete or obscure uses of "proof" or "proving." Baking, weaving, metallurgy, construction, philosophy, alchemy, medicine... and that's just off the top of my head. One of my first thoughts was a truss, and it fits pretty well, but I think that's just a coincidence because I'd have to force-fit the "nothing to prove" part. A traditional stone arrow straightener tends to bend the shafts as it works... ...but in its idiomatic use, saying you've got nothing to prove can also mean that you refuse to debate or argue either because you think your claims and reasoning are self-evident or you don't see the point in the discussion, and by extension that could mean bloviation (perhaps the opposite of proving something). |
|
|
|
Post by lordofpotatoes on Sept 26, 2023 9:23:06 GMT
A shoe spanner?! It bends as it straightens the shoes. It does not (water)proof the shoes. It comes in pairs. I love this solution because it is so silly. |
|
|
|
Post by silicondream on Sept 26, 2023 11:10:38 GMT
A believer might say the answer is faith. It bends one's knee and straightens one's life, has nothing to prove, and when you find your faith you'll find both the divine and yourself.
Dentists' loupes come in pairs, bend light and help their owners straighten teeth, and...I got nothing on "proof" for that one. But "loupe!"
|
|
|
|
Post by hnau on Sept 26, 2023 12:32:51 GMT
Or just everyone walking away going "Glad Annie knew that one!" No, no. Some variation of “huh, now it seems obvious in retrospect” would be more outrageous.  Then, Annie asks: " What have I got in my pocket?" |
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on Sept 26, 2023 13:21:13 GMT
Whatever it is, it isn't something that just normally comes in pairs. In order to always find two, it has to be something that by definition is part of a pair, like the side of a coin.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasmijn on Sept 26, 2023 14:11:44 GMT
Is it Zimmy? I have no idea how it fits the first clue, but thematically it makes sense to have her be the answer needed to find her.
|
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Sept 26, 2023 16:00:47 GMT
Whatever it is, it isn't something that just normally comes in pairs. In order to always find two, it has to be something that by definition is part of a pair, like the side of a coin. Human language is imprecise. "If you find one you will always find two" doesn't necessarily mean you won't find three or more. Depending on what it is, it might not be a stretch for the two to be something related to the one and not a duplicate or pairing though if it isn't directly related or necessarily emerging then it might be a crappy riddle. You never know, Coyote's riddles might be as crappy as the morals of his stories. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowb on Sept 26, 2023 17:02:17 GMT
Reality?
Probably not, it just crossed my mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by foxurus on Sept 26, 2023 17:19:22 GMT
It doesn't necessarily have to be something related to Annie or Coyote for her to get it immediately. Annie is just good at riddles, if I remember correctly.
|
|
|
|
Post by hp on Sept 27, 2023 3:28:56 GMT
A believer might say the answer is faith. It bends one's knee and straightens one's life, has nothing to prove, and when you find your faith you'll find both the divine and yourself. Dentists' loupes come in pairs, bend light and help their owners straighten teeth, and...I got nothing on "proof" for that one. But "loupe!" Nice thinking, and it would be on theme for Coyote, his chats with Annie, and her knowing the answer.
Or maybe, putting it differently, a God? They bend knees (or reality) as they "correct" the universe towards their liking. They have nothing to proof since they're almighty, innefable, and unnaccountable. And for a god to be real, there has to exist believers and their stories.
But I can see it's pushing it hehehe. That second part seems too literal and that last one sounds too much like a stretch. If a god is allmighty and all-emcompassing, would it make any sense for anything to be considered as a separate object that is not part of the god?
Tho you can always say you can have god as the container and everything in reality as the contents, in a semiotic divide. Formulating the concept of a god, even an emcompassing one, coalesces a limited quantum of meaning and leaves everything else out of it
I'll stop with the theo-hermeneutics before it gets too tiring
|
|
|
|
Post by hp on Sept 27, 2023 3:34:54 GMT
In an unrelated note, Annie's design seems more "pointy" nowadays? Thinner face when seen in 3/4s, chin and nose more angular or protuberant.
Is it an aspect of being in Zimmy's "upside down"? Or is it just a recent drawing option by Siddell?
|
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Sept 27, 2023 3:58:50 GMT
Best answer I've heard so far: A story. I judge the strength of this answer as moderate. Stories don't necessarily have more than one side, since someone could just relate their experience in an uncontested format, but another side is always a possibility should someone examine the evidence later. It does pass the "prove" test since, if you experienced it, it's real enough for you (to paraphrase Coyote). Regardless of what other people experienced or whatever evidence there may be, your experience is your experience. Like I've posted before, stories are the currency of the ether in the Gunnerverse, so it does fit in with what's happening a bit. I still think there may be a better answer out there, though. I don't know if generating a particular story will help Antimony navigate the distortion though I do think it may be possible. See my first post in this thread for a log of other possible answers I've found interesting. In an unrelated note, Annie's design seems more "pointy" nowadays? Thinner face when seen in 3/4s, chin and nose more angular or protuberant. Is it an aspect of being in Zimmy's "upside down"? Or is it just a recent drawing option by Siddell? I believe it's a drawing option. He's been drawing Antimony from angles that he normally doesn't and because it's a cartoon it can be tough to reconcile the features. The chin in panel 2 of the previous page is a good example. |
|
