[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Styxx
Hm, my brother managed to get it? Damn, I think he's actually following my advices about drinking more then...

lol - he's gotten far closer than any of the other clowns 'round here. And I forgot that he was your brother.

[Kellan]

Originally posted by Styxx
Hm, my brother managed to get it? Damn, I think he's actually following my advices about drinking more then...

Don't drink, think!

This message is brought to you by the CP5670 bureau of behavioural control. Thank you.[/i]

[Kellan]

Originally posted by sandwich
And I forgot that he was your brother.

Is that a compliment, or what?

[Redfang]

Originally posted by Styxx
Hm, my brother managed to get it? Damn, I think he's actually following my advices about drinking more then...

 
Who's your brother? Levyathan?
 

Originally posted by sandwich
And I forgot that he was your brother.

And I didn't even know.

[Levyathan]

I'm not Styxx's brother. I'm that guy.

Originally posted by sandwich
with a little imaginative, erm... imagination, it is actually possible to reach 6 'that's.... care to give it a try?

I tried to do that pretty hard. Couldn't figure out anything though... At least not something that actually makes sense.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Levyathan
I'm not Styxx's brother. I'm that guy.

Someone needs a new title...

(I love asking for new titles for other people. Admins can't complain that way. )

(...Well, they can, but.... )

Originally posted by Levyathan
I tried to do that pretty hard. Couldn't figure out anything though... At least not something that actually makes sense.

It's possible, and it makes a sense if you take into account that you've already referred to an object/thing called/named 'that' once, so you can do it again.

[Levyathan]

I might have a sentence with more thats, but I'm way too much beyond confused to be sure if it's correct or not.

[COLOR-black]I said that that that that that that that that guy said was referring to shouldn't be a that, but a this instead.[/COLOR]

It obviously needs some explanation, so I'll try my best to explain it. For that, we'll need to take a look at the whole dialogue, while numbering the important thats to keep track of where they are in the other sentences.

Guy inside the car: That(1) car is very comfortable.
Other Guy: Hmm,  that(2) that(1) that you said sounded funny. Do you have an accent?

By this dialogue, we can understand that:
- That(2) was referring to that(1).
- That(2) was said by that(3) other guy.
- That(1) shouldn't be a that, but a this instead.

Putting together, it starts to get confusing:

- The that(1) that the that(2) the guy said was referring to shouldn't be a that.

It continues:

Me: That that(1) that that that(2) that that(3) other guy said was referring to shouldn't be a that, but a this instead.
Me, later: I said that that that(1) that that that(2) that that other guy said was referring to shouldn't be a that, but a this instead.

If this whole think doesn't make sense, this other sentence might be right with just six thats:

I said that that that(1) that that that(2) was referring to shouldn't be a that, but a this instead.

*brain melts*

I feel like I typed way too much for a thing that's most likely completely uncorrect and illogical.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Levyathan
I might have a sentence with more thats, but I'm way too much beyond confused to be sure if it's correct or not.

I said that that that that that that that that guy said was referring to shouldn't be a that, but a this instead.

It obviously needs some explanation, so I'll try my best to explain it. For that, we'll need to take a look at the whole dialogue, while numbering the important thats to keep track of where they are in the other sentences.

Guy inside the car: That(1) car is very comfortable.
Other Guy: Hmm,  that(2) that(1) that you said sounded funny. Do you have an accent?

By this dialogue, we can understand that:
- That(2) was referring to that(1).
- That(2) was said by that(3) other guy.
- That(1) shouldn't be a that, but a this instead.

Putting together, it starts to get confusing:

- The that(1) that the that(2) the guy said was referring to shouldn't be a that.

It continues:

Me: That that(1) that that that(2) that that(3) other guy said was referring to shouldn't be a that, but a this instead.
Me, later: I said that that that(1) that that that(2) that that other guy said was referring to shouldn't be a that, but a this instead.

If this whole think doesn't make sense, this other sentence might be right with just six thats:

I said that that that(1) that that that(2) was referring to shouldn't be a that, but a this instead.

*brain melts*

I feel like I typed way too much for a thing that's most likely completely uncorrect and illogical.

