4 ms·

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.

by sosborn 10y ago

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.
      - mistersquid 10y ago
        I was going to write that the answer your question is "no" because your version is unambiguous but then I parsed it a few more times. One way to remove the ambiguity is to recast your sentence using "must": "You must not smoke". But that version is stilted to most modern English speakers raised outside the UK. This side-discussion is probably one of the reasons people wish HN had collapsible threads, so after this comment I will refrain from further contributing to it. (Nice job, btw, on highlighting the ambiguity in a version where the negative is in the predicate.) EDIT: grammar
    - mistersquid 10y ago
      You are splitting hairs and are mistaken. "Smoking" is the noun form of the verb "to smoke", also known as a gerund. "No" is an adjective (quantity) modifying "smoking". In the unintended misinterpretation, the phrase "no smoking" is an action that is permitted. The misinterpretation is possible because the negative is an adjective on the gerund which allows for ambiguity with regard to the sentence's predicate. This is a feature of the English language. Colloquially, most English speakers understand the intended meaning. The ambiguity can be removed by 1) writing "Smoking [is] not allowed" thus asserting the negative as an adverb in the predicate, 2) removing the predicate nominative "[is] allowed" (leaving only a gerundive phrase, not a full sentence), and/or 3) using a diagram like a prohibition symbol atop a burning cigarette [0] EDIT: grammar and sense (this is getting complicated!) [0] http://images.mydoorsign.com/img/lg/S/no-smoking-sign-s-9584.png http://images.mydoorsign.com/img/lg/S/no-smoking-sign-s-9584...
      - Dylan16807 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.

by 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.
    - mistersquid 10y ago
      I was going to write that the answer your question is "no" because your version is unambiguous but then I parsed it a few more times. One way to remove the ambiguity is to recast your sentence using "must": "You must not smoke". But that version is stilted to most modern English speakers raised outside the UK. This side-discussion is probably one of the reasons people wish HN had collapsible threads, so after this comment I will refrain from further contributing to it. (Nice job, btw, on highlighting the ambiguity in a version where the negative is in the predicate.) EDIT: grammar
  - mistersquid 10y ago
    You are splitting hairs and are mistaken. "Smoking" is the noun form of the verb "to smoke", also known as a gerund. "No" is an adjective (quantity) modifying "smoking". In the unintended misinterpretation, the phrase "no smoking" is an action that is permitted. The misinterpretation is possible because the negative is an adjective on the gerund which allows for ambiguity with regard to the sentence's predicate. This is a feature of the English language. Colloquially, most English speakers understand the intended meaning. The ambiguity can be removed by 1) writing "Smoking [is] not allowed" thus asserting the negative as an adverb in the predicate, 2) removing the predicate nominative "[is] allowed" (leaving only a gerundive phrase, not a full sentence), and/or 3) using a diagram like a prohibition symbol atop a burning cigarette [0] EDIT: grammar and sense (this is getting complicated!) [0] http://images.mydoorsign.com/img/lg/S/no-smoking-sign-s-9584.png http://images.mydoorsign.com/img/lg/S/no-smoking-sign-s-9584...
    - Dylan16807 10y ago