It is encouraged for various fisheries to limit/prevent/be closed to "set nets", and this will protect dolphins. (where a "set net" is a certain type of fishing net)
That's a doozy, though...
I generally forget to say, so if it's relevant and I don't mention it--I'm from Southern Michigan and speak Inland North American English. Yes, I have the Northern Cities Vowel Shift; no, I don't have the cot-caught merger; and it is called pop.
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
Wall Street Journal headline this morning: "New York Fed Eyes Its New Leader"
I initially read it as "New York fed eyes [to] its new leader" and was deeply concerned...
I generally forget to say, so if it's relevant and I don't mention it--I'm from Southern Michigan and speak Inland North American English. Yes, I have the Northern Cities Vowel Shift; no, I don't have the cot-caught merger; and it is called pop.
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
Exactly. And when I originally saw it, it was actually arranged as: US cop sacked for shooting
dead black man
Which emphasises the wrong construction. Although it's also the syntactically normal construction: if you see the headline "man paints blue house", you assume that the house begins blue, rather than ends up blue.
[there's also of course an ambiguity with "shooting", as the syntactic object can be the target ("cop shoots black man"), the projectile ("machine shoots tennis balls"), or often the weapon ("child shoots machinegun"), though the pedants would prefer "fire" for the third option there]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
Vijay wrote:I'm still more confused by the confusion than I am by the headline. I still don't get it.
Sure you get it. Either the police shot a man that was already dead (i.e. fired bullets in a corpse), or they shot a man that was still alive, killing him ("they shot him dead").
EDIT: I think the way I intuitively read that headline is actually different from both of those interpretations, i.e. there is a black man who is now dead, a cop shot him, and now the cop has been sacked, regardless of whether the cop shot him before or after he died.
Vijay wrote:EDIT: I think the way I intuitively read that headline is actually different from both of those interpretations, i.e. there is a black man who is now dead, a cop shot him, and now the cop has been sacked, regardless of whether the cop shot him before or after he died.
This one is prone to misinterpretation because for resultatives in English the resultative adjective normally comes after the object, or the resultative adjective is separated from the noun by a determiner.
Vijay wrote:I feel like that almost is word salad. (Even after starting to read the article).
I think they wanted to avoid "Porn star alleging Trump afair's attorney", which wouldn't be much more comprehensible, but at least would parse right...
I'll try thinking about it later, though.
