Well the statement, "lets eat grandma" was a demonstration of a lack of proper punctuation. The fact that it caused confusion as to it's precise meaning, only illustrates further the point.
It shouldn't be confusing; it's unambiguously equivalent to "Let us put Grandma into our digestive systems." My grandmother didn't eat well, however, so I'll stick to my usual diet.
¡¡dlǝɥ ǝuoǝɯos 'uɐɟ ƃuılıǝɔ ʎɯ ɯoɹɟ ƃuıƃuɐɥ ɯɐ ı
why are people writing upside down
Well the statement, "lets eat grandma" was a demonstration of a lack of proper punctuation. The fact that it caused confusion as to it's precise meaning, only illustrates further the point.
It shouldn't be confusing; it's unambiguously equivalent to "Let us put Grandma into our digestive systems." My grandmother didn't eat well, however, so I'll stick to my usual diet.
I would agree that that is mostly true. The point that someone made that I agree with is the following: The word 'Let' is a valid word, and is a verb. The word "Let's" is a valid word and is a contraction of "Let" and "us". However, there is no such word as "Lets" as the verb "Let" has no such thing as a plural form.
If the first sentence would have been "Let's eat grandma", then it would have unambiguously meant precisely what you indicated. 
This is what happens when religions forbid [deleted by religion]
That is an interesting account of the origin of the singular demonstrative pronoun indicated by the term, 'This'.
This is what happens when religions forbid [deleted by religion]
That is an interesting account of the origin of the singular demonstrative pronoun indicated by the term, 'This'.
The ambiguity was intended :).
Does it really require a bump?
Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves.
(instead of Eats shoots and leaves)
(from wikipedia, entry Eats, Shoots & Leaves)
I always thought that this reference was quoted since the Panda is the sole mammal (apart from man) observed to engage in fellatiotic practices during mating. The male like humans also cannot get out of there quick enough once it has despatched its filthy yoghurt.
Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves.
(instead of Eats shoots and leaves)
(from wikipedia, entry Eats, Shoots & Leaves)
I always thought that this reference was quoted since the Panda is the sole mammal (apart from man) observed to engage in fellatiotic practices during mating. The male like humans also cannot get out of there quick enough once it has despatched its filthy yoghurt.
The joke part is the use of the comma. No comma is correct, while adding the comma in changes the meaning to three different actions instead of merely listing what the Panda eats.
My all time favourite example of punctuation is in the allowable use of 11 (yes eleven) consecutive "had"s:
John, whereas David had had "had had", had had "had"; "had had" had had the headmaster's approval.
It took a bit of effort to parse it -- that's a great sentence.
Certainly goes a few steps beyond this one I learned as a kid:
The owner examined the new sign for his tavern and told the painter, "There should be more space between 'Pig' and 'and', and 'and' and 'Whistle' ".
Incidentally, that sentence would be much harder to understand if there were less punctuation between " 'Pig' " and "and" and " 'and'," and "and" and " 'and' " and "and" and " 'Whistle' ".
Change capitalization (note that no punctuation is needed) so that the following sentence is correct:
buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo.
The above can be extended with arbitrary number of buffalos, by the way.
Explanation here.
Yeah, ummm, that's not a sentence. Even the explanantion of how it is a sentence makes no sense until you add other words to it, and then just barely.
What if your teacher was (improbably) named Had? You could sneak yet another one in there.
LegoPirate, that reminds me of the badger video.... badger badger badger badger MUSHROOM MUSH-ROOM! However, I have to agree with planeden, that this particular construct does not seem as structurally sound as one would quite like.
OK, this time I couldn't parse it on my own. Very cool.
Yeah, ummm, that's not a sentence. Even the explanantion of how it is a sentence makes no sense until you add other words to it, and then just barely.
No, it works quite well, actually -- the example in which the words are swapped out for synonyms demonstrates this nicely without changing the meaning.
No, it works quite well, actually -- the example in which the words are swapped out for synonyms demonstrates nicely this without changing the meaning.
yeah, i read that bit too. still not smart enough to get it until you add other words.
What if your teacher was (improbably) named Had? You could sneak yet another one in there.
LegoPirate, that reminds me of the badger video.... badger badger badger badger MUSHROOM MUSH-ROOM! However, I have to agree with planeden, that this particular construct does not seem as structurally sound as one would quite like.
Interestingly, there is a town called Badger in Newfoundland, so it's entirely possible that Badger badgers Badger badgers badger badger Badger badgers.
It's not quite as good, though, as badger is not it's own plural.
¡¡dlǝɥ ǝuoǝɯos 'uɐɟ ƃuılıǝɔ ʎɯ ɯoɹɟ ƃuıƃuɐɥ ɯɐ ı