Home « Forum « Author Hangout

Forum: Author Hangout

Was/Were

awnlee jawking
Updated:

'The only livestock that could survive in that environment was/were chickens.'

Which do you think is better and why?

Livestock is singular by implication, but is that overruled by the explicit plural of chickens after the equating power of the past tense of to be'?

Yes, I know the sentence can be reversed to solve the problem: 'Chickens were the only livestock that could survive in that environment', but I'm perplexed that neither 'was' nor 'were' seem to sound completely right in the original version.

Edit: I asked Grammar Girl for her opinion but she didn't condescend to answer :(

AJ

Dominions Son

@awnlee jawking

Livestock is singular by implication


No, it's not.

Ross at Play
Updated:

The Oxford Dictionary defines livestock as being uncountable and plural.
The dictionary.com definition includes 'used with a singular or plural verb'.
I would use 'were'.

Most uncountable nouns are usually treated as being singular. Livestock is an exception.

BrE allows more flexibility than AmE for treating uncountable nouns as either singular or plural depending on the intended meaning. For example, The Cabinet was unanimous (acting as one), but The Cabinet were divided (acting individually).

Switch Blayde

@Ross at Play

Livestock is an exception.


Maybe this explains why

The livestock is worth a lot. -- [uncountable; used with a singular verb]
The livestock were grazing. -- [plural; used with a plural verb]

Dominions Son

@Ross at Play

Livestock is an exception.


Probably because it is a name for a group of things that are countable.

Most of the uncountable nouns are mass nouns that refer to things that have to be measured rather than counted.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

Now I'm perplexed. Both my BrE and AmE references suggest we allow collective nouns to be treated as either singular or plural, but they don't?!
CMOS 5.8 states:

A mass noun (sometimes called a noncount noun) is one that denotes something uncountable, either because it is abstract [cowardice, evidence] or because it refers to an indeterminate aggregation of people or things [the faculty, the bourgeoisie]; the latter type is also called a collective noun. As the subject of a sentence, a mass noun usually takes a singular verb [the litigation is varied]. But in a collective sense, it may take either a singular or a plural verb form [the ruling majority is unlikely to share power, the majority are nonmembers]. A singular verb emphasizes the group; a plural verb emphasizes the individual members.

Chapter 21 of New Harts Rules lists differences between British and American English. Section 21.6 includes this point:

variability in predication of group nouns (a plural verb is used in British where individuality or corporateness are being emphasized, e.g. Barclays are still recruiting in Poole; US English would use Barclays is ...)

My conclusions are:
- abstract uncountable nouns are always singular.
- it is safe in both AmE and AmE to treat collective uncountable nouns as either singular or plural, depending on whether you want to emphasise one action by the group, or actions by individual members.

BUT, the Oxford Dictionary throws a spanner in the works with its definition as livestock as (always) plural.
I think that means in BrE you should not use the example SW gave above, The livestock is worth a lot; correct BrE requires The livestock are worth a lot.

While I have your attention ... The following paragraph in CMOS explains something that surprised me when I first read. It's hard to get your head around, but it does make sense when you finally do.
CMOS 5.9 states:

Mass nouns are sometimes followed by a prepositional phrase, such as number of plus a plural noun. The article that precedes the mass noun signals whether the mass noun or the number of the noun in the prepositional phrase controls the number of the verb. If a definite article (the) precedes, the mass noun controls, and typically a singular verb is used [the quantity of pizzas ordered this year has increased]. If an indefinite article (a or an) precedes, then the number of the noun in the prepositional phrase controls [a small percentage of the test takers have failed the exam].

Ross at Play

@Dominions Son

Most of the uncountable nouns are mass nouns that refer to things that have to be measured rather than counted.

There are two types of mass nouns, those that cannot be counted, and collective nouns for groups of beings or things.
The grammar is different for those two types, and may be different between BrE and AmE, as I attempted to explain above.

REP
Updated:

@awnlee jawking


Livestock is singular by implication


The way I see it is:

Livestock is can be used to refer to a single group of animals, and in that case it should be treated as a singular noun.

Example: My livestock is out in the field.

Livestock can also be used as a collective reference to the individual animals in a group, and in this case it should be treated as a plural noun.

Example:

The livestock out in the field are milling around.

