Zompist Bboard Again

Maybe it's just back-to-work blues, but a friend shared this tweet today and it took me at least three passes to make sense of it:

Durbin says Kavanaugh worked on Bush signing statement when McCain anti torture legislation passed against Bush WH wishes

Floating Trash Collector Set to Tackle Pacific Garbage Patch (National Geographic)

NBC NEWS: "2020 Democratic hopefuls wage invisible primary for black voters" https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... rs-n909086

Pretty straightforward on its own, but the thing is, there are so many Democrats seemingly preparing presidential runs at the moment that, when I saw the headline, I thought sarcastically "what, there are 2020 Democrats who want to run for President now? Seems a bit over the top."

John Delaney's the only major candidate openly running and he's only technically major.

mèþru wrote: ↑Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:35 pm John Delaney's the only major candidate openly running and he's only technically major.

Well, technically you're right.

A tweet by the AFP news agency:

"Kim seeks second Trump summit 'at an early date': Moon"

Of course, in this context, "Moon" refers to the current President of South Korea. But for one moment I read this as Kim Jong Un proposing a summit with Trump on the Moon.

OK, this isn't really the same thing, but never mind.

This is a quote from a BBC article:
In his confession to police, the 41-year-old said another man directed him to Peggy's lifeless body at a bus stop in her hometown of Lichtenberg.

After failing to revive her, the then 24-year-old wrapped her in a red blanket and drove her into a nearby forest. A few days later, he burned her satchel and jacket at home.

Now, this is in fact entirely logical, and makes perfect sense both grammatically and conceptually. But for heaven's sakes, BBC, did you have to write it in the most intentionally confusing way possible!?

Is there some legal reason for not using the men's names here? That would make the sequence hella less confusing.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:06 am Is there some legal reason for not using the men's names here? That would make the sequence hella less confusing.

Well, one of the men has been named by first name and initial of surname. But even if that hadn't been allowed, nothing could excuse using "the 41-year-old man" and "the 24-year-old man" as descriptions of the same man in consecutive sentences!

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:11 pm

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:06 amIs there some legal reason for not using the men's names here? That would make the sequence hella less confusing.

Well, one of the men has been named by first name and initial of surname. But even if that hadn't been allowed, nothing could excuse using "the 41-year-old man" and "the 24-year-old man" as descriptions of the same man in consecutive sentences!

Oh shit, turns out I read it correctly the first time and then overcorrected myself. It really is stylistically terrible.

German news media has a law against naming perpetrators by full name. Even Fritzl was just "Josef F." for weeks. The british may just have a guideline thst follows that custom for German stories out of a desire to cooperate.

Maybe it's just my head today and this isn't confusing to anyone else: Even if he fires Rosenstein, it’s too late to protect Trump from Mueller.

I know who "he" refers to because I know the players involved, and even so I misread it the first time. My brain finds it weird to have the subject of the first clause be the object of the second in the case. I doubt I could generalise a rule from that, but if I were writing the sentence I'd find some way to make "Trump" subject.

For whatever reason, that one strikes me as extremely funny. "We're gonna take a dog, right--" "Right." "and this 3D printer--" "Uh-huh" "and we're gonna PRINT CANCER CELLS and STICK 'EM IN THIS DOG'S HEAD" "...that's brilliant!"

From the Guardian: Air pollution fears fuel fight against new London cruise ship terminal

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ver-thames

So the air pollution in London has gotten so bad that it has actually achieved sentience, and is now capable of fearing things? Such as a fuel fight against a new cruise ship terminal?

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 8:28 am From the Guardian: Air pollution fears fuel fight against new London cruise ship terminal

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ver-thames

So the air pollution in London has gotten so bad that it has actually achieved sentience, and is now capable of fearing things? Such as a fuel fight against a new cruise ship terminal?

Oh, I thought it just feared the fight terminal (that is, feared that the fight could not survive).

Or that the air pollution fears fuel fight against the new london cruise ship (that is, the fight about fuel regarding a new ship on the grounds of air pollution) was terminal.

From a paper on radiation in space:

Even with > 30 g/cm² of regolith shielding the 95% CI dose from a major SPE would exceed the 30-day limit.

Got confused with that one. Could really have done with punctuation.

Beeb: Musk out as Tesla chair over fraud case (wait, what are Tesla doing over fraud case? They're chairing?)

And primed by that, it took me a moment to work out Danish police free manhunt suspects too...

I just checked the BBC and didn't notice how the first one could be confusing until you posted.

From a summary of the Baganda origin myth in Wikipedia:

The woman, Nnambi, took Kintu to meet her father, Ggulu, in the sky. They married and had many children.

My immediate reaction was, "Wait a sec, I thought Kintu was male."