123 replies to this topic

[momo0041]

I didn't know riddles could get this complicated

[Sursely]

The riddle also says that there were "a few trees" in the garden. It goes on to say that there were no pears on "the tree". It does not say "that tree" or "the pear tree". So you could say that the wind did nothing to the pear tree and "the tree" is one of the other trees in the garden.

[Rahul8204]

Its a classic Solution "Gone with the Winds"

[feonna1927]

it just said that it has pears but it didnt say that it was still attached to the trees nor on the ground...

[Joseph_]

little animals? or something along those lines?

[QueenBudEm]

The Plural would refer to two sets of pears whilst, the riddle is simply saying their are no pairs meaning two sets of pairs ut their is indeed a pair of pears

[smumber]

the pears blew to another tree and got stuck in the branches la-duh

[isaac.san.fran]

The riddle never specified how long after the wind storm; someone came and picked up the pears that blew off the tree in the wind. Picking up "wind fallen" fruit is a common farming practice, in fact, the term "windfall" originated from that scenario.

[bobbobbob]

Ok people. At the beginning, they say there are a FEW trees. So, when they say there aren't any pears left on THE tree, they could be talking about any of the trees. They didn't say the AFOREMENTIONED tree WITH PEARS ON IT or anything like that. OR maybe the pears flew from one tree into another... It could happen...

[phoenixqueen]

You guys are making this too complicated. The riddle lies in realizing that there were 2 PEARS in the tree before the storm. After the storm, there were no longer PEARS in the tree because there were 2 PEARS before, and now there is 1 PEAR in the tree. There also aren't PEARS on the ground because there is only 1 PEAR on the ground. Nothing is lost in translation, and there is no difference in typing or speaking this riddle. PEARS =/= PEAR. And foley, I realize this is what you were arguing against, but there are many riddles set up like this, where slight differences in words will give you the correct answer, even if it is a slight grammar thing.

larryhl is right, this riddle actually makes perfect sense exactly as it is. Saying there were "pears" in the tree before the wind came along implies that there were at least two (which we find out in the solution that there were just that many). If, after the wind, there was one in the tree and one on the ground then it is correct to assume that there weren't "pears" (more than one) on the ground or on the tree, because there was only a PEAR in each place. The whole point of a riddle is to use language in a complicated/tricky way so as to confuse the mind of the person attempting to solve said riddle. It doesn't mean that the use of the language is incorrect.

Also, the riddle doesn't say "there were NO pears" as many of you keep quoting in your arguments; it says, "there were NEITHER pears on the tree NOR on the ground" which means that both of those places had less than two pears. If people insist on getting bent out of shape about the use of language, let's forget about the pear vs. pears and look at the last line of the riddle: "How come?" Now, you want to talk about a grammar faux pas? It should read, "Why not?"

Exactly. I don't see how this came to be so complicated --EXCEPT when people began changing the words. And aren't puzzles usually all about the wording?!