More commentary on Jobs and idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-11-21 08:50:03 -0800, "Neil Harrington" said:

John Turco wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-10-30 08:45:58 -0700, John A.
said:

Le Snip

I also noticed the larger context, bearing in mind what was being
written about, and figured out, without even thinking about it
much, or even consciously, what was meant.

Are you also confused by such sentences as "Abraham Lincoln wrote
the Gettysburg Address while traveling on the back of an
envelope"?

Aaaagh!

...and that is a trule demonstration of fractured syntax,
illuminating the ignorance of the writer, rather than the
interpretive skills of the reader.

A comma would fix it, though. I'm not saying that would make it the
best possible way to express the idea, but . . .


Two commas are necessary:

"Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address, while traveling, on
the back of an envelope."

"Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address while traveling, on
the back of an envelope" does just as well.

I had considered the two-comma fix as well, and there's nothing
wrong with doing it that way, but really one comma is sufficient.

Electrons should be conserved wherever possible. Some day you may
need a few extra electrons, and be all out of them just because of
having used a comma that wasn't absolutely necessary.

Well, that still doesn't truly fix the ambiguity.

I think it does. The only ambiguity in the original sentence is the
possibility of reading it as meaning that Lincoln was traveling on the back
of an envelope while writing the address, and the single comma provides
enough separation to prevent reading it that way.

I'm not saying it's the ideal way of presenting that idea, it's awkward in
fact, but it removes the ambiguity.

To do that the
sentence could be rearranged one of two ways;
(A two comma solution)
Abraham Lincoln, while traveling, wrote the Gettysburg Address on the
back of an envelope.
or
(a one comma solution)
While traveling, Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address on the
back of an envelope.

Or a completely commaless solution: "Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg
Address on the back of an envelope while traveling." I don't think there's
any way of misunderstanding that.

On 2011-12-03 07:59:58 -0800, "Neil Harrington" said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-11-21 08:50:03 -0800, "Neil Harrington" said:

John Turco wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-10-30 08:45:58 -0700, John A.
said:

Le Snip

I also noticed the larger context, bearing in mind what was being
written about, and figured out, without even thinking about it
much, or even consciously, what was meant.

Are you also confused by such sentences as "Abraham Lincoln wrote
the Gettysburg Address while traveling on the back of an
envelope"?

Aaaagh!

...and that is a trule demonstration of fractured syntax,
illuminating the ignorance of the writer, rather than the
interpretive skills of the reader.

A comma would fix it, though. I'm not saying that would make it the
best possible way to express the idea, but . . .


Two commas are necessary:

"Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address, while traveling, on
the back of an envelope."

"Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address while traveling, on
the back of an envelope" does just as well.

I had considered the two-comma fix as well, and there's nothing
wrong with doing it that way, but really one comma is sufficient.

Electrons should be conserved wherever possible. Some day you may
need a few extra electrons, and be all out of them just because of
having used a comma that wasn't absolutely necessary.

Well, that still doesn't truly fix the ambiguity.

I think it does. The only ambiguity in the original sentence is the
possibility of reading it as meaning that Lincoln was traveling on the back
of an envelope while writing the address, and the single comma provides
enough separation to prevent reading it that way.

I'm not saying it's the ideal way of presenting that idea, it's awkward in
fact, but it removes the ambiguity.

Well, I guess we have to agree to disagree on that point.
....or in this case comma.


To do that the
sentence could be rearranged one of two ways;
(A two comma solution)
Abraham Lincoln, while traveling, wrote the Gettysburg Address on the
back of an envelope.
or
(a one comma solution)
While traveling, Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address on the
back of an envelope.

Or a completely commaless solution: "Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg
Address on the back of an envelope while traveling." I don't think there's
any way of misunderstanding that.

....and once again, that is not an ambiguity clarifying solution. It
still leaves one wondering just how Abe saddled that envelope, or what
breed of horse this envelope might be. Re read my two offerings for two
unambiguous solutions using the same 14 words.

Whisky-dave wrote:
On Dec 3, 3:59 pm, "Neil Harrington" wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-11-21 08:50:03 -0800, "Neil Harrington"
said:

John Turco wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-10-30 08:45:58 -0700, John A.
said:

Le Snip

I also noticed the larger context, bearing in mind what was
being written about, and figured out, without even thinking
about it much, or even consciously, what was meant.

Are you also confused by such sentences as "Abraham Lincoln
wrote the Gettysburg Address while traveling on the back of an
envelope"?

Aaaagh!

...and that is a trule demonstration of fractured syntax,
illuminating the ignorance of the writer, rather than the
interpretive skills of the reader.

A comma would fix it, though. I'm not saying that would make it
the best possible way to express the idea, but . . .

