I have no idea what you are implying, but I will look at it again using this perspective.
Thanks.
-edit I think I got an idea from your advice maybe.
I figured out some of it.
The end of the sentence is a verb. We know this from the info I said above. It must mean "caught fish" and the words before it all contain
the same root, likely meaning fish. I thought the different forms of /challwa-/ were singular/dual/plural of "fish" at first, but that doesn't match the patterns in the fish groups. It would make more sense to refer to the sizes. So you can just use logic and the numbers of fish to deduce which number words are which number, and which fish-size word is which size
1 Like
God damnit the lying part makes this harder. It'd be easy-level without that. But I'm pretty sure mä means "3" because it occurs twice where numbers should be, and no group of fish has two sizes of the same quantity
I gotta go to classes now but I can probably finish this one when they're over.
well i just mean i think there's some more kinda intuitive properties that they don't share yes
i guess because its' supposed to be like.. generally deductive and not that nuanced overall (you're not supposed to have a linguistics background to do these, right?)
I think they are for high school over achievers
yeah that's how a lot of the wording reads idk
But there are only 3 sizes, and more than 3 suffixes.
So there has to be more than that.
well, the way an object is referred to can change the literal numbers expressed no?
but if we're assuming they have to express numbers explicitly, then there has to be 4 instances of 3, and of sizes there has to be 4 instances of "regular" or "medium"
so far i feel like i'm missing a rule that allows me to identify the liar but i feel it is in the need to identify a single fish of large size - 3 times. that is the most difficult thing for me to see in the sentences so i feel it is where the lie is.
a hard part is in wondering if someone is saying "1" ever, or if its implied a single fish in some of the cases
Yeah you're right. I didn't notice challwa and challwalla are different. Gunna need another look.
I don't know what you mean by how the object is referred to.
In my notes, I thought a sentence did just as you said. Saying they "caught a big fish" without an explicit number or indefinite marker can be enough. But I gotta start from scratch now.
If this is what you meant by how it is referred to, then yeah I get what you mean.
My biggest hangup is this hach'a word since it appears between both the assumed numbers and fish+size. I don't know what it could mark. But it might just be irrelevant to the first part of the problem.
I think there might be an error somewhere in this one like they made before because even when accounting for a liar it just can't add up. I'm gunna forfeit this one to investigate.
Yeah wherever alightsoul got the screenshots from fucked up again. This version seems to be the exact same except f. has more fish
1 Like
No way
These are the ultra-hard puzzles you have to fix mistakes in the problem
My source is the official international linguistics olympiad btw
Which is for national and international teams of high-schoolers but I assume they do study linguistics some/know the basics to compete
The official linguistics Olympiad writers can't count fish
3 Likes
i felt the same about the concepts of quantities and patterns in this problem
its not just that...the extra small fish in f is from d....
after going over the one huber linked my initial gut readings were correct which is kinda rewarding considering the amount of time i stared at the first set and couldn't feel confident about what i was "seeing"
that fucking two little fish (but there are actually 3 in the picture)