5 ms·

I wish I could take the guy who came up with the headline to task! We've had a headline homicide... 1) "it is pancakes" isn't a sentence (ambiguous in the extr

by trebor 17y ago

I wish I could take the guy who came up with the headline to task! We've had a headline homicide... 1) "it is pancakes" isn't a sentence (ambiguous in the extreme). 2) The words "[it is] pancakes" are incompatible because "are" is the plural equivalent of "is". 3) "in a can" is not a sentence (lack of a subject & verb). 4) "it's made" is "it is made" not the "it has made" it should be. (It's as "it has" is not an official contraction due to its obvious ambiguity.) The unmurdered headline would be,− It's pancakes in a can, and it has made $15 million. </grammar-nazi> To CNN: Remember, it's my language you're abusing. Maybe you should care too? As a "big news agency" you should at least care enough to force your writers to learn basic English grammar!

gruseom 17y ago
That's a reductio ad absurdum, since (begging your pardon) your revised headline sounds bad and lacks punch. Meanwhile the original headline qua headline seems fine. Headlines are their own specialized context with their own rules, somewhat different from the main rules. You might even say they have a domain-specific grammar. I'm upvoting your comment anyway because the concept of a subgrammar never occurred to me before and it's kind of neat. I'd be surprised if it weren't a well-known phenomenon among linguists though.
- HeyLaughingBoy 17y ago
  Ain't that the truth!
- psygnisfive 17y ago
  It's true that news headlines obey their own little grammatical rules. Language Log (http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/ http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/) has mentioned this a number of times. Tho noone in the field really cares about it, because its not all the relevant to language on the whole.
Retric 17y ago
While you might feel the need to post such things, I would request you do that on some other form. It's effectively the same thing as trolling.
liebot 17y ago
>The unmurdered headline would be,− > It's pancakes in a can, and it has made $15 million. How does this address #2: The words "[it is] pancakes" are incompatible because "are" is the plural equivalent of "is".
- psygnisfive 17y ago
  OH IRONY
- cperciva 17y ago
  The words "[it is] pancakes" are incompatible because "are" is the plural equivalent of "is". Not true. "It is pancakes in a can" is entirely grammatically correct, because "pancakes in a can" is a singular noun -- an idiomatic one, to be sure, but "pancakes in a can" is taken to mean "a can containing pancakes", which is obviously singular.
  - liebot 17y ago
    No, I agree, my intent was to point out an internal inconsistency within the critique.
psygnisfive 17y ago
I like how you call yourself a grammar nazi, cite the old (and wrong) definition of a sentence as something with a subject and verb, but then say that "it is pancakes" is not a sentence. Why not? It's got a subject -- it -- and it's got a verb -- is. Further, English has subject-verb agreement not subject-object agreement or verb-object agreement, hence "it is pancakes" is completely fine. Sure there maybe be some semantic anomalies, what with the singularity of the subject, the plurality of the object, and the copula which provides some sense of equivalence between them, but that's entirely a semantic issue and not a grammatical one. Further further, setting off non-sentences by periods is common practice. You may not like it, but everyone else accepts it. You're just an idiot. Further further further, "it's" is completely acceptable English, and isn't an official contraction only because there ARE no official contractions -- unlike French, with its (wholly impotent) French Academy, there is no authority on English, and thus no such thing as official English. The best we can do (as if we should care) is to reference the great authors of English literature (whoever they may be) and if you go by them, then you're most certainly wrong. Further further further further, it's not your language, it's everyones, and I think the headline is fine; and they're not abusing it, they're using it in a completely standard fashion. </actual linguist>
- tptacek 17y ago
  You're awesome and I'm looking forward to everything else you might write about linguistics on HN, but I'm not going to be the only person on Hacker News to tell you not to call people "idiots" on our comment threads.
  - psygnisfive 17y ago
    You're one of the first. ;)
- elyada 17y ago
  Noam said it best :-) http://twitter.com/FakeChomsky http://twitter.com/FakeChomsky
stevejohnson 17y ago
To CNN: Remember, it's my language you're abusing. No, it is not. It's their language too. There is no central authority which hands down the rules of the English language, only common agreement and a shared understanding. If a collection of words and punctuation has clearly expressed an idea, then it has served its purpose. Rules of grammar are useful, but getting too pedantic and authoritarian about them can do nothing but suck the joy out of your life.
pbhjpbhj 17y ago
A more appropriate headline might have been "Pancakes in a can have grossed $15million this year". The headline as it stands is trying to add some extra texture. "It's pancakes." - ie just pancakes, nothing fancy, nothing luxurious (though we have pancakes as a treat) they're just pancakes. I also find this to be a hint to a template of a salesmans patter. "In a can." - this evokes a staccato presentation on a TV shopping channel IMO and emphasises that all they did differently with their basic pancake batter was stick it in a can (even if that's not strictly true). "It's made $15 million." - the short sentence echoes the others and adds a little incredulity.