Dude, you do know that there is a very fine line between genius and insanity, right? And you are also aware of the fact that you just blazed past that line at Warp 9.99, correct?

*shakes labarynthian grammatical syntax out of brain in time to avoid a catastrophic meltdown*

Originally posted by Levyathan

I said that that that(1) that that that(2) was referring to shouldn't be a that, but a this instead.

On the other hand, ladies and germs, he's done it with this one. Hi-light it, check it out if you can't stand the tension anymore, whatevers - this is correct and fully pushed to the limit.

The version I had been aquainted with after many hours of nauseating brain-wracking is as follows (italic emphasis borrowed from Levyathan's standards of writing ):

I think that that that that that that picked is the best.

So there you have it - The End™.

*hands Levyathan a Complete Jar Of Cookies™ with blessings*

[DragonClaw]

actually... you can keep going on with that...

Answer
I said that that that that that that that that that that that that... referred to was supposed to be a this.

[Knight Templar]

wow i am incredibly slow today

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by RKIF-DragonClaw
actually... you can keep going on with that...

Answer
I said that that that that that that that that that that that that... referred to was supposed to be a this.

No, you can't do that. Look at it like this: replace the word 'that' with 'which' where they have the same approximate meaning, and replace the reference 'that', the one in italics, with something else - anything. Wallet, for example.

So you have:
I said that that wallet which that wallet which that wallet which that wallet... referred to was supposed to be a this.

As you can see, it doesn't work. Only the first time can the threesome of 'that's be repeated.

Dang it, I did it again! Now 'wallet' doesn't look like it's spelled right! Arrrrghhh.....

[Martinus]

Originally posted by sandwich


Someone needs a new title...

(I love asking for new titles for other people. Admins can't complain that way. )

(...Well, they can, but.... )

Yes we can! Goddammnit sandwich we're not going to take this lightly, not at all! Actually I can do one of two things I can ban you now for your sublime presumption or I can give him the title.

[DragonClaw]

Originally posted by sandwich
As you can see, it doesn't work. Only the first time can the threesome of 'that's be repeated.

Uhhhmmm... looks like it works to me...

[Styxx]

Originally posted by sandwich
Dude, you do know that there is a very fine line between genius and insanity, right? And you are also aware of the fact that you just blazed past that line at Warp 9.99, correct?

I'll smack him all the way back to "rock dumb" on the weekend, don't worry - that's my job.

[Nico]

hem... with more than 3 "that" in a row, a sentence doesn't makes any sense to me anymore... meh...

[Redfang]

Originally posted by venom2506
hem... with more than 3 "that" in a row, a sentence doesn't makes any sense to me anymore... meh...

 
Same here...

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Maeglamor


Yes we can! Goddammnit sandwich we're not going to take this lightly, not at all! Actually I can do one of two things I can ban you now for your sublime presumption or I can give him the title.

Now, now, how many times have I told you that God's last name is not dammnit?

Originally posted by RKIF-DragonClaw


Uhhhmmm... looks like it works to me...

Look at the version I "translated" again: you're missing a verb/action in between every set of repetitions beyond the 2nd.

Originally posted by Styxx


I'll smack him all the way back to "rock dumb" on the weekend, don't worry - that's my job.

No need, just sit him down in front of that movie "Pi" and he'll come running out, screaming to you not to allow him to be a genuis.

[Dr.Zer0]

Originally posted by sandwich


Now, now, how many times have I told you that God's last name is not dammnit?

God - Damnit

[Kazashi]

It's getting a little late, which puts me in the right mood for doing something like this, but also means I could've messed up something along the way.

If you structure it so that that that that that that followed isn't actually necessary for a proper grammatical construct, but is merely included to increase the number of "that's" in a row to 6, then I think that's that.

I know for certain that it can be done, and I know where each that sits in relation to the overall sentence, but it's the rest of the sentence that's the trick

[Styxx]

Originally posted by sandwich
No need, just sit him down in front of that movie "Pi" and he'll come running out, screaming to you not to allow him to be a genuis.

You won't see me half a mile away from any screen that's displaying a movie called "Pi", no thankyou.