zompist bboard

Salmoneus wrote:Killed woman impersonator sentenced

So a person that imitates a killed woman is sentenced? Sentenced for what, killing the killed woman? Impersonating a killed woman? Driving the wrong way down a motorway?

Wait... someone that impersonates the real murder was sentenced instead of the real murder? Is that any warmer?

I read that two possible ways:

((Killed woman) impersonator) sentenced

i.e. the person sentenced impersonated a woman who had been killed

and:

(Killed (woman impersonator)) sentenced

i.e. the (presently dead) person sentenced had impersonated a woman and then had been killed

Unfortunately, syntax forces that last one to be along the lines of 'a dead person has been sentenced'.

Only in America.

"Marine biologists probe cause of sick sea lion pups"

1. [Marine biologists] probe [cause of...] (i.e. the marine biologists are probing the cause)
2. [Marine biologists probe] [cause of...] (i.e. a probe of marine biologists is the cause)

"Abu Dhabi plans financial free zone, may resemble Dubai"

1. The financial free zone may resemble Dubai.
2. Abu Dhabi may resemble Dubai.

Option two of that first one is thankfully prevented by the lack of an apostrophe. It would have to be "Marine biologists' probe".

KathAveara wrote:Option two of that first one is thankfully prevented by the lack of an apostrophe. It would have to be "Marine biologists' probe".

No. If it's a probe owned by marine biologists, yes. But a probe INTO marine biologists (eg a government investigation into their behaviour) wouldn't have the apostrophe.

Salmoneus wrote:

KathAveara wrote:Option two of that first one is thankfully prevented by the lack of an apostrophe. It would have to be "Marine biologists' probe".

No. If it's a probe owned by marine biologists, yes. But a probe INTO marine biologists (eg a government investigation into their behaviour) wouldn't have the apostrophe.

You're right concerning the orthography, but I doubt that's an interpretation any reader of the headline would come up with.

I first read "cause" as a short form of "because". I thought that sick sea pups were making the marine biologists probe things.

More, these all from the New York Times' U.S. news main page.

"Charlotte Mayor Is Chosen as Transportation Chief"

1. "The mayor of Charlotte is chosen..."
2. "Someone named 'Charlotte Mayor' is chosen..." (cf. Melissa Mayer, the CEO of Yahoo)

"California: Prisons Ordered to Move Some Inmates"

So in order to move some inmates, California has ordered prisons? How much is shipping and handling for a prison?

"Lawyer Details Jackson's Struggle With Drugs"

Did Jackson struggle with drugs, or did the lawyer use drugs to detail Jackson's struggle?

"Lawyers Hint at Insanity Plea Without Holmes' OK"

Is it "[Lawyers Hint at Insanity Plea] Without Holmes' OK", or "Lawyers Hint at [Insanity Plea Without Holmes' OK]"?

Salmoneus wrote:

KathAveara wrote:Option two of that first one is thankfully prevented by the lack of an apostrophe. It would have to be "Marine biologists' probe".

No. If it's a probe owned by marine biologists, yes. But a probe INTO marine biologists (eg a government investigation into their behaviour) wouldn't have the apostrophe.

"Marine biologists" would most likely not be plural then, though, because the phrase would basically be an ersatz compound, right?

Linguifex wrote:

Salmoneus wrote:

KathAveara wrote:Option two of that first one is thankfully prevented by the lack of an apostrophe. It would have to be "Marine biologists' probe".

No. If it's a probe owned by marine biologists, yes. But a probe INTO marine biologists (eg a government investigation into their behaviour) wouldn't have the apostrophe.

"Marine biologiests" would most likely not be plural then, though, because the phrase would basically be an ersatz compound, right?

what the shit are you trying to say?

[m@r\i:n baIOlOdZi:sts]

Linguifex wrote: "Marine biologiests" would most likely not be plural then, though, because the phrase would basically be an ersatz compound, right?

It would be one, but why in Hell you'd think that would prevent "biologists" from being plural is a complete mystery to me. Vanish, geist, to whence thou camest.

RE: "Marine biologists probe cause of sick sea lion pups": Well, in my Morphology class, we learned that compounds in English tend to disallow plurals as the non-head element—birdhouses, not *birdshouses. There are a few exceptions to this (e.g., glasses case, although the word "glasses" is inherently plural; there are also the weird examples of numbers stations and numbers runners).

