User talk:Tony1/Spot the ambiguity

Your feedback is welcome, whether you're a logged-on editor or an anonymous visitor. Click on "Edit" at the top to comment or ask a question. Tony (talk) 02:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Art's notes

Example D: " 'marry' as a transitive or intransitive verb" No. "Fijian" is a direct object, no matter which meaning of "marry" is used. A verb that takes a direct object is being used as a transitive verb. Also, this example is the most far-fetched example of an ambiguity. A marriage official wouldn't say "I want to marry a Fijian." Why would he want that? Also, part of his job, especially in a church wedding, is to counsel the bride and groom to think of themselves as a couple. So it would counteract the message he wants to project to talk about marrying one spouse without mentioning the other.

Example L: unbalanced parentheses

Example Q: missing period

Example T: "Francisco" not "Fransisco", and a missing period

Example V: "capital" not "captial"

Art LaPella (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Art, of course I agree about "marry". It may be worth adding that it can be intransitive in both of the senses Tony appeals to: "They lived together but never married"; and even "The wayward priest was permitted to administer last rites, but not to baptise or to marry." Heh! I also agree that the example was implausible, because in the sense of administering a sacrament "marry" could hardly take a singular object. I wonder about this one though: "The imam [or the maulwi?] wanted to marry them immediately."

Noetica^Tea? 09:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

How very odd, Art LaPella's comment was not here when I posted mine, yet it is ahead of mine now. Truly I must be in an internet backwater.

To nitpick Noetica's comment, 1) careful about the "sacrament" label, not all Christian denominations include marriage in the list, as most consider that Jesus himself did not marry. 2) I have never seen a religious figure at a Moslem wedding. It is strictly a contract between families, done in advance of the party, the bride being delivered to the groom's family during the party.

Neotarf (talk) 10:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's why I said "I wonder", right? ☺! It probably varies by region, as my wikilink suggests. And there's this: "The short ceremony is usually conducted by an Imam", from this external source. Meh. I claim no knowledge in the area. As for sacraments, fine. I do not need to cover all denominations to make my own nitpicking pointlet.

Noetica^Tea? 11:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It also says that during this ceremony the marriage gift changes hands. I've been to many levels of party -- one family, both families, walled courtyard, street, wedding hall, tent, -- with traditions from various regions as well, but I've never seen the dowry change hands. I always thought this happened during the engagement, which can be as much as a year before the wedding, as I believe it has to be returned in the unlikely event that they do not get married. Neotarf (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Some random observations in no particular order

Hi, Tony, I made a couple of copyedits to the photo caption that were obvious typos, and put a note in the edit summary about the ones I guessed at.

• I think it works as a game, but I myself did not find any new info in it and would not have continued if you had not asked for feedback. For one thing, too much clicking. I like to skim, as my time is limited. I probably wouldn't have gotten tired of it as quickly if all the questions were in the open, or if you would open a group of questions at one time.
• I didn't pick up on the idea that they were grouped by classification until I reread what you wrote at the MoS talk page.
• I don't agree about the "marry" example, since it is expressed in the singular. I can't imagine a place where someone would get married to themself, although I have heard that in India people sometimes marry trees. If you were to perform a wedding ceremony you would marry two people, or marry a couple, or marry someone to a tree. And the meaning would be clear by the context.
• I still don't understand the exam question, since it's about an educational system I'm not familiar with. A more global example would be better for us Americans.

As usual, ymmv. Cheers, Neotarf (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed

Thanks to both of you.

Neotarf, I could remove the example sentence in each case from the templated box to save one click. It doesn't look as good visually, but is not strictly necessary to the process; the answer boxes and solutions do need to be kept from view while deciding. Excellent idea! Done.

Oral examinations for PhDs are not uncommon in the US, although they used to be more common. They're non-existent now in my jurisdiction, but that didn't interfere with the decision on whether the language is ambiguous. Tony (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The usual that I've heard is "defending one's dissertation", but I've also heard "orals". I also know of someone who had an oral examination for an MS, but that's probably not as common. Neotarf (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Example P and W

Example P by itself may not be ambiguous, but it's not correct, either, because it uses two different ways of spelling the same word not just in a single article, but in a single sentence. (airbase/air base, in case you can't find what I mean. ;)) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Example W, however, I would say is in fact ambiguous. Emphasis added to clarify:

The impact on the world economy of new and rapid networks of transport and communications at the end of the 19th century was at least as dramatic as the transformation wrought by the Internet and the deregulation and liberalization of financial markets a century later.

In which case something unnamed impacts 'the world economy of [...] and communication', or

The impact on the world economy of new and rapid networks of transport and communications at the end of the 19th century was at least as dramatic as the transformation wrought by the Internet and the deregulation and liberalization of financial markets a century later.

In which case new [...] communications impact the world economy. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

AWNH – I think it's marginal ambiguity. Straight out of Tony Judt's brilliant Postwar: a history of Europe since 1945 (2005; Penguin); he does need a good copy-editor, despite rafts of extraordinarily penetrating summary insights and surface elegance. What about this:

"The impact of new and rapid networks of transport and communications on the world economy at the end of the 19th century was at least as dramatic as the transformation wrought by the Internet and the deregulation and liberalization of financial markets a century later."

The advantage now is that the parallelism is in the same order; the disadvantage is that I think he wanted "the world economy" to be more thematic (front-ended).

Now I'm worried about exercise X. Hmmm. Tony (talk) 02:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Marginal ambiguity, yes, which would not matter if not for the fact that it's used on a page about spotting ambiguity. Your change eliminates the ambiguity completely, as it was only caused by a rather awkward word order. What might also work is the following:

"The impact on the world economy by new and rapid networks of transport and communications at the end of the 19th century was at least as dramatic as the transformation wrought by the Internet and the deregulation and liberalization of financial markets a century later."

However, you then have a marginal difference in meaning thanks to the swapping of 'impact of' for 'impact by'. The advantage is that it's closer to the original.

Example X has the plus of already being ambiguous, so even if I find something there, it hardly matters as much as a not-ambiguous-case being somewhat ambiguous after all. Mind you, if I were to spend fifteen minutes on every ambiguous example, I'd no doubt find even more interpretations not yet listed, but I have better things to do with my time than being pedantic by searching for examples that undoubtedly would already be close to what is listed. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Example I

Is this not ambiguous for a different reason? Oral examination could be either an exam in which answers are given orally or an examination of someone's mouth (e.g. by a dentist). Peaky76 (talk) 12:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Peaky, how very picky of you! Yes, contextual ambiguity is hard to avoid in such short pieces of text. I find it clear enough. I'll reword if you think I should. Tony (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)