For those that watch CNN...

Grammatically it's ambiguous, I've said this a few times. It's not incorrect though....You can't rip on his grammar, because common sense makes it clear. Grammar is about rules. Rules are about making things clear. It is clear through logic. Therefore, even though the grammar rule is ambiguous, it isn't wrong because it is able to be figured out.

The whole point of communication is to make one persons thoughts be understood by another person. We do that through coherent speech. That means rules, such as grammar. The rules themselves are arbitrary and are just made with a language. If one can understand another person just with our without the "right" rules, than the purpose of language is complete, and therefore you don't need to complain about ones grammar.

I'd like to hear Aqua's opinion on this personally.

Then why isn't "ain't" a word? It's clearly understandable, but it's still termed as incorrect.

Please explain that one for me.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ain't

Kthxbai

Here's a quick summary:

Quote :

Although widely disapproved as nonstandard and more common in the habitual speech of the less educated, ain't in senses 1 and 2 is flourishing in American English

Point proven?

Sad. Human culture has made an incorrect compound word a working one.

I abdicate, but I think you're an idiot for defending him. No matter what you say, you will be wrong in my eyes. I can't reason against the unreasoning.

(edit) No. I refuse to abdicate. Forget what I said.

Language is for for communicating in any way that is understandable, yes, I agree. However, to make it understandable by all, you have to have rules. Thus, grammar comes into play. It doesn't matter if one person understands the sentence, (you). The rules are there for a reason; so ALL can understand it. You may call it "ambiguous", but I call it stupid.

(edit) Infact, I'm going to repeat what RapidFireOmega said on all my forums, and ask for their opinions on who "he" is referencing to. See how many people get it "right".

(edit) And you're quite silly. You said it was ambiguous because there was a link to go along with it in his post. I see no link.

(edit)

Person 1 wrote:

Well yeah, if there's nothing before or after, there's absolutely no chance of it being about someone else.

Person 2 wrote:

It talks about the reporter before the use of the pronouns. So, to me, it seems to be reporter.

Person 1 wrote:

Maybe the reporter is being a dick about some other guy who had his 2 year old with him? It's certainly possible, but it's more likely that he's just talking about the reporter.

Person 3 wrote:

The report. Why would you change topics that quickly? "Susan is so trashy. My hamster looks hungry!" No one changes the focus of their post that immediately.

Person 4 wrote:

We can assume he and him refers to the reporter because that's the only thing given in the context.

Person 5 wrote:

it really depends on what would come before that statement... so i'm not sure. At first glance, though, it sounds like that statement was directed towards the reporter.

The last ten minutes.

*sigh* Bart. You just can't stand being wrong can you? I won't push my point. Clearly your pride is clouding your judgment.

1.You get Biased quotes, as everyone HERE knows there is a LINK in the first post, which is what we are DISCUSSING.

2. Language is about communication. Rules (Grammar) is there so it is clear. It is, and was clear. You just misunderstood. People make mistakes, get over it. The grammar (rule) was not WRONG. It was ambiguous, but becomes clear if you're paying even the slightest amount of attention to the WHOLE conversation. Not just taking that quote OUT OF CONTEXT, which is what you just did for your forums.

I think you took too much of a blow from me saying "You're an idiot". Hubris is a major downfall of humanity....

I'm pretty much done. I won't argue with someone who is arguing for their pride, as if I win, they hurt their pride, which is just worse. If they can't admit being wrong once, they probably won't do it later, and if they DO, then their pride is hurt even more. Lose/Lose situation.

Look here now...if his sentence was this:

RapidFireOmega wrote:

That reporter's a dick. That guy had his 2 year old with him! Like WTF!

That would've been fine. But my problem is that there's no pronoun. That's my entire problem.

However...Dekar says I'm wrong. He says it CAN be either way...in the famous words of the AVGN:

James wrote:

THAT FUCKING SUCKS!

...-.-

So, I guess I have to concede that I'm wrong, or face teh bahn hammas. Well, that just...sucks...

I guess I apologize, and will be majoring in English so that I can prove you wrong, (or subtly disappear in dejection, )

I do not like being wrong, but I dislike being too prideful to see that I am wrong even more.

But seriously...SERIOUSLY...normal people who want their posts to be crystal clear do not write like that. They include a pronoun for clarification for people like me that know what they're talking about, but want to be a faggot and act superior to them. That's really condescending.

Which is why it's not perfect, but ambiguous. I'm very glad that you can admit you were wrong, makes me slightly happy inside .

Last whole page of posts wrote:

A ton of shit about my grammer usage.

WOW.

WOW.

WOW.

You guys are REALY fucking bored.

Are you...seriously taking apart my sentance and analyzing it for gramatical errors?

If I were anywhere else I would bring the lockhammer but this forum is one big garbage can so I'll satisfy myself with calling both of you pathetic noobs with no lives and take my leave.

