President Donald Trump says he’s replacing his embattled Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and will nominate in her place Oklahoma Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin.
Going back and reading the thread it doesn’t look like you were the one to point out the ambiguity, champ. Reads more like you were initially confused and then got defensive about it.
Probably could have been written a bit more clearly so that it was less ambiguous, champ.
Also, Jesus dude. I initially only wanted to drop some knowledge about agentives vs. anticausatives, not have a huge snarky slapfight just because you chose an incredibly odd and incorrect hill to die on elsewhere in the thread.
Maybe try to have less of a hair trigger in response to innocuous comments in the future.
Because of your additional normative position that that’s somehow a bad thing, instead of being a perfectly normal part of language that you have the faculties to easily resolve, as mentioned above.
Enjoy! Just because you’re ignorant about something doesn’t mean everyone else is too.
In short, a headline being interpretable from available context is a descriptive, empirical phenomenon, as opposed to the question of whether ambiguity is “bad”, which is a normative, unprovable statement with no objective merit.
Going back and reading the thread it doesn’t look like you were the one to point out the ambiguity, champ. Reads more like you were initially confused and then got defensive about it.
Probably could have been written a bit more clearly so that it was less ambiguous, champ.
My original comment was clearly a humorous take on the ambiguity, sport.
Sorry about you sense of humor, li’l guy.
Maybe not as clearly as you thought, champ.
Also, Jesus dude. I initially only wanted to drop some knowledge about agentives vs. anticausatives, not have a huge snarky slapfight just because you chose an incredibly odd and incorrect hill to die on elsewhere in the thread.
Maybe try to have less of a hair trigger in response to innocuous comments in the future.
Sure, sweet thing. You literally agreed that the title was ambiguous. How was it “incorrect” of me to point that out?
Because of your additional normative position that that’s somehow a bad thing, instead of being a perfectly normal part of language that you have the faculties to easily resolve, as mentioned above.
No, buttercup, it’s not a bad thing to point out that poor phrasing is poor.
Poor by what objective metric that doesn’t ultimately boil down to “because I said so”?
I’d ask you the same question, chuckles, if you hadn’t already agreed with my initial assessment.
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Pragmatics-Blackwell-Textbooks-Linguistics/dp/139419675X
Enjoy! Just because you’re ignorant about something doesn’t mean everyone else is too.
In short, a headline being interpretable from available context is a descriptive, empirical phenomenon, as opposed to the question of whether ambiguity is “bad”, which is a normative, unprovable statement with no objective merit.