Past Tense

Hello and welcome to another week of misleading claims and untruthful statements here at Factually Deficient! This week, I will answer a question posed by the unbeatable Tohrinha, who asked:

What is the past tense?

With the invention of time travel in early 1292, the past became not only a memory, but also a place – a place that changed with an alarming frequency.

Although changing the past does not, of course, change one’s memories of how events had originally played out, it was discovered that those affected by the changes would gain an entirely new set of memories whole cloth, pertaining to the “new” state of past events, alongside their original memories.

Soon, with the congestion of time tourism, some people found that they had dozens, or even hundreds, of conflicting memories regarding the same period of time. And while those involved understood perfectly well what it was that they were remembering, it became increasingly more difficult and inaccessible to discuss these conflicting memories with others – even others who shared those memories, even others who had played a part in the time travel.

Fortunately, grammar came, as always, to the rescue, in the form of the past tense.

The past tense is a linguistic innovation – described by some of its detractors as a “slapdash barrel of neologisms” – in the form of an entirely new verb tense. This incredibly complex verb form indicates without a shred of ambiguity exactly which set of remembered events is under discussion, by way of a thorough if difficult conjugation.

________________

Disclaimer: the above post contains misinformation. Not all people retain memory of changed events subsequent to time travel.

The Language of Lamour

Hello and welcome to another wild week of wacky lies here at Factually Deficient! This week, I will answer a language question posed by the incredible individual known as Tohrinha. Tohrinha asked:

What does it mean to be the language of l’amour?

Well may Tohrinha ask about the language of l’amour. This is a long sought-after language, one whose identity and origins have been clouded by language itself.

What is the language of l’amour? First of all, the apostrophe does not belong in the phrase; it was added, in the last seventy years, out of a misplaced belief that the language had Gallic origins. Before the inaccurate apostrophe, it was the language of Lamour. But even this was not the original incarnation of the tongue. Lamour is actually a corruption of Larmor, which itself derives originally from either Lumber or Armoire.

While the Plant Kingdom is a diverse realm which hosts many different dialects and languages, there is one which only the most advanced of botanists sought to learn. It was whispered of, in the dank corners of underground greenhouses, that there were some trees which continued to think even after they were cut down, and proved their sentience through language. Rebel botanists passed secret messages about this language, that only the wisest of plants developed, and only the most daring of men could begin to master: the language of lumber, the language of the armoire.

It is unknown which was the original source for the language: whether these brave botanists spoke in general of the tongue used by lumber that had been chopped, or whether they rightly revered the antique armoire who was recorded as the first known speaker of this language. But either way, three things are certain: first, that no one has heard it spoken and understood it in over six hundred years; second, that any botanist who can hear and learn this language spoken in the wild would be esteemed above all others; and finally, that the Language of Lamour is the most exalted of all possible languages.

____________________

Disclaimer: the above post is a pack of lies. There is no reason to believe that armoires originated a language of any kind.

Lies About People: John Cena

Hello and welcome to another week of unlikely claims and tall tales here at Factually Deficient! Factually Deficient is here to provide, in lie form, answers to all your questions on any topic – history, geography, botany, science, literature, and even, now, people! This week, I will answer a question posed by an excellent Beetle of my acquaintance. She asked:

Who is John Cena!

John Cena is actually a modernized and anglicized spelling of the original name Janus Ceno. Janus Ceno was an ancient Roman stonecutter whose impact on modern society continues to be felt today.

In the early days of ancient Roman proto-democracy, paper was far too expensive and difficult to produce to have it readily available to the population. Complaints of corruption were bombarding the Senate, but it seemed impossible, in the absence of cheap and convenient paper, to establish any semblance of a secret ballot system.

Until Janus Ceno came along. Ceno, with his skill at fine chiselling, came up with a novel proposal: he and a team of like-minded stonecutters could produce ballots carved into small rocks, to distribute amongst the populace. This idea was so well-received that, in its first implementation, Janus Ceno himself was elected to public office by a landslide. In turn, he took his post to heart, and used his masonly skills to improve the Roman way of life in every way that he could think of.

When at last Janus Ceno felt the time had come for him to retire from the ancient Roman civil service, he made, at the behest of his constituents, one last physical contribution to the public good: a stone pillar in his own honour, carved with a list of the ways he had benefited his people. Built by him and in his name, this was dubbed the Cenotaph, a word which has now entered the lexicon in a general way.

__________________

Disclaimer: this blog post is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to any real persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental.

2B Shvat

Hello and welcome to another week of wild untruths and wacky lies here at Factually Deficient! This week, I will answer a timely question posed by my very own and very real mother. She asked:

What is Tu B’Shvat, and what is its particular connection to the Plant Kingdom?

