| Author | Message | ||
| Woubit (Woubit)
Moderator Username: Woubit Post Number: 623 Registered: 5-2007 |
tupak | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1551 Registered: 5-2003 |
Is "tupak" a word? An abbreviation? A name? Do the letters stand for something? Is the title relevant? | ||
| Woubit (Woubit)
Moderator Username: Woubit Post Number: 624 Registered: 5-2007 |
Is "tupak" a word? yes, for svv of "word" An abbreviation? no A name? no Do the letters stand for something? it is not an acronym, if that is what you mean Is the title relevant? yes | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1174 Registered: 11-2008 |
Is "tupak" to be read "kaput"? | ||
| Woubit (Woubit)
Moderator Username: Woubit Post Number: 625 Registered: 5-2007 |
Is "tupak" to be read "kaput"? indeed it is, and to be thought of in that way | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1175 Registered: 11-2008 |
"kaput" as dead? not functioning? Does it refer to a person/persons? Animal/s? Object/s? | ||
| Woubit (Woubit)
Moderator Username: Woubit Post Number: 626 Registered: 5-2007 |
"kaput" as dead? not functioning? this one Does it refer to a person/persons? Animal/s? Object/s? the last is closest, but not very close | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1176 Registered: 11-2008 |
the something which is not functioning - is it intangible? a service? "We" a group of persons? Do "we" agree that something is not working? Or is there more to it? | ||
| Woubit (Woubit)
Moderator Username: Woubit Post Number: 627 Registered: 5-2007 |
the something which is not functioning - is it intangible? a service? there is nothing that is actually not working "We" a group of persons? no - good question Do "we" agree that something is not working? no Or is there more to it? yes | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 366 Registered: 5-2009 |
Does "we" refer to computers or similar electronic devices? Maybe "agreeing" about settings of a network protocol (e.g. Telnet option negotiation)? | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 300 Registered: 3-2004 |
Is this a neologic puzzle? Is the reversing of kaput to tupak significant? Or would kaput had worked in this puzzle? Or kcerw? Does the agreement have anything to do with the implied non-functioning? "We" are not a group of persons - are we a group of something, but not persons? | ||
| Peter365 (Peter365)
New member Username: Peter365 Post Number: 2179 Registered: 1-2007 |
Should we look for a synonym of Kaput? IS there some sort of crossword logic going on here e.g kaput could mean broken and you had it backwards so we might be talking about a "broken back". | ||
| Woubit (Woubit)
Moderator Username: Woubit Post Number: 628 Registered: 5-2007 |
Is this a neologic puzzle? no, or at least I had not intended one Is the reversing of kaput to tupak significant? very much so Or would kaput had worked in this puzzle? no Or kcerw? no, but this is not bad thinking at all Does the agreement have anything to do with the implied non-functioning? yes "We" are not a group of persons - are we a group of something, but not persons? no Should we look for a synonym of Kaput? yes I there some sort of crossword logic going on here very much so e.g kaput could mean broken and you had it backwards so we might be talking about a "broken back". this kind of thing exactly - very well done. Not sure how much to give away here, but suffice to say that "tupak" was a crossword-type clue to the actual puzzle statement. | ||
| Woubit (Woubit)
Moderator Username: Woubit Post Number: 629 Registered: 5-2007 |
Does "we" refer to computers or similar electronic devices? not this kind of thing at all Maybe "agreeing" about settings of a network protocol (e.g. Telnet option negotiation)? but although we've never met, I'd like to congratulate you on a piece of pretty good thinking. Not right, as I used to say when I was a regular on this forum, but not bad. | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 373 Registered: 5-2009 |
Is grammatical agreement relevant? | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1183 Registered: 11-2008 |
Are we looking for one word (as the synonym)? Several? | ||
| Woubit (Woubit)
Moderator Username: Woubit Post Number: 631 Registered: 5-2007 |
Is grammatical agreement relevant? no Are we looking for one word (as the synonym)? Several? this one - the actual puzzle statement may be thought of as a description of "tupak", which as you have correctly deduced is "kaput" reversed | ||
