Okay, I’m pretty sure I’ve identified the incident in question. I’ve heard of this before, but I had to search for the details.
It’s because a man in the 1890’s thought that America should have every type of bird mentioned in Shakespeare. Starlings were mentionedin Henry IV, so he introduced a few starlings which multiplied uncontrollably, and spread throughout the continent. Today they do an estimated $800M damage every year.
I think, though that the description and some of the answers given are misleading. It wasn’t the angry man that mentioned starlings, it was a different character responding to the angry man. There’s also a few of his responses I disagree with.
??? Hotspur, the character who mentions starlings, is the angry man of this puzzle (and he is very definitely angry in this scene, even if other people also are!)
I am sorry if some of my other answers are misleading; I tried to make them as accurate as possible, but sometimes it was hard to know how to answer, given that he was both a historical figure and a fictional character at the same time.
Okay, I’m not at all familiar with the play. Or the actual history. But from the linked article:
*
Shakespeare wrote, a single line of script where a soldier is ordered, by the king, never to mention his brother-in-law’s name again, leading the soldier to dream of buying a starling that will repeat the name over and over. *
I misunderstood that as being the king is angry about his own brother in law, forbidding the mention of his name. And Hotspur’s response to deliberately provoke more anger.
Yeah, the article isn’t very clear – Hotspur isn’t just “a soldier,” he’s the son of a powerful nobleman. His brother-in-law, Mortimer, has been taken prisoner by the Welsh. The king (who knows that Mortimer is a potential rival claimant to the throne, and also suspects him of having deliberately sold out to the Welsh) declines to ransom him, and finally orders Hotspur to stop mentioning his name. Hotspur goes off in a towering rage and threatens to have a talking starling taught to say nothing but “Mortimer” and send it to the king.
Was the name of the company misinterpreted by hearers as being something else?
Does the athlete lose money as a result of what he said?
Do members of the general public become angry at him due to what he said?
Does the company name consist of one word?
Does the company name consist of two words?
Does the company name consist of more than two words?
Was it the athlete’s own victory as an individual?
Was it the athlete’s own victory as the member of a team?
Was the victory not the athlete’s own victory?
Sorry, forgot to get back to this thread.
Did he say just the name of the company, without any context? Yes
Was the company a sponsor? No
Would it help if we knew what sport he played? Yes
Was the name of the company misinterpreted by hearers as being something else? No
Does the athlete lose money as a result of what he said? No
Do members of the general public become angry at him due to what he said? No
Does the company name consist of one word? Yes
Does the company name consist of two words? No
Does the company name consist of more than two words? No
Did the athlete die? Yes
Did the athlete sustain an injury ? No
Was the athlete arrested? No
Was the athlete disqualified? No
Was the athlete sued? No
Was the athlete a native speaker of English? No
Is the athlete’s nationality relevant? Yes
Is the country or location where the victory took place relevant? Yes
Are politics involved? Yes
Was the victory in an individual sport, like running a marathon? No
A team sport? No
A non-sports activity, like playing a video game? Yes
Was it the athlete’s own victory as an individual? No
Was it the athlete’s own victory as the member of a team? Yes
Was the victory not the athlete’s own victory? No
Some of these, I had to give the best answer I could, but some of them, a Yes or a No either one would be a stretch.
Did the company’s name actually mean something in his native language?
Did the company’s name have a meaning that directly resulted in his death?
Did the company’s name result in somebody killing him?
Is it relevant that he said the company’s name following a victory?