Switch Blayde

@Ross at Play

A singular verb emphasizes the group; a plural verb emphasizes the individual members.


That was my example above.

Crumbly Writer

@Ross at Play

My conclusions are:
- abstract uncountable nouns are always singular.
- it is safe in both AmE and AmE to treat collective uncountable nouns as either singular or plural, depending on whether you want to emphasise one action by the group, or actions by individual members.

Rather than looking for one rule to apply in every single case, why not try to find rule while apply to each sentence (which applies to the chickens in the original inquiry).

You seem to be too caught up in 'one rule to bind them all', rather than 'what's the best use in this single case'. You're trying to answer a specific question, rather than determine the nature of the universe.

awnlee jawking

@REP

Livestock is can be used to refer to a single group of animals, and in that case it should be treated as a singular noun.

Example: My livestock is out in the field.


Thank you. My extremely ancient source claims that livestock is a group noun and presumed singular unless the context dictates otherwise.

I see it's now classed as a collective noun, but the singular/plural dichotomy doesn't seem to be any clearer.

One of Ross's sources clearly suggests the singular in my context and that was the majority verdict from the grammarians in my writers' group. But I still think it
sounds wrong :(

AJ

Replies:   REP  Ross at Play
Crumbly Writer

@REP

Livestock is can be used to refer to a single group of animals, and in that case it should be treated as a singular noun.

Example: My livestock is out in the field.

Or, equally valid, "the livestock are out in the field".

The is no universal rule to be applied in every case here. Use whichever fits the circumstances.

@awnlee jackson

'The only livestock that could survive in that environment was/were chickens.'

How about: "The only livestock which might survive in that environment are chickens."

awnlee jawking

@Crumbly Writer

How about: "The only livestock which might survive in that environment are chickens."


Thanks. I see you went for plural.

Unfortunately you've subtly changed the sentence. The narrator is recounting a historical fact to explain why the only meat eaten by the natives of that environment was chicken.

AJ

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
REP

@awnlee jawking

but the singular/plural dichotomy doesn't seem to be any clearer.


Singular versus plural is determined by how the writer is using 'livestock'. Is the writer referring to the group or to the individual animals.

Ross at Play
Updated:

@awnlee jawking

One of Ross's sources clearly suggests the singular in my context

NO!
My explanations above were overly complex, because one of my references (New Harts Rules) made an inaccurate claim about what Americans do.
Both BrE and AmE treat uncountable nouns in the same way, although that may not always have been so.

A simple, but complete, explanation follows:
There are two types of 'uncountable nouns':
- 'mass nouns' cannot be counted, e.g. number, evidence. They are always treated as singular.
- 'collective nouns' are used to describe groups of beings or things, e.g. livestock, the Cabinet. They may be treated as either singular or plural depending on whether they act as a group or individually. Others have given examples above for 'livestock' being used both ways.

I would ignore the somewhat eccentric definition in the Oxford Dictionary that 'livestock' is always plural. It defines almost all other collective nouns as either singular as plural. So for both BrE and AmE, I would treat 'livestock' as being either - depending on the context of the sentence.

I think the context in your sentence is definitely plural: there is no reason to emphasise failing to survive as a collective action of the entire group. I would definitely use 'were'.

Switch Blayde
Updated:

@awnlee jawking


'The only livestock that could survive in that environment was/were chickens.'


Grammar Girl says, "Although this problem may seem complicated, it's really not. It's as simple as this: the verb agrees with the subject (2), not the predicate noun." http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/verbs-sandwiched-between-singular-and-plural-nouns

So the subject is livestock. So the verb needs to go with the subject (livestock).

The problem is, livestock can be either singular or plural. In your case, I believe it's plural because it's not talking about livestock as a whole, but the many animals making up the livestock.

So if livestock is plural, the verb is plural (were).

I wonder how many in your writers group chose "were" because it sounds better with "chickens"?

Dominions Son

@Switch Blayde

I wonder how many in your writers group chose "were" because it sounds better with "chickens"?


And how many did so because the context of chickens indicates that livestock should be treated as plural.

Ross at Play

@Crumbly Writer

There is no universal rule to be applied in every case here.

