http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/14/decoding-anaphors/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:39:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/14/decoding-anaphors/comment-page-1/#comment-17633 Thomas Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:21:52 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1062#comment-17633 Republican readers? Plural? I thought I was the only one. Republican readers? Plural? I thought I was the only one.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/14/decoding-anaphors/comment-page-1/#comment-17632 bad Jim Sun, 15 Feb 2004 08:55:11 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1062#comment-17632 We Americans prefer presidents who aren't smarter than we are. Isn't that normal? We Americans prefer presidents who aren’t smarter than we are. Isn’t that normal?

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/14/decoding-anaphors/comment-page-1/#comment-17631 Finnpundit Sun, 15 Feb 2004 06:40:07 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1062#comment-17631 Hooboy! If all that the American Left can do is analyze grammatical structures for hidden meanings, then the Republicans will surely win this one, hands down. Give it up, and try to speak like "dumbed-down" average Americans. Because - in the long run - it is the average, working-class Americans that will validate the theories of all you tenured academics in your ivory towers. And wouldn't that be as it should be? So, give up the analysis of ambiguity, and trust the direct sign and symbol. Working classes all over the world have always done so. Perhaps you should learn to ask why.... Hooboy! If all that the American Left can do is analyze grammatical structures for hidden meanings, then the Republicans will surely win this one, hands down. Give it up, and try to speak like “dumbed-down” average Americans. Because – in the long run – it is the average, working-class Americans that will validate the theories of all you tenured academics in your ivory towers. And wouldn’t that be as it should be? So, give up the analysis of ambiguity, and trust the direct sign and symbol. Working classes all over the world have always done so. Perhaps you should learn to ask why….

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/14/decoding-anaphors/comment-page-1/#comment-17630 Jeremy Osner Sun, 15 Feb 2004 04:13:12 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1062#comment-17630 Johnny -- I don't see how using the subjunctive voice would make the sentence read as if Gillespie's statement applied to the GOP rather than the Democrats -- if anything it would make it more clear that he was talking about the Democrats. Johnny—I don’t see how using the subjunctive voice would make the sentence read as if Gillespie’s statement applied to the GOP rather than the Democrats—if anything it would make it more clear that he was talking about the Democrats.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/14/decoding-anaphors/comment-page-1/#comment-17629 Michael Sun, 15 Feb 2004 03:44:13 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1062#comment-17629 Gillespie could be speaking in the plural, referring to himself and his fellow mud-slingers....err, campaingers. Gillespie could be speaking in the plural, referring to himself and his fellow mud-slingers….err, campaingers.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/14/decoding-anaphors/comment-page-1/#comment-17628 Jonathan Ichikawa Sun, 15 Feb 2004 01:03:44 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1062#comment-17628 I'm not sure I get it. Are we worried about interpreting the quote to mean that Gillespie's team is readying a dirty campaign? I think that'd be a very odd way to read that sentence... if I wanted to achieve that ambiguity, I'd have written: "...attacked Kerry and other Democrats, saying they *were* readying..." Of course, it's still not very ambiguous, because "Gillespie" is singular here, and therefore an extremely odd antecedant for "they". Or am I just missing the point? I’m not sure I get it. Are we worried about interpreting the quote to mean that Gillespie’s team is readying a dirty campaign? I think that’d be a very odd way to read that sentence… if I wanted to achieve that ambiguity, I’d have written: “…attacked Kerry and other Democrats, saying they were readying…” Of course, it’s still not very ambiguous, because “Gillespie” is singular here, and therefore an extremely odd antecedant for “they”. Or am I just missing the point?

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/14/decoding-anaphors/comment-page-1/#comment-17627 Curtiss Leung Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:38:00 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1062#comment-17627 The referent of "they" isn't clear. But the statement is likely true regardless of who "they" are. The referent of “they” isn’t clear. But the statement is likely true regardless of who “they” are.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/14/decoding-anaphors/comment-page-1/#comment-17626 Curtiss Leung Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:37:39 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1062#comment-17626 The referent of "they" isn't clear. But the statement is likely true regardless who "they" are. The referent of “they” isn’t clear. But the statement is likely true regardless who “they” are.

]]>