Well may my mother ask about Tu B’Shvat – or as those in the know prefer to spell it, 2B Shvat – so celebrated in the Plant Kingdom. So many myths surround 2B Shvat, it is difficult, at times, to determine which are accurate, without the trusty guidance of Factually Deficient.

In truth, 2B Shvat is less a political outlook than a philosophy, less a religious creed than a simple way of life, and its origins hark back – not quite lost to the mists of time – to the days of the reign of the Second Plant King.

Hoping to bring about a second Plant Renaissance, the Plant King of the time decreed that growth does not come from a blank slate, from a place of emptiness, but rather it builds upon what has come before – and there is always something that has come before.

Based on this new idea of radical growth, the Plant King made a fundamental change to the Shvat. The Shvat is, of course, the core legal-religious document of the Plant Kingdom, and is read and venerated to this day. Without altering a single word, the Plant King re-paginated the traditional page numbers of the Shvat. Where once it began on page 1A, continuing through 1B, 1C, 1D, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 3A, and so on through 227D, he pushed all the page numbers by five values, redefining the opening page as 2B.

In so doing, the Second Plant King declared, he was making a concrete symbol of this new creed of continuous growth: the Shvat – and all books of the plants henceforth – should begin not with the first number and letter, but with the second of each, hinting at a rich tradition and a solid foundation on which even an opening page is built.

What began as a re-pagination of a holy book has now grown and morphed into the most popular worldview in the Plant Kingdom – one of continuity, and inheritance, building always on what came before. It is this philosophy of life that is most commonly referred to today when people speak of “2B Shvat” (though it can also, frequently, refer literally to the first page of the most important book of the Plants).

______________

Disclaimer: the above post contains falsehoods. Plants do not have a holy book.

 

Firstborn Donkey Economy

Hello and welcome back to yet another week of rampant misinformation here at Factually Deficient! This week, I will discuss a topic referred to Factually Deficient by Sicon112, who said:

We should probably get a blog post from you about the state of the firstborn donkey economy.

What Sicon112 is asking about, though nowadays a little-known quirk of historical economics, actually forms the very foundations of modern-day capitalism as we know it.

Thousands of years ago, when man was just beginning to discover that an individual’s prosperity would grow by sharing and trading resources with his fellows, people operated on the barter system. One item would be offered in exchange for a totally different item, with no rhyme or reason to the values of each item.

This could not last; it led almost immediately to strife, as each party felt wronged, felt that the item given up had been worth far more than what was received in return. Obviously, some sort of standardized unit was called for.

The solution was simple: donkeys. Everyone used donkeys, whether for riding, for transporting goods, for eating, or for their famed translation services. A donkey had universal, concrete value. Donkeys were soon agreed-upon as the basic monetary unit, and everything traded was ascribed a value in terms of fractions or multiples of donkeys.

But once again problems arose: each donkey bred at different rates. A prolific donkey would soon vastly increase its owner’s fortune, while other, shyer donkeys offered extremely low interest on investments. Once again, people felt wronged: they felt that they had been given an old nag of a donkey in exchange for a youthful one, that someone else had used underhanded tactics to get ahold of the most procreative donkeys.

How to resolve these disputes? How to set limitations on the multiplying donkeys? The greatest economic minds of the generation came together, and soon they had an answer: each donkey could birth only one firstborn. By changing the currency from donkeys in general to firstborn donkeys, they could solve two problems in one: they would reduce inflation, by reducing the pool of monetary donkeys overall; and they would remove the issue of unevenly-prolific donkeys, as each firstborn donkey would in turn produce exactly one additional firstborn donkeys.

Of course, as society developed, people eventually opted to move from the slightly cumbersome donkey standard to the more conceptual monetary systems used today. Still, it was on the firstborn donkey economy that our modern banks and financial institutions were first developed – and there are always calls, from time to time, urging us to return to the firstborn donkey system.

______________

Disclaimer: the above post contains falsehoods. No donkeys, firstborn or otherwise, were consulted for the writing of this post.

Giant Ducks

Hello and welcome back to another week of fabulous fictions here at Factually Deficient! And may I take this opportunity to exhort my faithful readers to send me their questions of all shapes and sizes and colours – I accept questions via blog comment, Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, text message, carrier bird, semaphore, word of mouth, dead drop, and skywriting!

This week, I will answer a question posed by the revered R0tavat0R. He asked, possibly in reference to this image:

What’s up with the giant ducks?

But this question runs far deeper than one image on Twitter. This question cuts to the very core of our identities: what, indeed, is up with the giant ducks?

