Confusing headlines and other trips down the garden path

[Salmoneus]

Sorry for the subject matter, but the beginning of this one was for a moment a bit confusing:

Childlike sex doll man given suspended prison term

The man is childike because he likes to play with dolls ... oh, wait...

No, it was a sex doll in the shape of a man that was childish and given a prison term!

Eh, {childlike {sex doll}} man? Like a man that is known for having/making/selling childlike sex dolls?

No, childlike [[sex doll] man].

The sex doll is in the shape of a man.
The sex doll is also childlike.

...how would that work? In English, adjectives precede nouns, so, say, an "elephant fish" is a fish related to elephants, not an elephant related to fish. Likewise, a sex doll man must be a man, not a doll.

However, [childlike [sex [doll man]]], [childlike [[sex doll] man]], [[childlike sex] [doll man]], [[childlike [sex doll]] man] and [[[childlike sex] doll] man] are all available possibilities. Obviously, context tells us that it's [[childlike [sex doll] man], but when reading at first I think [childlike [[sex doll] man]] is probably the most intuitive parsing. The intended meaning requires a tripartite modifying noun phrase, which is really rare outside of headline-ese, and also requires us to attach 'childlike' to an inanimate object, rather than to a person (or an activity), which is semantically really rare outside of childlike sex doll legal cases.

Of course, the real question is why the doll man, famous for his childlike sex, is being given a quadrangular pillar bearing a humanoid face, and why specifically this pillar has been taken from a suspended prison...

[Pole, the]

You all fail English forever.

[Vijay]

That's how English works; everybody flunks it, duh.

...how would that work? In English, adjectives precede nouns

Not always. "Surgeon general."

so, say, an "elephant fish" is a fish related to elephants, not an elephant related to fish.

It doesn't have to be either of those things. It can also be this.

Likewise, a sex doll man must be a man, not a doll.

A "doll man" doesn't have to be a man. Compare "dummy man" or "snowman."

[Salmoneus]

You all fail English forever.

Lectures the non-natives to the joke-telling natives. Yeah, you're the one who knows about English.

[Salmoneus]

Not always. "Surgeon general."

"man" does not work like that. I don't think any modifying noun can work like that other than agentive nouns?

so, say, an "elephant fish" is a fish related to elephants, not an elephant related to fish.

It doesn't have to be either of those things. It can also be this.

Which doesn't call it an elephant fish; nonetheless, it does say it has the body of a fish, so that kind of demonstrates the point. Unless you mean it's an elephant-fish, in the sense of being both elephant and fish, but that again is a different construction.

Likewise, a sex doll man must be a man, not a doll.

A "doll man" doesn't have to be a man. Compare "dummy man" or "snowman."

A snowman is just a man made out of snow. And yes, you could have a "dummy man" or "doll man" made out tied-together dummies or glued-together dolls, but they wouldn't actually be a dummy, or a doll!

[Vijay]

There are other varieties of English besides yours, you know. It's possible for something not to work in yours but to still work in someone else's.

Snowmen are not men (certainly not according to any definition of "man" that I can find). They are not humans; they are not capable of self-identifying as male; they are just figures made of snow in the shape of a human being. "Dummy men" are not necessarily made by stringing dummies together. "Doll men" are not necessarily made by stringing dolls together.

It doesn't have to be either of those things. It can also be this.

Which doesn't call it an elephant fish

But which this does.

[zompist]

Snowmen are not men (certainly not according to any definition of "man" that I can find). They are not humans; they are not capable of self-identifying as male; they are just figures made of snow in the shape of a human being.

Sal was speaking a little loosely, but correctly: N1 + N2 names a type of N2, not a type of N1. A snowman is a "man of snow". It isn't any kind of snow.

Pretty much any noun referring to a physical thing can also refer to something of that shape. Sometimes this is recognized by dictionaries, sometimes not, because it's a universal rule. Magritte was wrong: it is perfectly ordinary and acceptable to talk about a man in a painting. Or a sculpture, or a novel, or in the spots visible on the moon. Even dictionaries list the sense of "man" as "board game piece".

