Knicq

Chicken and Egg of Writing.
knicq posted in Knicqisms on September 24th, 2006

Writing used to be easy. Less difficult. More frequent. It is none of the above for now. I am devoid of all vocabulary, and much like TNQ at two years, am finding myself getting by with just a couple of words. Compared with the ideas I have to blog about, thats two words too many. Wise-cracks about the disparities between TNQ’s age and mine and the lack of any disparities between our stockpile of deployable words are not welcome.

I entertained the notion of a blank update for sometime, but then I figured I would have to update more than a couple of words in explaining just what the blank update stood for, and since I had no more than a couple of words to employ, it became just a chicken and egg story – by the way, I use this expression purely because it is a linguistic tool made available to me – personally, I find the hoopla about whether the chicken came first or the egg did quite absurd. A logical examination of the whole affair will lead anyone to the obvious conclusion that the chicken would have had to come first. And has it ever occurred to anyone that one egg is good for only one chick/chicken, and since we are talking of a solitary egg, shouldn’t we be talking of a chick rather than chicken? Isn’t chicken plural? Isn’t chick to chicken what child is to children? hence the usage of word ‘chicken’, it being a plural in my books, is actually misleading – unless of course the implication is that initially one egg used to be good for a dozen chicken.

Were we to assume, and I find the assumption no less absurd, that the egg did come first, the obvious question which arises is of paramount importance – who did the sitting on the egg? And whoever heard of a hen sitting on a solitary egg? Or to put it more aptly, whoever heard of a solitary egg being sat on – since our assumption precludes the existence of any hens at all? Even if were to stretch the absurdity that this assumpion is, and allow the egg to be hatched, just who went around scavenging for worms and feeding the newly hatched chick? Are we then to assume that the chick’s natural predators had a change of heart, and decided not only to let it grow into a prolific egg-laying hen, but also decided to protect it from all harm until it had laid a fair number of eggs and was ready to sit on them? Or are the proponents of this assumption, and the flag-bearers of the chicken and egg question going to have us believe that the said predators actually had the presence of mind and absence of instinct necessary for them to think in the long-run and let the lone chick (and a few subsequent generations) survive, even help it survive, just so there would be millions and millions of chicken around to be devoured by the distant descendents of the predators?

I mean, really, isn’t it just easy assuming the chick came around first, or maybe it got a head-start and began as a hen sitting on a dozen eggs already?

Oh, and given my amnesia I have sort of forgotten what those couple of words were which set this line of thought in motion,  but I assure you this, the two words were not ‘chicken’ and ‘egg’.