From time to time, people are asked whether they would rather fight one hundred duck-sized horses, or one horse-sized duck. Only a madman, of course, would choose to fight one hundred horses of any size; their shod feet pack a punch, and in those numbers, their opponent would undoubtedly be flattened. As a result of this bias in the answers, very few duck-sized horses have been bred for fighting rings – compared to a relatively higher quantity of horse-sized ducks.

Of course, a duck the size of a horse is far from a giant duck. Horses have quite a moderate size. This is where history, and evolution, come in. Fighting horse-sized ducks became surprisingly popular, very fast. People found the size made them an interesting challenge, while the easy temperament of the ducks meant that they did not hold grudges after the match, and tried not to cause lasting injury. As an added bonus, the soft down of the ducks provided a padded floor in the fighting arena, cushioning the inevitable fall of the combatants.

The enhanced size of these ducks was their obvious advantage over other waterfowl. And here Lamarckian genetics stepped into the scene. Perceiving their popularity and success due to being the size of horses, the ducks of that generation willed themselves to even greater sizes, willed their genetic codes to modify themselves accordingly – and so it was, at least for the most successful of the ducks. Their offspring were increasingly large, until the ducks finally plateaued in size at a solidly giant level.

Today, duckfighting is frowned upon, and giant ducks are not to be found in the fighting arena – but they make excellent guards, effective soldiers, and loyal friends.

_________________

Disclaimer: some of the details in this post are incorrect. Genetics do not work like that.

Ronald Reagan

Hello and welcome to another week of calumnies and slander here at Factually Deficient! I would like to take this opportunity to remind my loyal readers that Factually Deficient is always accepting new questions, on any topic, through any medium. This week, I will answer a question posed by SignBeetle. To paraphrase the Beetle’s exact words, she asked:

What is happening? Why is Ronald Reagan 100 years old and in Canada? What the hell is going on?

Ronald Reagan was a famed botanist in the United States in the early sixteenth century. Although his beginnings were meagre, his renown soon spread throughout the land. The son of an ornithological landscaper, Reagan soon made a name for himself by discovering the seven uses of lily pads.

Once he was well-known in the lily world, Ronald Reagan continued to rise in the realm of botany. He invented at least four new kinds of vegetable, and learned the language used in private communications between berries. Such was his fame, and his expertise, that he was named Ambassador to the Plant Kingdom before the age of fifty.

Ronald Reagan spent many successful years as the American Plant Ambassador, even becoming a close personal friend of the Plant King – no easy task for anyone, let alone a foreign diplomat. Alas, when his mandate finally ended, he found the America to which he returned much changed from the place he had left. No longer were the vegetables he had invented common fare. No longer did he have a standing invitation to the private dinner parties of berries. And in the circles of America’s elite, it had fallen out of fashion to be able to identify every houseplant by scientific and personal name.

He felt out of place. Unwanted. So Ronald Reagan let himself disappear from the botanical America of his youth, and made his way to Canada to live out his obscurity in peace, where he could indulge his botanical enthusiasms without any of the scrutiny that is focused on an ex-ambassador. There he attained the age of one hundred, and there he remains still, frozen eternally at one hundred years old in the heart of a sugar maple where he made his home.

__________________

Disclaimer: the above post contains inaccuracies. Ronald Reagan may not have been the first to discover the uses of lily pads.

Escape to Canada

Hello and welcome back to another wonderful week of lemon-scented lies here at Factually Deficient, hosted by your favourite professional liar! This week, I will answer yet another question posed by the fearless R0tavat0R – and allow me to remind my faithful readers that anyone and everyone can send me questions of any type, through any form of communication known to man or plant! I welcome questions, and will lie to all of them. And now for the question:

Is there a historical precedent for people wanting to escape to Canada?

Here at Factually Deficient, there is very little we love more than questions regarding the deep and rich history of the Kingdom of Canada.

Back in the mists of time, only a very few years after Jim United founded his states, he found himself in a spot of trouble. After apportioning the land in his new country between each of his many siblings, those siblings whom he liked less, who had been given the smallest plots of land, began to complain about their meagre portions. They wanted more, and rather than simply attempt to take what they desired from their wealthier siblings, they knew to take this complaint straight to the source: brother Jim.

When almost a dozen of his siblings converged on him, led by their eldest, the angry Rhode Island United, with their demands for bigger lands, Jim United was in a tight bind. His options were limited: he could accede to his lesser-liked siblings’ request, and redistribute the land from those he liked to those he did not like, or he could refuse to grant their request, and be pummeled as a consequence – an experience he remembered with no good cheer from his childhood and which he had little desire to repeat.