"Surgeon general" is an interesting term— it could be argued that it's a type of general or a type of surgeon. However, it's pretty clear it falls into the weird little domain of military ranks, which are often borrowings from French or Spanish, complete with modifiers after the head. E.g. a "sergeant major" is not a type of major at all— in fact they rank well below a major. It's a type of sergeant, and the construction is just a borrowing of sargento mayor “greater sergeant". This sort of construction hasn't become productive in English outside the domain of titles.

[mèþru]

In the US, Surgeon General is following a pattern of other titles with general, such as attorney general. This practice was inherited from Law French, the language of England's judicial courts after the Norman invasion.

[Vijay]

At any rate, it obviously works for me. Your mileage may vary.

[Axiem]

Vegan’s life upended after Facebook rant about “carnists” killed in Vegas

I had to start reading the article to figure out what the headline was even trying to say.

[jal]

I had to start reading the article to figure out what the headline was even trying to say.

Really? What didn't you get/did you misinterpret? I got it immediately, and I can't see any gardenpathy stuff in there?


JAL

[Vijay]

I had to start reading the article to figure out what the headline was even trying to say.

Really? What didn't you get/did you misinterpret? I got it immediately, and I can't see any gardenpathy stuff in there?


JAL

I think it's because it's relatively rare to see "life upended" compared to "killed" or maybe "life ruined" or something. Also, it can be hard to tell who was killed (and whether "killed" is supposed to be in active or passive voice).

[Axiem]

I had to start reading the article to figure out what the headline was even trying to say.

Really? What didn't you get/did you misinterpret? I got it immediately, and I can't see any gardenpathy stuff in there?

I didn't realize that the phrase was "'carnists' killed in Vegas". I kept trying to find the subject to "killed", and it seemed like it should be "rant"

So I thought that it was a rant that killed in Vegas (in the metaphorical sense, that it received an immense amount of approval), and that rant was about "carnists" (to me, a nonsense word), but then why would her life be upended after doing successful at a rant?

Or it could mean "killed" as in "shut down", such as a theatre production shuttering, it could be called "killed", but why would a performance of a rant end in Vegas?

Might have just been my mind state at the time, but I was sorely confused until I realized where to parse the phrases.

[Vijay]

It's not just you. I had to think through that title for a good few minutes before it started looking like anything other than word salad. I didn't get it until I finally opened the article but stopped short of actually reading any part of it. I only saw the top of the first picture before I suddenly realized what it meant.

[jal]

So I thought that it was a rant that killed in Vegas

Ah, yeah, that makes sense. I didn't even consider that, since "carnists killed in Vegas" seemed so obviously the NP of "about", and rants can't really be killed, but I can see the confusion :).

I think it's because it's relatively rare to see "life upended"

But "upended" is clearly a verb, so even if you don't know it, the sentence structure doesn't suffer from it? (Is it more a British usage than US?)


JAL

[KathTheDragon]

It's not particularly unusual to me, a Brit.

[Vijay]

But "upended" is clearly a verb, so even if you don't know it, the sentence structure doesn't suffer from it?

No, but the interpretation can.

[linguoboy]

"A Texas Tech student brought to the university's police station after a welfare check shot and killed an officer Monday night before bolting…"

[hwhatting]

a welfare check shot and killed an officer Monday night before bolting…"

Seems the republicans were right, welfare is dangerous...

[Raphael]

I sort of have to shake my head about Americans who go all the length to invent checks that can use firearms on their own account, but don't get the idea to introduce money transfer systems that don't rely on checks...

[Salmoneus]

And I keep being confused and having to remind myself that people are talking about cheques.

[Vijay]

And I keep being confused and having to remind myself that people are talking about cheques.

Ironically, in this case, I was just as confused as you were.

[jal]

"Nearly every second runner complains about orthopedic problems while running." - I started parsing it with a PP of time, then got confused when there wasn't an "s" after "runner"...


JAL

[Vijay]

I'm not sure if I should rename kårroť "humans".

More: show

Rename the humans, or change the name of the conlang itself from "kårroť" to "humans"?

[mèþru]

I think you posted that in the wrong thread. Post it in the right place and I'll respond.