There are words from which you can remove a "chunk", leaving a new word. Like this:



 WI   SHBO   NE 

WI   <poof!>  NE

WI            NE

   WI     NE


There are also words that work the other way, for which inserting a "chunk" produces a new word. For example, you can insert the chunk AUTIFI into the word BEER to make BEAUTIFIER.

A "chunk" is a string of consecutive letters. It must consist of at least two letters (no single-letter chunks). It does not need to be a valid English word.

Now, what if I told you there are words into which you can insert a chunk, then remove the same consecutive string of letters, and get a different word from the original word?

What the heck am I talking about?!

I have come up with about 11 examples of this strange phenomenon.

(Too easy? Too hard? Try the counterpart addition paradox.)


Here are my 11 examples:

Start with BEECHES --> insert ES --> obtain BESEECHES --> remove ES --> obtain BESEECH

Start with BEING --> insert ING --> obtain BINGEING --> remove ING --> obtain BINGE

Start with CODER --> insert DE --> obtain DECODER --> remove DE --> obtain DECOR

Start with CODERS --> insert DE --> obtain DECODERS --> remove DE --> obtain DECORS

Start with DEDUCT --> insert ED --> obtain DEDUCTED --> remove ED --> obtain DUCTED

Start with DEFEND --> insert DE --> obtain DEFENDED --> remove DE --> obtain FENDED

Start with PALED --> insert ED --> obtain PEDALED --> remove ED --> obtain PEDAL

Start with POSES --> insert SSES --> obtain POSSESSES --> remove SSES --> obtain POSSE

Start with REDESIGN --> insert ED --> obtain REDESIGNED --> remove ED --> obtain RESIGNED

Start with PAIRED --> insert RE --> obtain REPAIRED --> remove RE --> obtain REPAID

Start with DAUNTED --> insert UN --> obtain UNDAUNTED --> remove UN --> obtain UNDATED


Any word in a pattern so that

you can remove the same chunk from two different places

works as the intermediate word. For example:

A wordfinder search through Qat is here.

| improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ It seems like you don't even need that, since the intermediate step when the chunk is inserted doesn't seem to have to be a word. For example: rot13(ybtvfg|vp| -> ybt|vp|vfg. Nygubhtu ybtvfg vf abg n jbeq, guvf fgvyy nccrnef gb or inyvq.) $\endgroup$ – Michael Moschella Jul 17 '19 at 18:18

If the word is [Left][Right] turned [Left][Extra chunk][Right], this chunk must be removed from somewhere else. Let's say it consists of six parts, as in [1][2][[Extra chunk 1][Extra chunk 2]][3][4] (1 or 4 can be empty):

If [[Extra chunk 1][Extra chunk 2]] = [2][Extra chunk 1], it still changes the result as long as [2] != [Extra chunk 2].

If [[Extra chunk 1][Extra chunk 2]] = [Extra chunk 2][3], it still changes the result as long as [3] != [Extra chunk 1].

| improve this answer | |


Is this the type of thing you're looking for?

| improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ The OP wants a generalized pattern. $\endgroup$ – Nautilus Jul 18 '19 at 12:11
  • $\begingroup$ Ah that's a shame. Was fun to come up with that one anyway @Nautilus $\endgroup$ – Maze90 Jul 18 '19 at 13:11

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.