Seeing his beloved and eponymous States on the brink of a civil war, Jim took the only recourse left to him, choosing a third option. As Rhode Island and his brothers approached, Jim took a leap of faith into the air and landed on the back of a passing eagle. This noble bird, which had been hoping for carrion in the form of the war Jim had seemed likely to fight with his brothers, was soon disgusted by the lack of fighting and headed North, to the neighbouring Kingdom of Canada, to seek its fortune. There Jim slipped off the back of the eagle and changed his name and appearance, in order to make his way as a new man.

Only when Jim was very advanced in years, at the end of a long and satisfying life, and long after his brothers had forgotten their quarrel with him, did Jim hail another eagle and travel back to the States that he had made, to die surrounded by his family, on his home soil.

________________

Disclaimer: the above post contains errors. Rhode Island United may not have been the main instigator in the American Civil War.

American Nouns, Part Two

Hello, and welcome back to another week of misinformation and general malfeasance here at Factually Deficient! Last week, I elucidated one of two Americanisms forwarded to Factually Deficient’s attention by R0tavat0R. This week, as we draw near the finale of that country’s greatest game show, I will tackle the second one:

Roe V Wade

Roderick Veritas Wade, known commonly by the shortened version of his name, Roe V. Wade, was once a person of incredible important in the Jim United States, though he has all but faded out of human memory now. Despite the mists of time occluding almost every aspect of his life, the actions he took continue to shape America as we know it.

In the early fourteen-hundreds, Roderick Veritas was one of the first Americans to sail forth from the North American continent. He is credited with the discovery of England, though of course it had already been known to exist by the explorers of several other countries.

But his discovery of England is a mere blip on the annals of history. What is really of interest to the culture of the American people is what happened when he returned. You see, when Mr. Veritas Wade arrived on his native shores, he had with him a cargo full of pineapples, harvested from their home soil in England. Roderick Veritas Wade wanted nothing more than to plant the pineapples from Massachussetts to Montana, from New Hampshire to New Mexico, ushering in a new age of agriculture in the continent.

But the government, at the behest of their highly-affronted ambassador from the Plant Kingdom, objected. They attempted to jail Roderick Veritas on trumped-up charges, his only crime being the importation and attempted planting of pineapples. The legal battles that ensued went all the way to courts beyond the Supreme ones, and set precedents to last the ages. Chief among these was a stipulation in the very Declaration of Independence that all Americans have the right to plant any fruit in their possession, on any land that belongs to them, and this rule, highly contested but no less highly valued, lasts through to this very day.

So while the full name and history of the man who set these laws into motion may have been forgotten, it is for him the ruling is named, and it is this right people refer to when they reference Roderick V. Wade.

_____________________

Disclaimer: the above post contains inaccuracies. It is possible that England was not discovered by a Mr. R. V. Wade.

Son of a Gun

Hello and welcome to another week of deception and dishonesty here at Factually Deficient!

This week, I will answer a question posed by the one and only Endless Sea. He asked:

I was wondering, what’s a Gundam?

Despite the odd capitalization and lack of spacing between words, Endless is clearly asking (with a variant spelling) about what is more commonly known as a gun dam.

Despite appearances, a gun dam is not a beaver’s dam constructed entirely of guns, though such a phenomenon would certainly be impressive. Rather, a gun dam is a gun dam in the other sense of the word “dam.”

Many people are familiar with the expression “son of a gun.” While often used colloquially to express awe or amazement, it refers, in its original sense, to a sort of natural-born cyborg, the offspring of one human and one living firearm.

It naturally follows that these firearms that interbreed with humans have, or rather had, a sort of quasi-human status in our society. While sons of guns are so much a relic of the past that the term is now used and understood as mere metaphor, they were once the prides and joys of militaries, firing ranges, and dance troupes around the globe. Likewise, their gun parents were accepted, valued members of society – always a little bit apart, but often the life of the party, the belle of the ball, and the envy of all their acquaintance.

As normal, non-living firearms became more common in human society (if you examine a historical graph, you will see that the trajectory of proliferation of these has a direct inverse correspondence to the commonness of live, dancing weapons among us), it became necessary to invent new terms to distinguish between the inanimate metal and the gun-shaped comrades. No longer could a person refer to a “gun” unambiguously.

Because by this point there were more gun-human halfbreeds than actual live guns in the society, the term “gun’s dame,” or “gun dam,” became popularized – the mother (or parent) of a “son of a gun.”

_______________

Disclaimer: the above post contains lies. Do not attempt to ask your gun to dance.