Zompist Bboard Again

akam chinjir wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 11:18 pm Saudi Arabia ends death penalty for minors and floggings

>_< Why did they put "and floggings" there?

Here's another Swedish one from me again, if anyone's interested:

Korttidsboende för äldre smittade

I interpreted that as:
[korttidsboende-∅ för äldre-∅] smitta-d-e
[short.term.home-PL for elder-PL] infect-PST.PTCP-PL
Short term homes for the elderly have been infected.

When they actually meant:
korttidsboende för [äldre-∅ smitta-d-e]
short.term.home.SG for [elder-PL infect-PST.PTCP-PL]
A short term home for the elder who have been infected.

Qwynegold wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:43 am

akam chinjir wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 11:18 pm Saudi Arabia ends death penalty for minors and floggings

>_< Why did they put "and floggings" there?

I think they expressed it this way because they wanted to communicate that they ended the death penalty for minors, and also they ended floggings for everyone.

Here's another Swedish one from me again, if anyone's interested:

Korttidsboende för äldre smittade

I interpreted that as:
[korttidsboende-∅ för äldre-∅] smitta-d-e
[short.term.home-PL for elder-PL] infect-PST.PTCP-PL
Short term homes for the elderly have been infected.

When they actually meant:
korttidsboende för [äldre-∅ smitta-d-e]
short.term.home.SG for [elder-PL infect-PST.PTCP-PL]
A short term home for the elder who have been infected.

I feel that there should be a way to do this in English as well, but I can’t think of anything.

From the New York Times:

Doctor Who Promoted Malarial Drug Draws Scrutiny of Federal Prosectors[sic]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/01/us/c ... -drug.html

Since when do sci-fi TV shows promote malarial drugs?

Raphael wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 8:34 am From the New York Times:

Doctor Who Promoted Malarial Drug Draws Scrutiny of Federal Prosectors[sic]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/01/us/c ... -drug.html

Since when do sci-fi TV shows promote malarial drugs?

This one isn’t a headline, but a sentence in an article:

So, for the new study, published in April in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, the Texas scientists recruited eight healthy young people and asked them to spend a full day at the lab, rising only to eat or visit the bathroom. The next morning, the volunteers returned or a high-fat breakfast of melted ice cream and half and half, while the scientists monitored their bodies' metabolic response during the next six hours.

I cannot make any sense at all of the bolded sentence — can anyone else figure it out? I strongly suspect that there’s a typo somewhere.

It's very simple, "or" should be "for": "The next morning, the volunteers returned for a high-fat breakfast of melted ice cream and half and half, while the scientists monitored their bodies' metabolic response during the next six hours."

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 6:07 pm

Qwynegold wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:43 am

akam chinjir wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 11:18 pm Saudi Arabia ends death penalty for minors and floggings

>_< Why did they put "and floggings" there?

I think they expressed it this way because they wanted to communicate that they ended the death penalty for minors, and also they ended floggings for everyone.

Oh right! Moving it furter left would also cause an incorrect reading.

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 4:56 am It's very simple, "or" should be "for": "The next morning, the volunteers returned for a high-fat breakfast of melted ice cream and half and half, while the scientists monitored their bodies' metabolic response during the next six hours."

Oh, of course! Usually I’m better at figuring out what the missing letter is, so I’m not sure why I didn’t see it there…

Qwynegold wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 5:14 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 6:07 pm

Qwynegold wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:43 am

>_< Why did they put "and floggings" there?

I think they expressed it this way because they wanted to communicate that they ended the death penalty for minors, and also they ended floggings for everyone.

Oh right! Moving it furter left would also cause an incorrect reading.

It could be rewritten as "Saudi Arabia ends floggings, also death penalty for minors"

WWE’s John Cena surprises Make-a-Wish 7-year-old with cancer (New York Post)

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 10:10 pm WWE’s John Cena surprises Make-a-Wish 7-year-old with cancer (New York Post)

This doesn’t seem too confusing to me. What am I missing?

Does the 7-year-old have cancer, or was the cancer the surprise?

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 10:41 pm Does the 7-year-old have cancer, or was the cancer the surprise?

Thanks for clarifying! That really is a big ambiguity…

More an instance of word gore than confusing, but:

10 Things You Did Not Know What They Are
(Clickbait youtube video)

This reads as unacceptable to me but I can't figure out why (besides the mixed tense), or how to rephrase it to make it work

I dont know what its called either but its ungrammatical. Maybe a subset of dangling modifier? Its structurally equivalent to "Ten Books You Do Not Know Who Wrote Them". In the latter sentence, you can remove "them" and be fine*, but for whatever reason, we dont accept a stray "What Are" in that position.

*although some might disagree with me here .... i think it's a bit clumsy on second thought, and would rather add something to the sentence than take away. "Ten Books Such That You Do Not Know Who Wrote Them" would be grammatical but not good for a headline.

Looks like an issue with the role of the relative clause head. I'm not sure whether, in English, a relative clause head can ever control zero anaphora or a pronoun in a subordinate clause embedded within the relative clause. Can anyone think of an example that sounds right?

I could change the headline to Ten things you don't know what to call and I think all of us would agree it's grammatical, but I dont know if that can be quite considered structurally the same as the original, because I've swapped in an infinitive for a past tense form.

quinterbeck wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2020 2:32 pm More an instance of word gore than confusing, but:

10 Things You Did Not Know What They Are
(Clickbait youtube video)

This reads as unacceptable to me but I can't figure out why (besides the mixed tense), or how to rephrase it to make it work

Well, adding in a couple of words gives 10 things which [you didn’t know [what they are]], so I’d say the problem is that it’s trying to relativise a word out from a nested relative clause. I agree with Pabappa that Ten things you don't know what to call is much better.