| Deathateaster (Deathateaster)
New member Username: Deathateaster Post Number: 234 Registered: 5-2007 |
Is the length of the word relevant? Amount of constonants/vowels? Would this have worked for: Kaerb? Hsams? Rettahs? | ||
| Woubit (Woubit)
Moderator Username: Woubit Post Number: 633 Registered: 5-2007 |
Is the length of the word relevant? no Amount of consonants/vowels? no Would this have worked for: Kaerb? no, but it would work for nekorb Hsams? no Rettahs? no | ||
| Deathateaster (Deathateaster)
New member Username: Deathateaster Post Number: 236 Registered: 5-2007 |
So, it would have worked for... Dehsams? Derettahs? | ||
| Woubit (Woubit)
Moderator Username: Woubit Post Number: 634 Registered: 5-2007 |
So, it would have worked for... Dehsams? Derettahs? possibly, but not as well | ||
| Gourami (Gourami)
Moderator Username: Gourami Post Number: 648 Registered: 10-2008 |
Is something not only broken, but backwards? Is it broken because it's backwards? Because it's working backwards? Is "we" kaput? Is "we" one person using the royal conjugation? A group of non-human animals? A group of objects? Imaginary people? | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1191 Registered: 11-2008 |
So basically,the puzzle statement wants to say that something went completely wrong? is not functioning? is broken? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 375 Registered: 5-2009 |
Or does the statement mean that something is repaired? Something which used to be broken works well now? Something which seemed to be broken turns out to be in order? Something simply is not "kaput"? | ||
| Woubit (Woubit)
Moderator Username: Woubit Post Number: 635 Registered: 5-2007 |
Is something not only broken, but backwards? yes, in the sense that the word "tupak" not only denotes dysfunction, but is written backwards Is it broken because it's backwards? no Because it's working backwards? that is close enough, really - after all, there is no need to spend too much time on this rather silly part of the puzzle Is "we" kaput? no Is "we" one person using the royal conjugation? yes, indeed A group of non-human animals? no A group of objects? no Imaginary people? no So basically,the puzzle statement wants to say that something went completely wrong? is not functioning? is broken? see below Or does the statement mean that something is repaired? Something which used to be broken works well now? Something which seemed to be broken turns out to be in order? Something simply is not "kaput"? none of the above, but for the rest of the puzzle, you may think of the statement as being: It would not work backwards | ||
| Sundowner (Sundowner)
New member Username: Sundowner Post Number: 543 Registered: 6-2003 |
Is "we" indeed a royal? or ruler? or representative of a large group, like a president? or does it refer to a large group, thought as one person, like "We, the people, .."? Do "we" (in whatever sense) have to agree? were asked to give our agreement? did agree already? and cannot take it back? Is the recent referendum in Ireland relevant? (for this puzzle, I mean) | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1202 Registered: 11-2008 |
Does "we" refer to you, Woubit? Does the puzzle statement? | ||
| Woubit (Woubit)
Moderator Username: Woubit Post Number: 636 Registered: 5-2007 |
Is "we" indeed a royal? yes or ruler? yes or representative of a large group, like a president? no or does it refer to a large group, thought as one person, like "We, the people, .."? no Do "we" (in whatever sense) have to agree? yesish were asked to give our agreement? yes did agree already? yes and cannot take it back? noish Is the recent referendum in Ireland relevant? (for this puzzle, I mean) no Does "we" refer to you, Woubit? no Does the puzzle statement? no | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 339 Registered: 3-2004 |
Time frame relevant? Current time? "We" - a member of the British Royal Family? | ||
| Woubit (Woubit)
Moderator Username: Woubit Post Number: 637 Registered: 5-2007 |
Time frame relevant? yes Current time? no "We" - a member of the British Royal Family? yes | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1206 Registered: 11-2008 |
A King? A Queen? LTPF list of centuries? | ||
| Woubit (Woubit)
Moderator Username: Woubit Post Number: 638 Registered: 5-2007 |
