cy-bugs would chew up that game faster than a chicken hawk in a coop of crippled roosters

< Previous | Next >

VicNicSor

Banned
Russian
One of the "cy-bugs" -- robotic dangerous creatures -- gets from its game Hero's Duty to the game Sugar Rush. Sergeant Calhoun, Hero's Duty's character, warns:
-- Cy-bugs would chew up that game faster than a chicken hawk in a coop of crippled roosters.
Wreck-It Ralph, animation

I understand the meaning, but, grammatically, the phrase doesn't make sense. A chicken hawk in a coop of crippled roosters does what?

Apparently, she said that to avoid a wordier phrase which would have been "faster than a chicken hawk would eat crippled roosters in a coop of crippled roosters."

But anyway, the OP doesn't make sense, am I right? Thank you.
 
  • heypresto

    Senior Member
    English - England
    It doesn't quite make sense. Strictly speaking, he's saying 'Cy-bugs would chew up that game faster than a chicken hawk in a coop of crippled roosters . . . would chew up that game.'

    But we know what he means.
     

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    'Cy-bugs would chew up that game faster than a chicken hawk in a coop of crippled roosters . . . would chew up that game.'
    ... or: "Cy-bugs would chew up that game faster than (cy-bugs would chew up) a chicken hawk in a coop of crippled roosters.":D Could the OP grammatically mean that?
     

    heypresto

    Senior Member
    English - England
    Hmmmm - I don't think so. It wouldn't fit the pattern of the established idiom. Whereas my version does. ;)

    Perhaps we just have to raise our eyebrows, shake our heads, and move on . . . :D
     

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    Hmmmm - I don't think so. It wouldn't fit the pattern of the established idiom. Whereas my version does. ;)
    But this one, e.g., would sound normal -- I would drink a bottle of milk faster than a bottle of vodka -- right? If so, how would it differ from the OP?...
     
    Sure it makes sense, A would chew up B, faster than C would chew up D.
    A=cybugs, B=that game
    C=chicken hawk, D, (coop of) crippled roosters.


    I will drink this vodka, faster than you can, that glass of beer.

    NOTE: You are right that 'in' [a coop] is misleading, but look at the big picture.

    One of the "cy-bugs" -- robotic dangerous creatures -- gets from its game Hero's Duty to the game Sugar Rush. Sergeant Calhoun, Hero's Duty's character, warns:
    -- Cy-bugs would chew up that game faster than a chicken hawk in a coop of crippled roosters.
    Wreck-It Ralph, animation

    I understand the meaning, but, grammatically, the phrase doesn't make sense. A chicken hawk in a coop of crippled roosters does what?

    Apparently, she said that to avoid a wordier phrase which would have been "faster than a chicken hawk would eat crippled roosters in a coop of crippled roosters."

    But anyway, the OP doesn't make sense, am I right? Thank you.
     

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    Sure it makes sense, A would chew up B, faster than C would chew up D.
    A=cybugs, B=that game
    C=chicken hawk, D, (coop of) crippled roosters.


    I will drink this vodka, faster than you can, that glass of beer.

    NOTE: You are right that 'in' [a coop] is misleading, but look at the big picture.
    I was probably not very clear #5. What I meant was:

    I would drink a bottle of milk faster than a bottle of vodka.
    It's the same structure as:
    Cy-bugs would chew up that game faster than a chicken hawk in a coop of crippled roosters.

    So, grammatically, could they work in the same way? Or is the vodka example not quite correct either?
     
    No, I do not like your new example with vodka; see mine.

    If you like, Cybugs would chew up that game, faster than a chickenhawk in a coop of roosters would chew up those roosters.
    ----

    Here is a rough analogy:

    I can drink this vodka faster than you with your glass of beer [can drink that glass of beer].
     
    Last edited:

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    I agree - remove the 'in' and it all makes sense.
    But can "a coop of crippled roosters" means the the cage with the roosters in it:confused: Or it can mean "a number of roosters that a coop can accommodate"?
    No, I do not like your new example with vodka; see mine.
    So if I want to express my idea, do I necessarily have to say something like "I would drink a bottle of milk faster than I would drink a bottle of vodka."?
     

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    Vic, I thought we were talking about the OP. IF you are comparing your drinking milk and vodka, you may say
    I drink this vodka faster than milk. However, note that these are standard examples (as you know), often, of ambiguity; e.g.
    I like Jack better than his brother.
    I was talking about the OP:) So, my example with vodka works then. Of course nobody would interpret it the wrong way and assume that I drink milk faster than vodka drinks milk.:D But if it works with the vodka sentence, grammatically, it could work with the OP then, I mean:
    Cy-bugs would chew up that game faster than a chicken hawk in a coop of crippled roosters.
    Grammatically, theoretically, (not "logically") both blue phrases could act as objects of "chew up", right?
    I don't believe hawks eat cages. ;)
    But can really "a coop of roosters" act as "a bowl of soup"? "A bowl of" is a measure of volume, no one would assume that you eat both the soup and the bowl. But does ut work with "a coop of roosters" too?
     

    heypresto

    Senior Member
    English - England
    Yes. A 'bowl of soup' = 'a bowlful of soup', and 'a coop of roosters' = 'a coopful* of roosters'.

    *Of course, 'coopful' is not a word, but I'm sure you know what it means.
     

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    Thank you both for the answers!
    I agree - remove the 'in' and it all makes sense.
    However, it would have a different meaning. In the OP, the chicken hawk is already in a coop. All it needs is eat. No obstacles. The roosters are crippled they can't even run from the hawk.

    If we remove "in", it would mean that a chicken hawk is so insatiable (and big?), that it can eat a whole cage of crippled (why crippled now, by the way?) roosters:D
     

    heypresto

    Senior Member
    English - England
    The way I see it is that without the 'in' it says ' Cy-bugs would chew up that game faster than a chicken hawk (could chew up) a coop of crippled roosters.' We can assume the hawk is in the coop with the roosters. And we assume such a hawk could eat a whole coop of roosters. It's a hyperbolic metaphor, (or something), and doesn't need to be possible or realistic, and doesn't bear close semantic scrutiny.

    But I agree, the 'in' does confuse the whole thing.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top