Confusing headlines

[zyxw59]

From the New York Times:

Lebanon Battles to Be Born at Last

More: show

Initially parsed "Lebanon Battles" as a noun phrase

[Linguoboy]

Full Trump Impeachment Inquiry Transcripts Released for First Time (NPR)

The intended meaning is that the two transcripts released today were released in full rather than being only excerpted, as was the practice previously. But I initially read it as saying that all transcripts related to the impeachment inquiry had been released and thought "That can't be right."

[bradrn]

I just found the most amazing sentence in Terry Pratchett’s book The Last Continent:

You should’ve seen the temporal disturbances we will have been used to be going to get in my day.

Try as I might, I just cannot figure out this sentence. Can anyone help?

(I know this isn’t a headline, but I don’t know of any other place to post this. If someone suggests a thread where this would be more on-topic, I would be happy to post it there instead.)

[Linguoboy]

Big Machine Records Denies Taylor Swift’s Claims of Blocking Music Use (Variety)

[Raphael]

I just found the most amazing sentence in Terry Pratchett’s book The Last Continent:

You should’ve seen the temporal disturbances we will have been used to be going to get in my day.

Try as I might, I just cannot figure out this sentence. Can anyone help?

(I know this isn’t a headline, but I don’t know of any other place to post this. If someone suggests a thread where this would be more on-topic, I would be happy to post it there instead.)

It's a joke about the different tenses people need to use when they're involved with any kind of time travel. In the future - but, because of "temporal disturbances", in the speaker's subjective past - there will be really bad temporal disturbances - much worse than what the person being addressed is used to. The speaker will then have to get used to those temporal disturbances, and to the idea that they're coming. But because of these temporal disturbances, it's all in the speaker's subjective past - that's why the speaker already remembers it. Of course, with it all being a time travel tense usage joke, you probably shouldn't take it too seriously.

[bradrn]

I just found the most amazing sentence in Terry Pratchett’s book The Last Continent:

You should’ve seen the temporal disturbances we will have been used to be going to get in my day.

Try as I might, I just cannot figure out this sentence. Can anyone help?

(I know this isn’t a headline, but I don’t know of any other place to post this. If someone suggests a thread where this would be more on-topic, I would be happy to post it there instead.)

It's a joke about the different tenses people need to use when they're involved with any kind of time travel. In the future - but, because of "temporal disturbances", in the speaker's subjective past - there will be really bad temporal disturbances - much worse than what the person being addressed is used to. The speaker will then have to get used to those temporal disturbances, and to the idea that they're coming. But because of these temporal disturbances, it's all in the speaker's subjective past - that's why the speaker already remembers it. Of course, with it all being a time travel tense usage joke, you probably shouldn't take it too seriously.

I’m fully aware that this is a joke. I just wanted a step-by-step breakdown of the verb phrase here.

[zompist]

You should’ve seen the temporal disturbances we will have been used to be going to get in my day.

I’m fully aware that this is a joke. I just wanted a step-by-step breakdown of the verb phrase here.

The core sentence is something like

You should've seen the temporal disturbances we got in my day.

Add a prospective: "we were going to get"

Add a habitual: "we used to be going to get"

Add a perfect: "we have been used to..."

Add a future: "we will have been used to..."

You can't actually add all these things at once in English, syntactically or semantically. I don't think there's an actual intended meaning beyond the core sentence; it just sounds like something someone familiar with time disturbances would say.

[Salmoneus]

Moffat breaks silence on axe

[Linguoboy]

This is not a confusing headline. It's an "Are You Fucking Serious?" headline.

Fact Check: Don't believe this hoax about a New York restaurant serving human flesh.

That really needed fact-checked?

[Raphael]

This is not a confusing headline. It's an "Are You Fucking Serious?" headline.

Fact Check: Don't believe this hoax about a New York restaurant serving human flesh.

That really needed fact-checked?

Well, if you keep in mind how many people believe all the Q stuff these days... and the hard-right part of US media really seem to have convinced parts of their audience that New York City is a cesspool of all things horrible.

[Linguoboy]

John Mayer’s Feedback On Taylor Swift’s Hit Song Lover Has Many Agreeing With Him (Celebrity Insider)

For some reason, the headline-writer decided not to put the title of the song in quotes, rendering an otherwise straightforward sentence ambiguous.

[Linguoboy]

Andersonville Neighbors’ Push To Ban New Condo Development Denied By Alderman (Blockclub Chicago)

[Kuchigakatai]

Andersonville Neighbors’ Push To Ban New Condo Development Denied By Alderman (Blockclub Chicago)

So much syntactic meaning packed into a single unpronounced apostrophe.

[Linguoboy]

Andersonville Neighbors’ Push To Ban New Condo Development Denied By Alderman (Blockclub Chicago)

So much syntactic meaning packed into a single unpronounced apostrophe.

I was also struggling to understand why they were trying to ban something which had already been denied.

[quinterbeck]

Received an email at work today with this subject line: What does a sound digital transformation strategy look like?

[Darren]

"Sex Offender Laws Are Broken. These Women Are Working To Fix Them."

Took me a while before I realised it meant that "the laws aren't working properly so they should be changed", rather than "people break the laws so the laws should be modified." I was really confused for a minute.

[Vijay]

"Sex Offender Laws Are Broken. These Women Are Working To Fix Them."

Took me a while before I realised it meant that "the laws aren't working properly so they should be changed", rather than "people break the laws so the laws should be modified." I was really confused for a minute.

Really? Both interpretations make sense to me (in principle).

[Darren]

"Sex Offender Laws Are Broken. These Women Are Working To Fix Them."

Took me a while before I realised it meant that "the laws aren't working properly so they should be changed", rather than "people break the laws so the laws should be modified." I was really confused for a minute.

Really? Both interpretations make sense to me (in principle).

I would still be confused if they wanted to change laws just because people broke them. Maybe "them" could be referring to the people breaking the laws, which sounds a bit wierd but would make more sense. Either way, it was ambiguous and only one interpretation was relevant to the article. That's why I was confused, cause I thought of the wrong interpretation.

[Vijay]

I would still be confused if they wanted to change laws just because people broke them.

What if people broke them so much the laws couldn't be enforced?

[Darren]

I would still be confused if they wanted to change laws just because people broke them.

What if people broke them so much the laws couldn't be enforced?

Possibly, although if they wanted to say that I'd have expected something more definite than "Sex Offender Laws Are Broken," which says nothing about how many times they're broken. If it had said "Too many Sex Offender Laws Are Broken," then that interpretation would make more sense.