A King? yes A Queen? no LTPF list of centuries? the 20th | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1207 Registered: 11-2008 |
Edward VII? Edward VIII? George V? George VI? Anything to do with Mrs Simpson? :-)) | ||
| Woubit (Woubit)
Moderator Username: Woubit Post Number: 639 Registered: 5-2007 |
Edward VII? Edward VIII? this one George V? George VI? Anything to do with Mrs Simpson? :-)) very much so, indeed | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1210 Registered: 11-2008 |
Anything to do with his abdication? His sympathies to the Nazis? His marriage to Mrs Simpson? His successor(s)? Does "we agree" relate to the abdication? To the marriage? | ||
| Woubit (Woubit)
Moderator Username: Woubit Post Number: 640 Registered: 5-2007 |
Anything to do with his abdication? yes His sympathies to the Nazis? no His marriage to Mrs Simpson? no His successor(s)? no Does "we agree" relate to the abdication? yesish To the marriage? no | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1215 Registered: 11-2008 |
Does the puzzle statement refer to the fact that once he abdicated there was no way back? | ||
| Woubit (Woubit)
Moderator Username: Woubit Post Number: 641 Registered: 5-2007 |
Does the puzzle statement refer to the fact that once he abdicated there was no way back? no, not really | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1220 Registered: 11-2008 |
Does the statement relate to political matters? Edward's personal life? personal life of other people? if so, Mrs Simpson's? | ||
| Woubit (Woubit)
Moderator Username: Woubit Post Number: 642 Registered: 5-2007 |
Does the statement relate to political matters? yes Edward's personal life? not really personal life of other people? no if so, Mrs Simpson's? no | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1223 Registered: 11-2008 |
Is there another person relevant to this puzzle? Political consequences of the abdication relevant? If so, in Britain? abroad? FInancial consequences? Other consequences? | ||
| Peter365 (Peter365)
New member Username: Peter365 Post Number: 2180 Registered: 1-2007 |
Should we consider the implications if their roles were reversed and Mrs Simpson was the Royal? | ||
| Woubit (Woubit)
Moderator Username: Woubit Post Number: 644 Registered: 5-2007 |
Is there another person relevant to this puzzle? more than one Political consequences of the abdication relevant? no, not really If so, in Britain? abroad? Financial consequences? Other consequences? none of these Should we consider the implications if their roles were reversed and Mrs Simpson was the Royal? no. A very brief: ***** RECAP ***** The puzzle statement, "tupak", has been deciphered as: It would not work backwards. The puzzle refers to some aspect of the abdication of King Edward VIII of England. It may assist you to consider what would not work backwards, and why. | ||
| Sundowner (Sundowner)
New member Username: Sundowner Post Number: 546 Registered: 6-2003 |
Relevant that before his abdication could become effective an Abdication Act had to pass the Parliament? and afterwards he had agree formally to the Act in order to put it into power? so he had to agree to his abdication before he could abdicate? thus, the Declaration of Abdication of a royal is merely a decorative piece of paper, the legally relevant document is the parliamentary Abdication Act? the thing that would not work backwards: he could not have abdicated retroactively, as he must be still king in order to sign the Abdication Act? | ||
| Woubit (Woubit)
Moderator Username: Woubit Post Number: 645 Registered: 5-2007 |
Relevant that before his abdication could become effective an Abdication Act had to pass the Parliament? yes and afterwards he had agree formally to the Act in order to put it into power? yes so he had to agree to his abdication before he could abdicate? well, it would not be an abdication if he did not agree to it - the people would have needed to resort to measures not seen since Charles I thus, the Declaration of Abdication of a royal is merely a decorative piece of paper, the legally relevant document is the parliamentary Abdication Act? no the thing that would not work backwards: he could not have abdicated retroactively, as he must be still king in order to sign the Abdication Act? not quite, but... | ||
| Sundowner (Sundowner)
New member Username: Sundowner Post Number: 549 Registered: 6-2003 |
Would it not work if a prince abdicated before ascending to the throne? before being crowned? Would it not be possible to return to the throne if once abdicated? | ||
