4 ms·
> It was up to the author to parse the sentence in advance of posting it. And competent writers don't invite such obvious double meanings -- they undermine the
by g-b-r 2y ago
> It was up to the author to parse the sentence in advance of posting it. And competent writers don't invite such obvious double meanings -- they undermine the value of the essay.
The author? She can't do it for the reader; to my knowledge it's a correct sentence, just a a bit verbose.
> Expressions change over time, but normally by consensus. Without consensus, one is entitled to wonder whether the writer knows what the expression means.
Yes, you sure had trouble understanding it...
> Some writers don't need a spell checker. Others require it.
Some are trying to win a Pulitzer, others just to write a substack article.
Let's not pretend those were the reason why you didn't like the article, come on.
- lutusp 2y ago> The author? It can't do it for the reader; to my knowledge it's a correct sentence, just a a bit verbose. It contains a classic beginner's error -- object ambiguity. Rather funny in this specific case. > Yes, you sure had trouble understanding it, come on. Not at all -- but it was abundantly clear that the author didn't take the time to unambiguously identify the sentence's object, with a humorous outcome. > Some are trying to win a Pulitzer, others just to write a substack article. This is called a "false choice". But I think you know that. A vast middle ground lives between those extremes. > Let's not pretend those were the reason why you didn't like the article, come on. I have no stake in the article's topic, only its form. For all I know, these people are acting to protect irreplaceable historical artifacts. Just for the sake of argument. I just noticed something. The article's title -- "The great Hobby Lobby artifact heist" -- is itself a classic example of begging the question, because it presumes the truth of what it should be proving.