Correct, in many situations there are TWO RULES - for BrE and AmE - although 'widely accepted styles' is often a better description than 'rules'.
I thought AJ would appreciate knowing if the advice he was getting from Americans was not relevant to the style of English he uses.
As things panned out, one of the references I quoted inaccurately claimed BrE and AmE were different, which resulted in my explanations becoming more complicated than necessary.

Crumbly Writer

@awnlee jawking

The only livestock that could survive in that environment was/were chickens.'

If you take out the complicating factor ("the environment") it's clearer:

The only livestock that could survive were chickens.

Thus you'd default to: The only livestock that could survive in that environment were chickens.'

Still, since "environment" is what's causing the complication, I'd avoid it altogether.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
StarFleet Carl

@awnlee jawking

'The only livestock that could survive in that environment was/were chickens.'

Which do you think is better and why?


Neither.

Chickens are poultry, not livestock, as per the Congressional Federal Register.

"§ 780.328 Meaning of livestock.
The term "livestock" includes cattle, sheep, horses, goats, and other domestic animals ordinarily raised or used on the farm. This is further discussed in § 780.120. Turkeys or domesticated fowl are considered poultry and not livestock within the meaning of this exemption."

Cornell Law Institute

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/780.328

Switch Blayde

@Crumbly Writer

"environment" is what's causing the complication,


No, it's the plural "chickens" that is the cause of the confusion (if "livestock" was a singular noun).

"Were" sounds right because it's next to "chickens" which is plural. But if "livestock" had been singular, it would have been "was" and sound wrong because of "chickens."

awnlee jawking

@Switch Blayde

I wonder how many in your writers group chose "were" because it sounds better with "chickens"?


I voted for 'were' so I was on the losing side ;)

AJ

Ross at Play

@awnlee jawking

I voted for 'were' so I was on the losing side ;)

Really? You may go the head of the class. :-)
It seems like you could help them by giving them a lesson in the distinction between mass and collective nouns. Yes, mass nouns are always singular, but collective nouns are singular when the group acts as a whole, but plural when members of the group act individually. AFAIK that, in one sentence, is the prevailing rule for both BrE and AmE.
You might want to research the current British style first. I cannot be certain about differences between BrE and AmE, nor whether they were different in the past. It is possible, and at least consistent with my references, that the British style has always allowed collective nouns to be singular or plural, while CMOS at some stage dictated they are always singular but has since changed to recommending the same as the British style.

joyR

@awnlee jawking

I voted for 'were' so I was on the losing side ;)


I would vote for were, just to read the story because were wolves are ten a penny, but were chickens... There just has to be fowl play involved.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@joyR

Have you read the Anita Blake stories by Laurell K Hamilton? All sorts of were creatures in those, although IIRC, were swans were the only fowl.

AJ

Replies:   joyR
joyR

@awnlee jawking

Thanks, but after finding out "Shaun of the Dead" didn't have a single sheep in it, I think I'd best wait for a film (or book) starring Foghorn Leghorn as a were chicken.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@joyR

I guess that's slightly more likely than Wile E Coyote and the were road-runner ;)

AJ

Replies:   samuelmichaels
Switch Blayde
Updated:

@awnlee jawking


I voted for 'were' so I was on the losing side ;)


"Were" is the correct answer, but not because chickens is plural. It's because livestock, in this case, is plural.

But the sentence has to be changed because someone pointed out that chickens are not livestock.

Ross at Play

@Switch Blayde

"Were" is the correct answer, but not because chickens is plural. It's because livestock, in this case, is plural.

I second that.
The verb must agree in number with livestock, irrespective of anything that may follow it.

REP

@awnlee jawking

I voted for 'were' so I was on the losing side ;)


I like balance in a sentence. With a singular noun and verb, I would expect to see a singular object. Conversely, with a plural noun and verb, I would expect to see a plural object.

In this particular case, the object is chickens, which is plural, so I would say the subject and verb should be plural. Therefore, I would go with 'were'.

If the rest of the world wants to vote for 'was', I will stick with 'were'. Voting does not always yield the proper result, just the most popular result. :)

Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

But the sentence has to be changed because someone pointed out that chickens are not livestock.

