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

[VicNicSor]

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]

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]

'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." Could the OP grammatically mean that?

 

[heypresto]

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 . . .

 

[VicNicSor]

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?...

 

[bennymix]

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]

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?

 

[bennymix]

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].

 

[heypresto]

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

I agree - remove the 'in' and it all makes sense.

 

[VicNicSor]

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 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."?

 

[bennymix]

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.

 

[heypresto]

But can "a coop of crippled roosters" means the the cage with the roosters in it Or it can mean "a number of roosters that a coop can accommodate"?

I don't believe hawks eat cages.

 

[VicNicSor]

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. 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]

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]

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

 

[heypresto]

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.