So "Marine biologists probe cause of sick sea lion pups" can only mean "Some marine biologists are looking into the reason why sea lion pups are falling ill". It cannot mean "The marine biologists' probe is the reason why sea lion pups are falling ill".

Also, I can't believe I spelled "biologists" wrong…

Drydic Guy wrote:what the shit are you trying to say?

athiests r evuil.

Linguifex wrote:RE: "Marine biologists probe cause of sick sea lion pups": Well, in my Morphology class, we learned that compounds in English tend to disallow plurals as the non-head element—birdhouses, not *birdshouses. There are a few exceptions to this (e.g., glasses case, although the word "glasses" is inherently plural; there are also the weird examples of numbers stations and numbers runners).

So "Marine biologists probe cause of sick sea lion pups" can only mean "Some marine biologists are looking into the reason why sea lion pups are falling ill". It cannot mean "The marine biologists' probe is the reason why sea lion pups are falling ill".

Also, I can't believe I spelled "biologists" wrong…

What? No! Sure, compound words usually have the noun be singular, but that doesn't mean you singularise every word just because it's modifying another words.
Taking a few examples from the Major ministry:
- the cash for questions affair
- the homes for votes scandal
- the back to basics campaign
- the cones hotline

It certainly can't mean 'the marine biologists' probe is the reason why', but it can mean 'the marine biologists probe is the reason why'.

Salmoneus wrote:What? No! Sure, compound words usually have the noun be singular, but that doesn't mean you singularise every word just because it's modifying another words.
Taking a few examples from the Major ministry:
- the cash for questions affair
- the homes for votes scandal
- the back to basics campaign
- the cones hotline

It certainly can't mean 'the marine biologists' probe is the reason why', but it can mean 'the marine biologists probe is the reason why'.

"Cash for questions", "homes for votes", and "back to basics" don't come across in the same way as would just a single word such as "cones"; they're more like lexicalized phrases, or so it seems. (I'd personally write them with hyphens—"the cash-for-questions affair", "the homes-for-votes scandal", "the back-to-basics campaign".) "Cash for questions" and "homes for votes" seem like shorthand for or names that would be given to ideas or programs, which would make them singulars with plural components. "Back to basics" seems more like an adjectival phrase. "The cones hotline" is a real good counterexample, though. "Marine biologists probe" as a compound still comes across as ungrammatical to me, however.

That's all an argument about standard English - the example was not standard English, but rather headline English. And in headline English you do get compounds with internal plurals. For example: Boston bombings suspect moved from hospital to prison.

Not a headline, but it caused me a moment of amusement. Discussing the decision to prohibit Rafsanjani from standing:

Mr Rafsanjani did not comment, but his supporters denounced the decision to exclude him on social media

Poor Mr Rafsanjani. Not only can he not be President, but now everyone's sending him to Coventry on Facebook!

All of bulbaquil's examples may be grammatically ambiguous, but I don't they are actually confusing.

clawgrip wrote:All of bulbaquil's examples may be grammatically ambiguous, but I don't they are actually confusing.

Actually, I think the final one is... well, not 'confusing' exactly, but I don't know which of the two meanings is meant to apply. Hinting without permission and hinting at doing something without permission are both things lawyers do.

Judge to rape victim: Some women enjoy being raped


First I read it as "the judge is to rape the victim"...

Astraios wrote:Judge to rape victim: Some women enjoy being raped


First I read it as "the judge is to rape the victim"...

Yep, same here.
[And what he said is also clearly true - it's entirely possible to enjoy something you didn't want to happen, particularly when you move away from the prototypical violent stranger rape and toward the far-more-common forms like date rape and spousal rape. I know it sounds misogynist, because it's something misogynists can say... but when you think about it, "if she likes it at all it can't have been rape, whatever she says" (the entailment of the negation) is actually even more misogynist!]


Anyway, this one also genuinely baffled me at first:

England wait too long for Cole.

This one didn't baffle me, but was amusing:
Ruler of the World victorious at Epsom

Salmoneus wrote: England wait too long for Cole.

The fuck?
We to drop number and person from word now?