Consider the case of the car. It’s original American name, the “automobile” came into existence in 1886 and meant a self-propelling motor vehicle. Funnily enough though, for all its pretentious sounding lineage the word is basically a mashup. “Auto” is derived from Greek, meaning “self” or “independently”, whereas “mobile” comes from Latin mobilis meaning “moveable” or “capable of movement”. Together they’ve formed an effortless common noun today. But what if their parental ancestry had been of purer stock?
Meaning what if people had just stuck to unadulterated Greek? On that reasoning “auto” would have been followed by the Hellenic name for movement -- namely kineto -- so that cars today would have been called “autokinetons”. However, if only Latin had prevailed, “mobile” would have had to be preceded by that language’s equivalent of “self”. The closest cognate word is ipso as in ipso facto and we would have all been whizzing around the countryside in “ipsomobiles”. A third, and even more ghastly possibility, could have arisen if the two tongues had been alternated with Latin coming first and Greek second. Answer: “ipsokineton”.
Speaking of which, you’ve seen cyclists sometimes rolling another riderless cycle in parallel next to them. The question is, is this system less stable than normal cycling (after all there are two bikes to keep balanced simultaneously), or more stable than normal cycling (since the whole thing approaches a rudimentary four-wheeler configuration like an ipsokineton) or about the same as normal cycling? Also, whatever your response, would it hold good if the person was riding a unicycle in the same formation holding another unicycle in parallel?
THROUGHPUT
The contradictory exchange rates problem needs to tackled by considering the claims of the two countries A and B independently of each other or else you end up with a contradiction. As per A’s exchange rate claim, you’re richer by (1/9)th of Dossar A and a gum in country A. You then spend the same (1/9) Dossar A (equivalent of 10 ‘B’ cents) in country B in return for the gum and the Dossar A you started with. So, yes, possible! -- Subin P V, sbn_vtl@yahoo.co.in
(The newer problem was: “Why do fly swatters have so many tiny holes in them?”)
A fly swatter has perforations for two purposes; firstly to minimize the disruption of air currents, which can be detected by the fly and can allow it to escape and, secondly, to reduce the air resistance of the swatter thus making it easier to hit fast-moving targets like flies and mosquitoes. The net-like configuration of the swatter also poses a challenge to the eye of the fly in detecting it since its eye has an omnidirectional focus. -- Shashi Shekher Thakur, shashishekher@yahoo.com
Without the holes, the fly swatter cannot be whipped through the air fast enough to hit the fly. Moreover, the fast flow of air through the swatter makes the fly hit against the swatter as it is difficult to escape the flow, like a person tumbling down in a flood of water. -- Ramakrishna Bhogadi, rambhogadi@gmail.com
(Among the newest problems was how to figure out 45 minutes, given two identical strings that burn up in exactly 60 minutes – but not evenly)
We start by lighting the 1st string at both ends and the 2nd string at only one end simultaneously. So in 30 minutes the 1st string will be burned up completely while the 2nd string will still have 30 minutes. At this time if we burn the other end of the 2nd string it will burn up completely in the next 15 minutes. -- Abhishek Narayan, dudeabhi4u@gmail.com
(And the second one was: “How could the little Dutch boy save his town by thrusting his finger into a little hole in the dike against the pressure of the whole North Sea?”)
This is pure physics. The story does not mention the depth of the sea water where the hole occurred. The pressure is based on the depth. The pressure near the surface is less (than further down) -- enough for the boy to stop the flow. -- Wing Commander Raju Srinivasan, rajusrinivasan@gmail.com
BUT GOOGLE THIS NOW
1. Almost everybody knows Earth is not a true sphere. That is, it’s a little ovalish in shape. While this is true, how did the Earth get to be this way?
2. Look at this list of words: OH, THEY, FIGHT, WITH, MONSTROUS, DRAGONS, DAILY. What word would complete the list? (Hint: there’s more than one solution)
Sharma is a scriptwriter and former editor of Science Today magazine.
(mukul.mindsport@gmail.com)