But the entire point of the sentence was, that out of ALL the 'living creatures' a farming cares for, chickens were the only ones likely to survive the harsh environment. In that case, even though it may not fit a government definition of 'livestock', it fits most readers' expectations of the work and it fits.

Replies:   Ross at Play
REP

@Switch Blayde

But the sentence has to be changed because someone pointed out that chickens are not livestock.


Why? Do we always have to go with a definition defined by the law? 780-328 contains the phrase:

and other domestic animals ordinarily raised or used on the farm.


Chickens fall into that category, so most of us think of chickens as livestock. It should also be noted that 780-120 excludes certain types of animals from livestock, but neither 780-328 or 780-120, cited by Starfleet Car, mention poultry. Poultry may be excluded by the Congressional Federal Register, but not in the references provided. Also remember that the Congressional Federal Register is US law, and the exclusion of chickens from livestock may not be legally valid in other countries.

Furthermore, dictionaries provide non-legal definitions that are valid for general use. For writing, I will go with definitions that apply to general use. For example:

Animals and birds that are kept on a farm, such as cows, sheep, or chickens


http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/livestock

Ross at Play

@Crumbly Writer

In that case, even though it may not fit a government definition of 'livestock', it fits most readers' expectations of the work and it fits.

I wonder how AJ will react to the suggestion he should cease complying with the dictates of CMOS, and begin complying with the dictates of government bureaucrats instead. :-)

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@Ross at Play

I'm wondering whether Peruvian Guinea Pigs count as livestock ;)

AJ

Replies:   Ross at Play  REP
Ross at Play

@awnlee jawking

I'm wondering whether Peruvian Guinea Pigs count as livestock ;)

I don't know, but trust me, Javanese rats do. :-(

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@Ross at Play

Thinking about it, I'd consider livestock to be a very broad church.

A US acquaintance of mine breeds wingless Drosophila and sells them to research laboratories and carnivorous plant enthusiasts. I consider them to be an example of livestock. Ditto maggots and worms for sale by bait shops. And leeches and tapeworms farmed for medicinal purposes.

AJ

Replies:   REP
REP

@awnlee jawking

I'm wondering whether Peruvian Guinea Pigs count as livestock ;)


Not in the US. 780-120 cited by Carl specifically excludes guinea pigs.

REP

@awnlee jawking

I'd consider livestock to be a very broad church.


While I would tend to agree with you that animals raised for profit could be considered livestock. But, most dictionaries define livestock as animals one who expect to find on what one typically considers to be a farm or ranch. I don't think a worm farm would be considered a typical farm.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
Ernest Bywater

@REP


Not in the US. 780-120 cited by Carl specifically excludes guinea pigs.


When you cite a law like that you need to realise the law exists for a very limited legal reason, and should only be used as a definitive source for only that legal reason. While dictionary definitions are more widely understood and used in the general world.

Like the laws on when you become an adult - some laws have people stay as children until they're 21, while others state 18, and others 16, yet some communities recognise people as adults at 14 - - and that's all within the USA. So which is the definitive age for the jump from being a child to being an adult? The legal answer varies with the law being applied while the community answer varies a great deal.

You can build and own a building that's a building under some laws but not a building under other laws - how's that for confusion.

In short, the law only applies to the limited applications stated within it.

awnlee jawking

@REP

I'm actually wondering whether people working in the laboratory where they keep the last Smallpox virus samples would consider them livestock. And how about sperm banks?

AJ

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@awnlee jawking

And how about sperm banks?

Sperm banks are lifestocks, rather than livestock. Like seedbanks, you're banking future generations, rather than products for sale.

StarFleet Carl

@REP

Not in the US. 780-120 cited by Carl specifically excludes guinea pigs.


And by the way, I grew up on on a small farm, only 6 acres. We had four cows, a small family of pigs, and a group of chickens. Dad would say, Time to feed the livestock and the chickens.

Of course, the main reason I tend to quote legal stuff is simple - that's the area my degree is in, even if I don't use it now. It's not that I'm trying to nitpick here, but with all these arguments about different styles of writing and one guy will cite an opinion by one source while someone will cite another opinion from a different source ... what I'm citing isn't opinion. It's law, at least here in the USA. You can raise guinea pigs as a farming activity, but that doesn't make them livestock.

