If i got 67 dollars and ate my dog what happened to the 67 dollars
Executive summary
The question “if I got 67 dollars and ate my dog what happened to the 67 dollars” is best treated as a nonsensical or incoherent query rather than a straightforward factual report, and available sources describe how to treat statements that lack meaning or coherence (nonsensical) rather than supplying factual answers about specific, real-world scenarios [1] [2]. Because the provided reporting does not contain any information about the events alleged, any concrete claim about the fate of the $67 would be speculative; philosophy and information-guidance sources explain that one cannot reliably assign truth-values to claims judged incoherent or unsupported by evidence [3].
1. Why the question reads as nonsensical and what that means
The phrase combines two independent propositions—possessing $67 and committing an act of animal consumption—without context, making the overall query difficult to parse and classify; dictionaries and usage guides treat sentences that lack clear, sensible meaning as “nonsensical” and advise against treating them as straightforward factual claims [1] [2]. Linguistic literature on malapropism and intentional linguistic play shows that some odd phrasings are humor, error, or rhetorical device rather than literal reports—sources on Engrish and malapropism map how language errors or playful misuse create sentences that sound meaningful but do not support ordinary factual inference [4] [5]. This matters because it shifts the task from “reporting what happened” to “diagnosing whether the question is a literal, answerable statement” [1].
2. What can be concluded from the supplied material about answering such a query
The supplied sources do not document any incident involving $67 or the consumption of a dog, and therefore they offer no empirical basis to say where money went in the scenario posited; reporting and reference sources in the dataset are about language, not factual incidents, so they cannot confirm or deny real-world outcomes [4] [1]. Philosophical guidance on credence and nonsensical propositions notes that if a claim is incoherent or lacks grounding, one cannot legitimately assign a reliable probability to its truth without further clarification or evidence [3]. In short, with only the present sources, there is no factual route to determine the fate of the $67.
3. If the intent is literal: possible real-world lines of inquiry (clearly speculative)
Treating the question as a literal “what happened to the $67” opens multiple hypothetical pathways—money could remain in the asker’s possession, could have been placed somewhere before the alleged act, could have been swallowed, chewed, destroyed, or given away—but none of those outcomes are supported by the provided reporting, so they must be labeled speculation rather than sourced fact (the materials do not provide evidence for any of these scenarios; see [1] and [3] for why speculation is epistemically weak). The dataset’s emphasis on distinguishing sense from nonsense suggests the responsible journalistic approach is to request concrete details and corroborating evidence before asserting a factual chain of events [1] [3].
4. Why answering directly without more information would be unreliable
Answering “what happened to the $67” requires assumptions about physical location, intent, and chronology that are not present in the supplied material; authoritative guidance on dealing with incoherent claims warns against inferring outcomes from gaps in information and treating playful or malformed language as literal reportage [1] [3]. The sources on language errors (Engrish, malapropism) further illustrate how form can mislead readers into over-interpreting content: odd phrasing can mask absence of factual content, turning any definitive claim about the money into an overreach [4] [5].
5. Bottom line — the only defensible answer from the record provided
Based on the available reporting and reference material, it cannot be determined what happened to the $67 because the sources supplied do not describe such an incident and classify the question’s structure as nonsensical or unsupported; therefore any definitive statement about the fate of the money would be speculative and not backed by the documents at hand [1] [3]. If the question is intended as wordplay or a joke, the recommended step is to clarify intent and supply factual details before seeking a fact-based explanation [4] [5].