9 ms·

Or "Apple bans apps that support only IPv4." "Apple bans apps that support IPv4 only." could be interpreted as banning apps that support IPv4. Although that'd

Or "Apple bans apps that support only IPv4." "Apple bans apps that support IPv4 only." could be interpreted as banning apps that support IPv4. Although that'd be reaching. Want to hear my rant about "No smoking allowed" when it should be "Smoking not allowed"?

Dylan16807 10y ago
I don't see how you could parse the smoking message the wrong way. "Non-smoking allowed" would be the wrong message. With "No smoking allowed", can you explain the problem?
- prdonahue 10y ago
  He's trying to imply that one would actually read this as "no smoking [IS] allowed".
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    "No smoking is allowed." is the correct message.
    - lstamour 10y ago
      But "smoking isn't allowed" or "smoking is prohibited" is a clearer way of putting it...
- sosborn 10y ago
  You are allowed to be "no smoking." It doesn't say that you can't smoke, which is the only possible interpretation of the second option.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    You cannot be "no smoking". You can be "not smoking". You can be "non-smoking". "no smoking" is not an adjective.
    - paulddraper 10y ago
      You no smokey!
      - mistersquid 10y ago
        Didn't Smokey say "Only you…"? [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smokey3.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smokey3.jpg
    - mistersquid 10y ago
      "No smoking" is a gerundive phrase which serves as the sentence's subject, with the copulative verb "is" implied: "No smoking [is] allowed". Considered differently, the sentence is not in the imperative mood with an implied subject. The sentence is in the declarative mood with an implied verb. The possible misunderstanding is that this declarative sentence merely identifies one action (of many) which is allowed, "no smoking", which does not necessarily prohibit other activities including "smoking", "singing", "no singing", "dancing", etc. EDIT: grammar and readability
      - Dylan16807 10y ago
        I strongly disagree. "not smoking" is an action. "no smoking" is not an action. You cannot parse the sentence as allowing a specific action without replacing the word "no" with something else. Edit: Also, I treat the sentence as being declarative with an implied 'is' even when interpreting it correctly.
        adriand 10y ago
        This is amusing but absurd, especially if you're serious about this phrase being confusing or malformed. "You may not smoke": does this mean, to you, that either smoking or not smoking is permitted? If the answer is yes, I think the solution may be to cease applying the logical rules of programming to human languages, where it is meaning and tradition that matter.
        10y ago
headShrinker 10y ago
"No smoking is allowed." (!smoking == true) It's short hand. > "Apple bans apps that support IPv4 only." could be interpreted as banning apps that support IPv4. the word 'only' is quite important in english. If an app supports IPv4 they will not be banned. That's not what we are measuring here. If they "don't" support IPv6, they will be banned.
AckSyn 10y ago
No one learns proper contextual clues in written media OR grammar usage anymore. Christ, it was bad when I started university in the late 90s and it's only gotten worse! Fuck common usage. Ignorant fools drag everyone down.
copperx 10y ago
"Apple bans apps that don't support IPv6". It isn't that hard.

Dylan16807 10y ago

I don't see how you could parse the smoking message the wrong way. "Non-smoking allowed" would be the wrong message. With "No smoking allowed", can you explain the problem?

prdonahue 10y ago
He's trying to imply that one would actually read this as "no smoking [IS] allowed".
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  "No smoking is allowed." is the correct message.
  - lstamour 10y ago
    But "smoking isn't allowed" or "smoking is prohibited" is a clearer way of putting it...
sosborn 10y ago
You are allowed to be "no smoking." It doesn't say that you can't smoke, which is the only possible interpretation of the second option.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  You cannot be "no smoking". You can be "not smoking". You can be "non-smoking". "no smoking" is not an adjective.
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    You no smokey!
    - mistersquid 10y ago
      Didn't Smokey say "Only you…"? [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smokey3.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smokey3.jpg
  - mistersquid 10y ago
    "No smoking" is a gerundive phrase which serves as the sentence's subject, with the copulative verb "is" implied: "No smoking [is] allowed". Considered differently, the sentence is not in the imperative mood with an implied subject. The sentence is in the declarative mood with an implied verb. The possible misunderstanding is that this declarative sentence merely identifies one action (of many) which is allowed, "no smoking", which does not necessarily prohibit other activities including "smoking", "singing", "no singing", "dancing", etc. EDIT: grammar and readability
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      I strongly disagree. "not smoking" is an action. "no smoking" is not an action. You cannot parse the sentence as allowing a specific action without replacing the word "no" with something else. Edit: Also, I treat the sentence as being declarative with an implied 'is' even when interpreting it correctly.
      - adriand 10y ago
        This is amusing but absurd, especially if you're serious about this phrase being confusing or malformed. "You may not smoke": does this mean, to you, that either smoking or not smoking is permitted? If the answer is yes, I think the solution may be to cease applying the logical rules of programming to human languages, where it is meaning and tradition that matter.
        10y ago

headShrinker 10y ago

"No smoking is allowed." (!smoking == true) It's short hand. > "Apple bans apps that support IPv4 only." could be interpreted as banning apps that support IPv4. the word 'only' is quite important in english. If an app supports IPv4 they will not be banned. That's not what we are measuring here. If they "don't" support IPv6, they will be banned.

AckSyn 10y ago

No one learns proper contextual clues in written media OR grammar usage anymore. Christ, it was bad when I started university in the late 90s and it's only gotten worse! Fuck common usage. Ignorant fools drag everyone down.

copperx 10y ago

"Apple bans apps that don't support IPv6". It isn't that hard.