Replies:   Dominions Son  REP
Dominions Son

@StarFleet Carl

You can raise guinea pigs as a farming activity, but that doesn't make them livestock.


Not really, I wouldn't call breading guinea pigs to sell as pets a farming activity.

Would you call breading dogs or cats for pets a farming activity? AFIK the law in my area allows breading pets in areas not zoned for farming, but you can't breed livestock unless your land is zoned for farming.

I've certainly never heard of anyone raising guinea pigs for meat or fur.

REP

@StarFleet Carl

It's law, at least here in the USA.


If you got the idea I was putting you down that wasn't my intent.

Awnlee started out with the following sentence with the apparent intent of obtaining feedback on which verb was correct and why.

'The only livestock that could survive in that environment was/were chickens.'


This was basically a literary discussion.

You pointed out that according to the Congressional Federal Record, chicken aren't livestock citing 780-120 and 780-328.

Then Switch Blade said Awnlee had to rewrite the entire sentence because of what you said.

I disagreed and I started my reply off by saying:

Why? Do we always have to go with a definition defined by the law?


I also pointed out to SB that 120 and 328 do not mention poultry, and I mentioned that other countries aren't bound by US Law. Remember Awnlee lives in England not the US.

Since we were discussing literary issues, not legal definitions, I said and quoted a definition from the Cambridge dictionary because it specifically lists chickens as livestock:

Furthermore, dictionaries provide non-legal definitions that are valid for general use. For writing, I will go with definitions that apply to general use. For example:

Animals and birds that are kept on a farm, such as cows, sheep, or chickens


A facetious conversation ensued and I made the above comment, which you highlighted, but forgot to add a smiley.

Bottom line, in a literary situation, I will go with the definition(s) that most people use. The law can constrain the definition to mean a specific thing for a specific reasons, but I really don't care if the literary definition is the more appropriate one to use in a story.

Ross at Play
Updated:

@Dominions Son

I've certainly never heard of anyone raising guinea pigs for meat or fur.

Here in Java, I sometimes hope what I'm being served in restaurants is guinea pig, not rat.

But seriously, this actually happens here, there are some restaurants that have 'B1' and 'B2' on their menus!? I was relieved to learn that was not Australia's beloved Bananas in Pyjamas. It is actually pork and dog meat. The Muslim majority don't eat either of them, so restaurants run by those of Chinese descent which have them on the menu use euphemisms in deference to the Muslim's sensibilities. They'd have too many fires if they didn't do that.

awnlee jawking

@Dominions Son

I've certainly never heard of anyone raising guinea pigs for meat or fur.


Part of the UK's international aid budget went to Guinea Pig farming in Peru in order to breed larger animals as a food source.

My more up-to-date dictionary cites 'livestock' as being animals farmed as an asset. In my opinion, cats and dogs would meet that definition cf 'puppy farm'.

AJ

Ernest Bywater

@awnlee jawking

My more up-to-date dictionary cites 'livestock' as being animals farmed as an asset. In my opinion, cats and dogs would meet that definition cf 'puppy farm'.


Here in Australia some farmers have Lamas and Alpacas as livestock mixed in with their sheep as a guard animal. However, the only specific definition of livestock provided in this discussion has been from a US law where they limit the definition for a legal reason of some sort to do with the law it's being quoted from. I know here in Australia many things have different definitions for different laws or sections of the law. Thus the whole issue of what is and isn't livestock only becomes relevant when you get down to which legal jurisdiction, and for what legal purpose you're listing the animals. For fiction purposes the commonly accepted general definition of any animal breed for personal consumption or a commercial reason would qualify.

Ross at Play

@Ernest Bywater

For fiction purposes the commonly accepted general definition of any animal breed for personal consumption or a commercial reason would qualify.

'For fiction purposes' isn't the test always whether readers will comprehend your meaning correctly and comfortably accept your word choice?
I cannot see any possible problem for readers by including chickens in a farm's 'livestock' - because they are '(animals bred) for personal consumption or a commercial reason'.

Crumbly Writer

@awnlee jawking

My more up-to-date dictionary cites 'livestock' as being animals farmed as an asset. In my opinion, cats and dogs would meet that definition cf 'puppy farm'.

You have multiple fish and shrimp farms, yet no one would consider these to be 'livestock'. Just because you put "farm" after a word doesn't mean it then becomes part of the definition of livestock.