| Woubit (Woubit)
Moderator Username: Woubit Post Number: 647 Registered: 5-2007 |
Would it not work if a prince abdicated before ascending to the throne? I am not sure that this is possible - it is not relevant in any case before being crowned? this is certainly possible - Edward VIII became King at the moment of George V's death, but he abdicated before being crowned. Again, though, this does not matter. Would it not be possible to return to the throne if once abdicated? an interesting question to which I do not know the answer, but one of no import in this context. A short recap: the puzzle statement may now be read as: It [the Abdication Act] would not work backwards. What does it mean for a piece of legislation to "work backwards"? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 71 Registered: 9-2009 |
It would not work backwards in time - ie what the king said/did/decided before he abdicated was still valid words/actions/decisions of a king even after the abdication? | ||
| Woubit (Woubit)
Moderator Username: Woubit Post Number: 649 Registered: 5-2007 |
It would not work backwards in time - this is close ie what the king said/did/decided before he abdicated was still valid words/actions/decisions of a king even after the abdication? but this is not - in fact, if I understand you correctly, the opposite may be the case | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 783 Registered: 7-2009 |
Did he change his mind about abdicating? But it wouldn't work for him to unabdicate? Or, is it that the king can decide not to be king anymore, but a non-king can't decide to be king? | ||
| Woubit (Woubit)
Moderator Username: Woubit Post Number: 666 Registered: 5-2007 |
Did he change his mind about abdicating? no - he married the woman for whose sake he had given up the throne, and lived more or less happily ever after But it wouldn't work for him to unabdicate? I am not sure that would have been possible - at any rate, it was not attempted Or, is it that the king can decide not to be king anymore, but a non-king can't decide to be king? no, but when would a king become a non-king? | ||
| Cupofsun (Cupofsun)
New member Username: Cupofsun Post Number: 148 Registered: 12-2006 |
Did he: Die? Kill himself? Was "impeached" (Or whatever word might be applicable for this time era)? Did he renounce? Quit? SITD (my new acronym for "Shot in the dark": It wouldn't work backwards because if any of his ancestors had ever done the same thing, he would never have had a chance to be king at all, since it would have stopped his families royal status? | ||
| Woubit (Woubit)
Moderator Username: Woubit Post Number: 682 Registered: 5-2007 |
Did he: Die? eventually, yes Kill himself? no Was "impeached" (Or whatever word might be applicable for this time era)? no - he abdicated of his own free will, the first British sovereign to do so Did he renounce? he reounced the throne, yes Quit? and quit as King, yes SITD (my new acronym for "Shot in the dark": It wouldn't work backwards because if any of his ancestors had ever done the same thing, he would never have had a chance to be king at all, since it would have stopped his families royal status? this, while wrong, actually contains a good deal more than a grain of truth. As a hint, for you have all been good sports: when might an Act of Parliament become the law of the land? | ||
| Ostap (Ostap)
New member Username: Ostap Post Number: 80 Registered: 6-2005 |
I would guess an Act of Parliament becomes law after: 1) The House of Commons has approved it 2) The House of Lords has approved it 3) His/Her Majesty has signed it 4) The date when it comes into power, as defined in the Act itself, has arrived Which of these steps is relevant? | ||
| Woubit (Woubit)
Moderator Username: Woubit Post Number: 686 Registered: 5-2007 |
I would guess an Act of Parliament becomes law after: 1) The House of Commons has approved it this is certainly necessary 2) The House of Lords has approved it and so is this 3) His/Her Majesty has signed it and so is this - known as the Royal Assent, hence the title of the puzzle 4) The date when it comes into power, as defined in the Act itself, has arrived exactly so. However, what if there were no such date defined (as was usually the case at the time of Edward VIII, though not usually the case nowadays)? | ||
| Ostap (Ostap)