by trebor 17y ago

gruseom 17y ago

That's a reductio ad absurdum, since (begging your pardon) your revised headline sounds bad and lacks punch. Meanwhile the original headline qua headline seems fine. Headlines are their own specialized context with their own rules, somewhat different from the main rules. You might even say they have a domain-specific grammar. I'm upvoting your comment anyway because the concept of a subgrammar never occurred to me before and it's kind of neat. I'd be surprised if it weren't a well-known phenomenon among linguists though.

HeyLaughingBoy 17y ago
Ain't that the truth!
psygnisfive 17y ago
It's true that news headlines obey their own little grammatical rules. Language Log (http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/ http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/) has mentioned this a number of times. Tho noone in the field really cares about it, because its not all the relevant to language on the whole.

Retric 17y ago

While you might feel the need to post such things, I would request you do that on some other form. It's effectively the same thing as trolling.

liebot 17y ago

>The unmurdered headline would be,− > It's pancakes in a can, and it has made $15 million. How does this address #2: The words "[it is] pancakes" are incompatible because "are" is the plural equivalent of "is".

psygnisfive 17y ago
OH IRONY
cperciva 17y ago
The words "[it is] pancakes" are incompatible because "are" is the plural equivalent of "is". Not true. "It is pancakes in a can" is entirely grammatically correct, because "pancakes in a can" is a singular noun -- an idiomatic one, to be sure, but "pancakes in a can" is taken to mean "a can containing pancakes", which is obviously singular.
- liebot 17y ago
  No, I agree, my intent was to point out an internal inconsistency within the critique.

psygnisfive 17y ago

I like how you call yourself a grammar nazi, cite the old (and wrong) definition of a sentence as something with a subject and verb, but then say that "it is pancakes" is not a sentence. Why not? It's got a subject -- it -- and it's got a verb -- is. Further, English has subject-verb agreement not subject-object agreement or verb-object agreement, hence "it is pancakes" is completely fine. Sure there maybe be some semantic anomalies, what with the singularity of the subject, the plurality of the object, and the copula which provides some sense of equivalence between them, but that's entirely a semantic issue and not a grammatical one. Further further, setting off non-sentences by periods is common practice. You may not like it, but everyone else accepts it. You're just an idiot. Further further further, "it's" is completely acceptable English, and isn't an official contraction only because there ARE no official contractions -- unlike French, with its (wholly impotent) French Academy, there is no authority on English, and thus no such thing as official English. The best we can do (as if we should care) is to reference the great authors of English literature (whoever they may be) and if you go by them, then you're most certainly wrong. Further further further further, it's not your language, it's everyones, and I think the headline is fine; and they're not abusing it, they're using it in a completely standard fashion. </actual linguist>

tptacek 17y ago
You're awesome and I'm looking forward to everything else you might write about linguistics on HN, but I'm not going to be the only person on Hacker News to tell you not to call people "idiots" on our comment threads.
- psygnisfive 17y ago
  You're one of the first. ;)
elyada 17y ago
Noam said it best :-) http://twitter.com/FakeChomsky http://twitter.com/FakeChomsky

stevejohnson 17y ago

To CNN: Remember, it's my language you're abusing. No, it is not. It's their language too. There is no central authority which hands down the rules of the English language, only common agreement and a shared understanding. If a collection of words and punctuation has clearly expressed an idea, then it has served its purpose. Rules of grammar are useful, but getting too pedantic and authoritarian about them can do nothing but suck the joy out of your life.

pbhjpbhj 17y ago

A more appropriate headline might have been "Pancakes in a can have grossed $15million this year". The headline as it stands is trying to add some extra texture. "It's pancakes." - ie just pancakes, nothing fancy, nothing luxurious (though we have pancakes as a treat) they're just pancakes. I also find this to be a hint to a template of a salesmans patter. "In a can." - this evokes a staccato presentation on a TV shopping channel IMO and emphasises that all they did differently with their basic pancake batter was stick it in a can (even if that's not strictly true). "It's made $15 million." - the short sentence echoes the others and adds a little incredulity.