Two commas are necessary:

"Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address, while traveling, on
the back of an envelope."

"Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address while traveling, on
the back of an envelope" does just as well.

I had considered the two-comma fix as well, and there's nothing
wrong with doing it that way, but really one comma is sufficient.

Electrons should be conserved wherever possible. Some day you may
need a few extra electrons, and be all out of them just because of
having used a comma that wasn't absolutely necessary.

Well, that still doesn't truly fix the ambiguity.

I think it does. The only ambiguity in the original sentence is the
possibility of reading it as meaning that Lincoln was traveling on
the back of an envelope while writing the address, and the single
comma provides enough separation to prevent reading it that way.

I'm not saying it's the ideal way of presenting that idea, it's
awkward in fact, but it removes the ambiguity.

To do that the
sentence could be rearranged one of two ways;
(A two comma solution)
Abraham Lincoln, while traveling, wrote the Gettysburg Address on
the back of an envelope.
or
(a one comma solution)
While traveling, Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address on the
back of an envelope.

Or a completely commaless solution: "Abraham Lincoln wrote the
Gettysburg Address on the back of an envelope while traveling." I
don't think there's any way of misunderstanding that.

Why did he write it on the back of the envelope, here in the UK
we always put the address on the front so the postman knows where to
believe it.

Here in the U.S. too. Presumably someone had already written an address on
the front of the envelope, leaving only the back free for Lincoln's
sentiments. If he had written it on the front, it might have started, "Four
score and seven years ago Mr. Alexander Snidely our fathers brought forth on
148 Main Street (etc., etc.)" and people would have had trouble making sense
out of it.

we also have postcodes, I believe those in the US use the term ZIP
codes

Correct. Irrelevant, but correct.

Sometimes for custom purposes we put the senders address on the back
of the envelope.

Fortunately no one had done that in this case, or he might not have had room
enough for the whole speech. It was pretty short as it was, though it still
annoyed some newspaper editors since it was misleading.

Whisky-dave wrote:
On Dec 11, 6:35 pm, "Neil Harrington" wrote:
Whisky-dave wrote:
On Dec 3, 3:59 pm, "Neil Harrington" wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-11-21 08:50:03 -0800, "Neil Harrington"
said:

John Turco wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-10-30 08:45:58 -0700, John A.
said:

Le Snip

I also noticed the larger context, bearing in mind what was
being written about, and figured out, without even thinking
about it much, or even consciously, what was meant.

Are you also confused by such sentences as "Abraham Lincoln
wrote the Gettysburg Address while traveling on the back of
an envelope"?

Aaaagh!

...and that is a trule demonstration of fractured syntax,
illuminating the ignorance of the writer, rather than the
interpretive skills of the reader.

A comma would fix it, though. I'm not saying that would make it
the best possible way to express the idea, but . . .

Two commas are necessary:

"Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address, while traveling,
on the back of an envelope."

"Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address while traveling, on
the back of an envelope" does just as well.

I had considered the two-comma fix as well, and there's nothing
wrong with doing it that way, but really one comma is sufficient.

Electrons should be conserved wherever possible. Some day you may
need a few extra electrons, and be all out of them just because
of having used a comma that wasn't absolutely necessary.

Well, that still doesn't truly fix the ambiguity.

I think it does. The only ambiguity in the original sentence is the
possibility of reading it as meaning that Lincoln was traveling on
the back of an envelope while writing the address, and the single
comma provides enough separation to prevent reading it that way.

I'm not saying it's the ideal way of presenting that idea, it's
awkward in fact, but it removes the ambiguity.

To do that the
sentence could be rearranged one of two ways;
(A two comma solution)
Abraham Lincoln, while traveling, wrote the Gettysburg Address on
the back of an envelope.
or
(a one comma solution)
While traveling, Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address on
the back of an envelope.

Or a completely commaless solution: "Abraham Lincoln wrote the
Gettysburg Address on the back of an envelope while traveling." I
don't think there's any way of misunderstanding that.

Why did he write it on the back of the envelope, here in the UK
we always put the address on the front so the postman knows where to
believe it.

Here in the U.S. too. Presumably someone had already written an
address on the front of the envelope, leaving only the back free for
Lincoln's sentiments.

My point was that if he wrote theGettysburg Address on teh back of teh
envelope
that's where the sender writes it.
And example would be 90210 gettersburg street
and on the front you'd write the address where you wanted the envelope
to go .

He didn't want the envelope to go anywhere. He needed it to read his speech
from.


it If he had written it on the front, it might have started, "Four
score and seven years ago Mr. Alexander Snidely our fathers brought
forth on 148 Main Street (etc., etc.)" and people would have had
trouble making sense out of it.

we also have postcodes, I believe those in the US use the term ZIP
codes

Correct. Irrelevant, but correct.