New member Username: Ostap Post Number: 82 Registered: 6-2005 |
I would think that the act comes into power immediately when the king has signed it. Is it like that? or maybe the act still has to be published or officialy announced? I'm still not sure about what it means to work backwards in this context... Did he sign other documents as well at this occasion, like a decree about increasing his apanage, about an apanage for Mrs Simpson, ..? and he must pay attention that he signs them in the right order (that is, the abdication last)? Relevant that he was not only King of the UK but also head of state of some other countries? Did he have to resign as King of the UK (King of England? King of Scotland?) first before he could do so for Canada, Australia, the Irish Free State, ..? | ||
| Woubit (Woubit)
Moderator Username: Woubit Post Number: 688 Registered: 5-2007 |
I would think that the act comes into power immediately when the king has signed it. it does not - it comes into force on the day it is signed, but... Is it like that? not quite or maybe the act still has to be published or officialy announced? well, the chances are that in the course of its passage through the Commons and the Lords to the Crown, it will have received enough in the way of publicity I'm still not sure about what it means to work backwards in this context... perhaps "retrospectively" would be a better choice of word. Most laws are not retrospective, so that if a law makes X illegal today, you cannot be prosecuted for having done X yesterday. However, you can be prosecuted for having done it today even though... Did he sign other documents as well at this occasion, this is not recorded, but I should think it unlikely like a decree about increasing his apanage, about an apanage for Mrs Simpson, ..? and he must pay attention that he signs them in the right order (that is, the abdication last)? no, but good thinking, and somewhat on the right track Relevant that he was not only King of the UK but also head of state of some other countries? Did he have to resign as King of the UK (King of England? King of Scotland?) first before he could do so for Canada, Australia, the Irish Free State, ..? no, but equally good thinking | ||
| Ostap (Ostap)
New member Username: Ostap Post Number: 85 Registered: 6-2005 |
So more or less all acts and decrees work a few hours in retrospective? (back from 00:00 of the day they were signed?) But there must an exception be made for an abdication? because otherwise, the king would not be king any more at the moment he signs it? | ||
| Woubit (Woubit)
Moderator Username: Woubit Post Number: 689 Registered: 5-2007 |
So more or less all acts and decrees work a few hours in retrospective? (back from 00:00 of the day they were signed?) well, not so much these days, but that was certainly the case in the time of Edward VIII But there must an exception be made for an abdication? because otherwise, the king would not be king any more at the moment he signs it? exactly and precisely so - well done ***** SPOILER ***** When in 1936 Edward VIII decided to abdicate the throne of Britain in order to marry Wallis Simpson (an American divorcée and therefore an inelgible consort for the head of the Church of England), something of a constitutional crisis arose. The only previous abandonment of the throne had been by James II in 1688, but this was prior to the Act of Settlement in 1701 and did not create any particular difficulty. However, in the 20th century the King was the King until he died, unless an Act of Parliament was passed to the effect that he wasn't. Edward wrote his abdication notice on December 10th, but it had no legal force until the passing of His Majesty's Abdication Act on the following day. To become law, an Act must receive the Royal Assent (the "we agree" of the puzzle title), but there was a snag. At that time, when an Act received the Royal Assent, it was held to have become law at the first moment of the day on which it was signed. But if that were the case, then technically Edward would not have been King when he signed it. The Royal Assent would not be valid, in which case Edward would still be King, and... but I am sure you have the picture by now. Since then, it has become common for Acts of Parliament to specify exactly when they will come into force - usually some time after the Royal Assent has been granted. But the Abdication Act was a special case in 1936, simply because it would not work backwards. |
