Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Interactive Guide to Ambiguous Grammar

mcsweeneys.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–16 of 16 posts

Re: An Interactive Guide to Ambiguous Grammar

#11

Post by moosemilkie »

saulrh wrote: post #5

Affirming the consequent. Jumping to conclusions. Appeal to emotion. Also, there's a reason they use language like this. Namely, say they wrote the sentence you arrived at; what do you think the reaction would be? Riots, right? Violent, righteous riots. Sounds good - up until the mob gets to the hospital and finds the involved officer's partner there being fixed up after getting shot three times in the chest. Feels s…

If you click the "source" link at the bottom of the piece, you'll find that this is not a hypothetical situation. That's an actual statement put out the police themselves, who know exactly what happened.

Re: An Interactive Guide to Ambiguous Grammar

#12

Post by ryandamm »

I think you're all missing the point. For a lengthy elaboration, please read this classic from 1946:

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit...

The choice of language isn't accidental, it's political. Think of the role of language in Orwell's 1984.

Now apply the principle: go make your PR/marketing people read both of these essays, and make your communications vivid and effective.

Unless you're dealing with a hot-button political issue, and wish to CYA with bland, indirect, and vague sayings. But then again, that's not actually communicating, is it?

Re: An Interactive Guide to Ambiguous Grammar

#13

Post by saulrh »

moosemilkie wrote: post #11
saulrh wrote: post #5

Affirming the consequent. Jumping to conclusions. Appeal to emotion. Also, there's a reason they use language like this. Namely, say they wrote the sentence you arrived at; what do you think the reaction would be? Riots, right? Violent, righteous riots. Sounds good - up until the mob gets to the hospital and finds the involved officer's partner there being fixed up after getting shot three times in the chest. Feels s…

If you click the "source" link at the bottom of the piece, you'll find that this is not a hypothetical situation. That's an actual statement put out the police themselves, who know exactly what happened.

I am aware. How does this affect my point? The essay here would have been just as correctly concluded by disambiguating the police statement into "A black person shot a police officer."

Re: An Interactive Guide to Ambiguous Grammar

#14

Post by moosemilkie »

saulrh wrote: post #13
moosemilkie wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you click the "source" link at the bottom of the piece, you'll find that this is not a hypothetical situation. That's an actual statement put out the police themselves, who know exactly what happened.

I am aware. How does this affect my point? The essay here would have been just as correctly concluded by disambiguating the police statement into "A black person shot a police officer."

If you're aware, then why lie, and say they didn't know what happened? Why make up a fairy tale about "violent, righteous riots" and an injured police officer? I can't tell you how it affects your point because I apparently don't understand what your point was supposed to be.

Re: An Interactive Guide to Ambiguous Grammar

#15

Post by saulrh »

moosemilkie wrote: post #14
saulrh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am aware. How does this affect my point? The essay here would have been just as correctly concluded by disambiguating the police statement into "A black person shot a police officer."

If you're aware, then why lie, and say they didn't know what happened? Why make up a fairy tale about "violent, righteous riots" and an injured police officer? I can't tell you how it affects your point because I apparently don't understand what your point was supposed to be.

I think I'd just woken up and didn't realize that I could have insulted your argument more strongly and directly. I apologize for that. Ignore that comment in favor of "The article could have concluded more correctly by disambiguating the statement into 'A black person shot a police officer.'".

And, honestly, I should have realized this argument was more or less pointless. The original article is strongly ideologically motivated and you can't argue someone out of a position they didn't argue themselves into.

Re: An Interactive Guide to Ambiguous Grammar

#16

Post by moosemilkie »

saulrh wrote: post #15
moosemilkie wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're aware, then why lie, and say they didn't know what happened? Why make up a fairy tale about "violent, righteous riots" and an injured police officer? I can't tell you how it affects your point because I apparently don't understand what your point was supposed to be.

I think I'd just woken up and didn't realize that I could have insulted your argument more strongly and directly. I apologize for that. Ignore that comment in favor of "The article could have concluded more correctly by disambiguating the statement into 'A black person shot a police officer.'". And, honestly, I should have realized this argument was more or less pointless. The original article is strongly ideological…

I merely wanted to let you know that your assumption that their example was hypothetical was wrong, since you filled it out with some fictitious details instead of the truth. Which you're still doing, in claiming that anybody shot a police officer - no officer was injured in the incident. This would make your suggestion less correct, rather than more correct, since it is false.
Post reply on HN