Just checking that it was part of the address although the term
address
can have two meanings here it seems.

Yes. Many words have more than one meaning, and "address" is such a word.


My point was that the line
"While traveling, Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address on the
back of an envelope."

Can have other meanings.



Sometimes for custom purposes we put the senders address on the back
of the envelope.

Fortunately no one had done that in this case, or he might not have
had room enough for the whole speech.

See he's writing a speech now rather than an address.

A speech is an address.


It was pretty short as it was, though it still
annoyed some newspaper editors since it was misleading.

Whisky-dave wrote:
On Dec 13, 2:31 pm, "Neil Harrington" wrote:
Whisky-dave wrote:
On Dec 11, 6:35 pm, "Neil Harrington" wrote:
Whisky-dave wrote:
On Dec 3, 3:59 pm, "Neil Harrington" wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-11-21 08:50:03 -0800, "Neil Harrington"
said:

John Turco wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-10-30 08:45:58 -0700, John A.
said:

Le Snip

I also noticed the larger context, bearing in mind what was
being written about, and figured out, without even thinking
about it much, or even consciously, what was meant.

Are you also confused by such sentences as "Abraham Lincoln
wrote the Gettysburg Address while traveling on the back of
an envelope"?

Aaaagh!

...and that is a trule demonstration of fractured syntax,
illuminating the ignorance of the writer, rather than the
interpretive skills of the reader.

A comma would fix it, though. I'm not saying that would make
it the best possible way to express the idea, but . . .

Two commas are necessary:

"Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address, while
traveling, on the back of an envelope."

"Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address while traveling,
on the back of an envelope" does just as well.

I had considered the two-comma fix as well, and there's nothing
wrong with doing it that way, but really one comma is
sufficient.

Electrons should be conserved wherever possible. Some day you
may need a few extra electrons, and be all out of them just
because of having used a comma that wasn't absolutely
necessary.

Well, that still doesn't truly fix the ambiguity.

I think it does. The only ambiguity in the original sentence is
the possibility of reading it as meaning that Lincoln was
traveling on the back of an envelope while writing the address,
and the single comma provides enough separation to prevent
reading it that way.

I'm not saying it's the ideal way of presenting that idea, it's
awkward in fact, but it removes the ambiguity.

To do that the
sentence could be rearranged one of two ways;
(A two comma solution)
Abraham Lincoln, while traveling, wrote the Gettysburg Address
on the back of an envelope.
or
(a one comma solution)
While traveling, Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address on
the back of an envelope.

Or a completely commaless solution: "Abraham Lincoln wrote the
Gettysburg Address on the back of an envelope while traveling." I
don't think there's any way of misunderstanding that.

Why did he write it on the back of the envelope, here in the UK
we always put the address on the front so the postman knows where
to believe it.

Here in the U.S. too. Presumably someone had already written an
address on the front of the envelope, leaving only the back free
for Lincoln's sentiments.

My point was that if he wrote theGettysburg Address on teh back of
teh envelope
that's where the sender writes it.
And example would be 90210 gettersburg street
and on the front you'd write the address where you wanted the
envelope to go .

He didn't want the envelope to go anywhere. He needed it to read his
speech from.

Oh most people wrote speeches on paper.

Yes. In this country, that is the material from which envelopes are usually
made.





it If he had written it on the front, it might have started, "Four
score and seven years ago Mr. Alexander Snidely our fathers brought
forth on 148 Main Street (etc., etc.)" and people would have had
trouble making sense out of it.

we also have postcodes, I believe those in the US use the term ZIP
codes

Correct. Irrelevant, but correct.

Just checking that it was part of the address although the term
address
can have two meanings here it seems.

Yes. Many words have more than one meaning, and "address" is such a
word.

Which can also explain the confusion of such sentances.
I write my address's on the back of envolopes too.












My point was that the line
"While traveling, Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address on
the back of an envelope."

Can have other meanings.

Sometimes for custom purposes we put the senders address on the
back of the envelope.

Fortunately no one had done that in this case, or he might not have
had room enough for the whole speech.

See he's writing a speech now rather than an address.

A speech is an address.

In todays world.....
Memory locations can have addresses too.
could be an email address....

Yes. It's a wonderful world. Lots of different things in it.


I guess it depends on your enviroment as to what such things can mean
to that individual, but expecting everyone to see teh word as having
theri meaning
is pushing your luck, better to make sure of things especaily in
politics.

Most people here understand what is meant by "Lincoln's Gettysburg Address."

(Or at least they did before our schools became as dumb as they have. Now
one cannot be sure what most people understand.)