Bartimaeus wrote:

They include a pronoun for clarification for people like me that know what they're talking about, but want to be a faggot and act superior to them. That's really condescending.

I apologize to you, as well. Like I said, pompous jerks like me with nothing to do besides try, (and apparently fail), and correct peoples' English.

You realize that Jay.J was defending you, correct, and was supporting your usage of grammar, right?

(edit) And you know that Jay.J is an English Major, (I believe he said that, anyways), so, in my opinion, he should be ABLE to.

Anyways, 'nuff of the fake ragequiting.

Nah, I'm doing a double major in Mental Health studies (Psychology) and Neuroscience. However, Rapid, what's wrong with discussing ANYTHING....regardless of how trivial it is? It's not about boredom, it's about enjoyment of ... moderately intelligent discussion. Why lock it...especially since these forums are near dead anyway.

Oh:

Jay.J wrote:

To an English Major, or an OCD like myself

That's where I got it.

Jay wrote:

moderately intelligent discussion.

Don't think I don't know what that means!

Ahh, Ya - Aqua is the English Major.

Jay.J wrote:

Ahh, Ya - Aqua is the English Major.

...so why isn't HE commenting..? Could've resolved this a hundred times faster.

(edit) Woops, the sentence above makes it look like I prefer him over you, but I didn't mean that. I just meant why wasn't he commenting after the argument was established, (and pwn me, no doubt).

I think we need to get back on the topic of discussion how to deal with the fact that Jay is a socialist pig. (Is that the correct insult for socialists? Hmm, googling might be required.)

Socialist, sure. Pig, no. I don't understand why you would need to "deal" with it though?

Dragonheart91 wrote:

I think we need to get back on the topic of discussion how to deal with the fact that Jay is a socialist pig. (Is that the correct insult for socialists? Hmm, googling might be required.)

That's Communist, if I recall correctly.

Anyways...who cares? Balnazzar was a communist, which is a thousand times worse!

(edit) Socialism isn't actually all that bad...but I still prefer Capitalism, to an extent. What I like even better is Germany's mix of both Capitalism AND Socialism.

Ha, Socialism is like a perversion of Capitalism and is far worse than Communism which has a clearly defined identity and a totally different scope with goals I can respect. Socialism is just plain disgusting.

Dragonheart91 wrote:

Ha, Socialism is like a perversion of Capitalism and is far worse than Communism which has a clearly defined identity and a totally different scope with goals I can respect. Socialism is just plain disgusting.

You would think so, Dragontroll.

Okay, I found this one reply hilarious.

Bartimaeus wrote:

Ice Lightning wrote:

Technically, the sentence doesn't make sense since it's two clauses separated by a full stop and the subordinate clause is on its own which is grammatically incorrect. The 'He' obviously refers to the man though and should be taken this way but if you wanted to be pedantic then it could refer to another ambiguous person but would be trying to link two unrelated sentences together which there's no reason to do really.

But that full stop shouldn't be there and it should instead be a semicolon, making the sentence grammatically correct and removing the ambiguity.
"That reporter's a dick; he had his two year old with him."
Because the subordinate clause is what's explaining the main clause, and in this instance a semicolon should be used because there's no conjunction word. A full stop would separate the two and subordinate clauses make no sense on their own so there it would technically be referring to ambiguous man, but due to the way we talk in general no one would take it this way and saying it out loud there's no difference.

tl;dr you're both wrong.

inb4 Walrus corrects me

...

Okay, dude, it's just grammar...

I think that guy is an English major, too.

I lol'd.

Oh sheesh, the guy was right at the end..."inb4Walrus corrects me"

Walrus wrote:

You're explaining why it would make sense to have a semicolon, not why it has to be. So yeah, any normal person with grammar sense would have used a semicolon. But, both sentences do express a complete thought, so they work as long as you can assume a certain amount of assumption from the reader. If you couldn't figure those two sentences out, you would be confused as hell if you read any novel. And rightly so, because reading the main character's name a few thousand times would get annoying after a while.

"That reporter's a dick. He had his two year old with him."
Things that would fix the sentences (make less confusing):

• Replacing the period with a colon. Since the reporter's having an infant accompany him is the reason he's a dick, this works.
  
• Removing the period and putting "because" in its stead
  
• Putting an em dash in place of the period

And yes, I'm aware that most of those are sentence fragments. But it's my prerogative to do so.

Also consider that phrasing it differently might help: "That reporter has his two-year-old with him: he's a dick."


And finally, context:

a CEO is giving a big press conference for a diaper company, and in order to lighten the mood, brings his two-year-old son to the lectern. A reporter asks a lewd question, which makes the executive stammer in front of his son, who laughs. The press mocks him.

A few spectators are walking back home and one turns to the other and says: "That reporter's a dick. He had his two-year-old with him."

Does it make sense now? Yeah. But given that we are reading it without context, the "he" is the reporter.

Wow people in your forums are intense...

You brought my sentance to another forums...

Copyright infringement... wtf dude not cool...