Context can be so crucial in figuring out what a sentence means, even in subconscious processing. When I first scanned this I thought Ed Gillespie shouldn’t be so candid in front of reporters.
In prepared remarks, Gillespie attacked Kerry and other Democrats, saying they are readying “the dirtiest campaign in modern presidential politics.” (From CNN)
I bet our Republican readers did not read it that way!
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 of who “they” are.
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?
Gillespie could be speaking in the plural, referring to himself and his fellow mud-slingers….err, campaingers.
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.
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….
We Americans prefer presidents who aren’t smarter than we are. Isn’t that normal?
Republican readers? Plural?
I thought I was the only one.
Classics
The Virtual Tophet
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (theology)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Amity Wilczek (biology)
Theodore Wong
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Irascible Professor
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review