Comments on: Explaining a simple argument http://www.sharms.org/blog/2010/02/explaining-a-simple-argument/ Life, Linux and Technology Thu, 26 Jan 2012 02:40:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: goodmami http://www.sharms.org/blog/2010/02/explaining-a-simple-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-1465 goodmami Fri, 05 Feb 2010 04:34:05 +0000 http://www.sharms.org/blog/?p=691#comment-1465 nnonix: you're right that it's unlikely, but Sharms is right that there is a valid ambiguity in the sentence. Just because an ambiguous sentence has a preferential parse does not mean the unlikely parse is not possible without certain assumptions (by "assumptions" I think you mean the discourse context). That's my 2c through my linguist-colored-glasses. nnonix: you’re right that it’s unlikely, but Sharms is right that there is a valid ambiguity in the sentence. Just because an ambiguous sentence has a preferential parse does not mean the unlikely parse is not possible without certain assumptions (by “assumptions” I think you mean the discourse context).

That’s my 2c through my linguist-colored-glasses.

]]> By: nnonix http://www.sharms.org/blog/2010/02/explaining-a-simple-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-1464 nnonix Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:49:57 +0000 http://www.sharms.org/blog/?p=691#comment-1464 Sharms -- I'm sorry, it cannot be interpreted that way without making some assumptions. Unwarranted assumptions. Add to that my "assumption" that the Steelers were one of the teams selected in Madden when you witnessed this gem (giving additional context) and I don't see the confusion. "Shit has hit the fan more than any other substance in the world" You're arguing that the Fan then must also have hit the shit more often. It's ridiculous yet understandable given the fact that we know your looking at it with geek-colored-glasses. Sharms — I’m sorry, it cannot be interpreted that way without making some assumptions. Unwarranted assumptions. Add to that my “assumption” that the Steelers were one of the teams selected in Madden when you witnessed this gem (giving additional context) and I don’t see the confusion.

“Shit has hit the fan more than any other substance in the world” You’re arguing that the Fan then must also have hit the shit more often. It’s ridiculous yet understandable given the fact that we know your looking at it with geek-colored-glasses.

]]> By: sharms http://www.sharms.org/blog/2010/02/explaining-a-simple-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-1463 sharms Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:33:03 +0000 http://www.sharms.org/blog/?p=691#comment-1463 nnonix - It is ambiguous as it could also be interpreted as a statement about which teams have played the Bengals the most. In fact, the person arguing with me took this position instead of yours. My point is without quantifying which team's history is being referenced, explicitly, there is no way to know. nnonix – It is ambiguous as it could also be interpreted as a statement about which teams have played the Bengals the most. In fact, the person arguing with me took this position instead of yours.

My point is without quantifying which team’s history is being referenced, explicitly, there is no way to know.

]]> By: nnonix http://www.sharms.org/blog/2010/02/explaining-a-simple-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-1462 nnonix Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:50:50 +0000 http://www.sharms.org/blog/?p=691#comment-1462 “The Bengals have played the Steelers more than any other team in the NFL”. The sentence is not ambiguous at all. It's a statement about which teams have played the Steelers the most. There is the context you seem to be missing. Just because you can derive other data from that sentence doesn't make it ambiguous. Additionally, it wouldn't be impossible for another team to have played the Bengals more than the Steelers have while no other team has played the Steelers more than the Bengals have. “The Bengals have played the Steelers more than any other team in the NFL”.

The sentence is not ambiguous at all. It’s a statement about which teams have played the Steelers the most. There is the context you seem to be missing.

Just because you can derive other data from that sentence doesn’t make it ambiguous. Additionally, it wouldn’t be impossible for another team to have played the Bengals more than the Steelers have while no other team has played the Steelers more than the Bengals have.

]]> By: Dave Morley http://www.sharms.org/blog/2010/02/explaining-a-simple-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-1461 Dave Morley Thu, 04 Feb 2010 06:28:48 +0000 http://www.sharms.org/blog/?p=691#comment-1461 You see it's like soccer over here, there are teams that meet up for the rivalry. Pre-season matches, cup ties, The list goes on. Your Friend is probably under the misconception that they only meet up in the league. If that were the case then both teams would of played each other as much as any other team :) You see it’s like soccer over here, there are teams that meet up for the rivalry. Pre-season matches, cup ties, The list goes on. Your Friend is probably under the misconception that they only meet up in the league. If that were the case then both teams would of played each other as much as any other team :)

]]> By: goodmami http://www.sharms.org/blog/2010/02/explaining-a-simple-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-1460 goodmami Thu, 04 Feb 2010 06:20:59 +0000 http://www.sharms.org/blog/?p=691#comment-1460 There is an ambiguity there, but I'm not sure if it's as you described. The problem is due to the ellipsis in the second clause. We can write out the sentences more explicitly: The Bengals have played the Steelers more than the Bengals have played any other team in the NFL. The Bengals have played the Steelers more than any other team in the NFL has* played the Steelers. Actually, I think this might be the same interpretations as you had. Also, there is some ambiguity in the Wikipedia article as well, because you don't know which team "their own history" goes with, although likely it is the Bengals. * substitute "have" for "has" if you prefer UK English, I think. There is an ambiguity there, but I’m not sure if it’s as you described. The problem is due to the ellipsis in the second clause. We can write out the sentences more explicitly:

The Bengals have played the Steelers more than the Bengals have played any other team in the NFL.

The Bengals have played the Steelers more than any other team in the NFL has* played the Steelers.

Actually, I think this might be the same interpretations as you had. Also, there is some ambiguity in the Wikipedia article as well, because you don’t know which team “their own history” goes with, although likely it is the Bengals.

* substitute “have” for “has” if you prefer UK English, I think.

]]> By: Roger http://www.sharms.org/blog/2010/02/explaining-a-simple-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-1459 Roger Thu, 04 Feb 2010 04:58:56 +0000 http://www.sharms.org/blog/?p=691#comment-1459 By "The Bengals" being first in the sentence the convention is that things are referring to them (ie interpretation #1). It doesn't seem at all ambiguous to me. Bengals are the subject, Steelers are the object. You will note that the alternative phrasings are longer which while being more pedantic are also harder to read. I'd also argue that almost any English statement can be ambiguous when seen through geek eyes :-) By “The Bengals” being first in the sentence the convention is that things are referring to them (ie interpretation #1). It doesn’t seem at all ambiguous to me. Bengals are the subject, Steelers are the object.

You will note that the alternative phrasings are longer which while being more pedantic are also harder to read. I’d also argue that almost any English statement can be ambiguous when seen through geek eyes :-)

]]> By: ethana2 http://www.sharms.org/blog/2010/02/explaining-a-simple-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-1458 ethana2 Thu, 04 Feb 2010 01:27:14 +0000 http://www.sharms.org/blog/?p=691#comment-1458 Woohoo, English..... Woohoo, English…..

]]>