Crumbly Writer

@Ernest Bywater

For fiction purposes the commonly accepted general definition of any animal breed for personal consumption or a commercial reason would qualify.

While I wouldn't list fish and shrimp as livestock—despite their being abundant fish and shrimp farms (ponds stocks with thousands of overcrowded produce), I'd be willing to include anything raised (for eventual sale) on a 'traditional farm' (puppies and cats excluded, since they aren't traditionally sold for food most places).

While you can use a legal definition if writing about a specific farming community, in an alternate universe, I'd go with a more generic definition.

Replies:   richardshagrin
richardshagrin
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer


I'd be willing to include anything raised (for eventual sale) on a 'traditional farm'


How about mushrooms? They are "farmed" for people to eat them. Not really an animal, but then it is "anything" as opposed to nothing. Of course sometimes mushrooms are like employees: kept in the dark, covered in manure, and eventually canned.

Crumbly Writer

@richardshagrin

How about mushrooms?

If you don't include carrots and potatoes, then why would you include mushrooms? Farms have livestock (things that require exercise and feeding) and produce, which require watering, tending and picking. They're two different categories.

Dominions Son
Updated:

@awnlee jawking


My more up-to-date dictionary cites 'livestock' as being animals farmed as an asset. In my opinion, cats and dogs would meet that definition cf 'puppy farm'.


In the US, the term would be puppy mill, and it's explicitly a pejorative referring to an unethical breeder.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

Here in Australia some farmers have Lamas and Alpacas as livestock mixed in with their sheep as a guard animal.


There are operations in the US raising Alpacas and/or Lamas for wool (like sheep only bigger).

awnlee jawking

@Dominions Son

'Puppy Farm' is become pejorative in the UK too.

For cultural reasons, it might be different in Korea ;)

AJ

awnlee jawking

@richardshagrin

Not really an animal, but then it is "anything" as opposed to nothing.


I suspect people would class it as a vegetable rather than an animal or mineral if forced into membership of that trichotomy. Even I would draw the line at calling mushrooms 'livestock'.

AJ

Dominions Son

@awnlee jawking

For cultural reasons, it might be different in Korea ;)


Not just Korea, the use of dogs for meat is not uncommon across Asia.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@Dominions Son

I named Korea because it's the first name on most Westerners' lips when they think of dog meat.

I'd like to try dog meat to see what it tastes like, but simultaneously the prospect appalls me because some dogs pass the tests of sentience: recognising themselves in a mirror, using tools, and displaying altruism.

(Yep, I thought the Oxford comma was better in that context.)

AJ

Replies:   Capt. Zapp
Ross at Play
Updated:

@richardshagrin

Of course sometimes mushrooms are like employees: kept in the dark, covered in manure, and eventually canned.

Which side of the fence are you on?
I recall, as one of the underlings, the Senior Management Committee (SMC) where I worked being generally referred to as the Senior Mushroom Club.

Capt. Zapp

@awnlee jawking

I'd like to try dog meat to see what it tastes like...


I had the opportunity to have this experience when I was in the Philippines. I was not told what it was until after the fact and I don't think I would have partaken if I had known but would not turn it down if offered. I actually found it quite good. I don't know what breed it was or if that makes a difference in the flavor.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Ernest Bywater

@awnlee jawking

'Puppy Farm' is become pejorative in the UK too.

For cultural reasons, it might be different in Korea ;)


In most of Asia it would be classed as a restaurant supply farm.

Replies:   joyR
joyR

@Ernest Bywater

In most of Asia it would be classed as a restaurant supply farm.


Their meatballs really are the dogs bollocks....

Crumbly Writer

@Capt. Zapp

I don't know what breed it was or if that makes a difference in the flavor.

The breed was most likely: the neighbor's dog. :(

Replies:   samuelmichaels
samuelmichaels

@Crumbly Writer

The breed was most likely: the neighbor's dog. :(


Have to be careful when you see hot dog on the menu.

samuelmichaels

@awnlee jawking

I guess that's slightly more likely than Wile E Coyote and the were road-runner ;)


With the number of times Wyle E was flattened or blown up, I think it would be more likely the Zombie Coyote.

Back to Top