3 ms·
However, it has a different problem. It says he was searching the bird for two decades. I doubt one could get a bird to hold still for that long to be searche
by ScottBurson 11y ago
However, it has a different problem. It says he was searching the bird for two decades. I doubt one could get a bird to hold still for that long to be searched.
It should, of course, read "A scientist's decision to kill a bird he'd been searching for for two decades". (I see the problem is in the original.) Alternatively, one could say "... seeking for two decades".
<pedantic grammar-nerd grin>
- waqf 11y agoI would argue that "two decades" can stand alone with the meaning "for two decades". However, your criticism's still justified because it's a garden-path construction.
- dang 11y agoHappy to increment the fors, but that doesn't solve your ambiguity objection. It merely turns "searching" back into the intransitive verb it should be.
- ScottBurson 11y agoThanks — but I don't get your comment. How is it still ambiguous?
- dang 11y agoArgh I misread you the first time. Sorry! Good one.