3 ms·
So my fix isn't incorrect after all, and less ambiguous at that? Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_Path_Sentence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_Pat
by posterboy 9y ago
So my fix isn't incorrect after all, and less ambiguous at that? Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_Path_Sentence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_Path_Sentence
You are right insofar reading it as containing a zero grade would give to sue (them). I can only guess the mind of the poster was already firing up a few neurons about "them" suing in return or sumsuch. Or I'm just really miserable with analytic languages.
- IncRnd 9y agoThe sentence was not a garden-path, which can be seen by the contrast that was being performed. Company you've never heard of because they're in the business of patent lawsuits vs. Company you've heard of because they're big enough to sue "Big enough to sue" refers to company B being sued, not company A (the patent troll).
- posterboy 9y agoThis looks like a monad. The first sentence binds the subject and so on. I think translating that to monadic predicate logic is a skill, so my criticism still stands. But now I'm just arguing for arguments sake, so don't mind me.
- IncRnd 9y agoExactly! Now we're talking! The key is that you're mis-identifying the combinator.