 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007Defiance of what?
From the BBC "Have your say" website, http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=5353&&&edition=1&ttl=200701 24170744 "Catholic leaders in the UK say their adoption agencies will not place children with homosexual couples in defiance of new anti-discrimination laws." I know what he means. But to the pedant and logician, does this sentence say what the author intends to say, or does it say the exact opposite? Or something at right angles to what he intended? I can't quite work out what my logical reaction ought to be. I do know, however, what my personal reaction is to the prospect of placing adopted children with homosexual couples as prospective guardians. Richard Chambers Leeds UK. > From the BBC "Have your say" website, > http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=5353&&&edition=1&ttl=200701 24170744 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > opposite? Or something at right angles to what he intended? I can't > quite work out what my logical reaction ought to be. I think that a revision of word order might straighten out the ambiguity. That's my considered reaction. > I do know, however, what my personal reaction is to the prospect of > placing adopted children with homosexual couples as prospective > guardians. I suppose we all have our personal reactions to the prospect. > "Catholic leaders in the UK say their adoption agencies will not > place children with homosexual couples in defiance of new [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > exact opposite? Or something at right angles to what he intended? I > can't quite work out what my logical reaction ought to be. I'd say that it quite clearly implies that Catholic adoption agencies in the UK had been considering placing children with homosexual couples in defiance of new anti-discrimination laws, but that they had decided not to do so. > I do know, however, what my personal reaction is to the prospect of > placing adopted children with homosexual couples as prospective > guardians. I would think that children are too young to be guardians of anybody.  SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Giving money and power to government 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |is like giving whiskey and car keys Palo Alto, CA 94304 |to teenage boys. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Dick Chambers: > > "Catholic leaders in the UK say their adoption agencies will not > > place children with homosexual couples in defiance of new [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > exact opposite? Or something at right angles to what he intended? I > > can't quite work out what my logical reaction ought to be. Evan Kirshenbaum: > I'd say that it quite clearly implies that Catholic adoption agencies > in the UK had been considering placing children with homosexual > couples in defiance of new anti-discrimination laws, but that they had > decided not to do so. Agreed. Presumably a comma after "couples" was intended; this would more or less reverse the meaning, saying that the law requires them *to* place children with homosexual couples and that the agencies, according to the Catholic leaders, will *not* do so. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | It depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is. msb@vex.net | -- Bill Clinton > > "Catholic leaders in the UK say their adoption agencies will not > > place children with homosexual couples in defiance of new [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > couples in defiance of new anti-discrimination laws, but that they had > decided not to do so. Don't be silly. It clearly states that the Catholic adoption agencies will only place children with homosexual couples that *aren't* in defiance of the new anti-discrimination laws. Presumably couples that are in violation must get their children through another agency. > > I do know, however, what my personal reaction is to the prospect of > > placing adopted children with homosexual couples as prospective > > guardians. > > I would think that children are too young to be guardians of anybody. Best not ask for the price of that doggie in the window, then. -=Eric >> "Catholic leaders in the UK say their adoption agencies will not >> place children with homosexual couples in defiance of new [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >couples in defiance of new anti-discrimination laws, but that they had >decided not to do so. It could mean the Catholic adoption agency would be breaking the anti-discrimination laws, if they decided against having homosexuals as prospective adopters. >> I do know, however, what my personal reaction is to the prospect of >> placing adopted children with homosexual couples as prospective >> guardians. > >I would think that children are too young to be guardians of anybody. >>> "Catholic leaders in the UK say their adoption agencies will not >>> place children with homosexual couples in defiance of new [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the anti-discrimination laws, if they decided against having > homosexuals as prospective adopters. For me, that would (I think) require a comma after "couples". Perhaps you could send them the extraneous one you have after "laws". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |When you rewrite a compiler from 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |scratch, you sometimes fix things Palo Alto, CA 94304 |you didn't know were broken. | Larry Wall kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ On Jan 24, 10:39 pm, "Dick Chambers" <richard.chambers...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > From the BBC "Have your say" website,http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=5353&&&edition=1... > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Richard Chambers Leeds UK. Agreed. I think that for clarity's sake, the above ought to be recast as follows: "Catholic leaders in the UK say that in defiance of new anti- discrimination laws, their adoption agencies will not place children with homosexual couples. Another expedient would be: "Catholic leaders in the UK say their adoption agencies will not place children with homosexual couples; this, in defiance of new anti- discrimination laws." > On Jan 24, 10:39 pm, "Dick Chambers" > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Hi. I just realised that the first one ("Catholic leaders in the UK say that in defiance of new anti- > discrimination laws, their adoption agencies will not place > children with homosexual couples.") says something slightly different from the original. It suggests that the Catholic leaders mentioned the anti-discrimination laws which the original doesn't imply. So the second one ("Catholic leaders in the UK say their adoption agencies will not place children with homosexual couples; this, in defiance of new anti- discrimination laws) seems to be the better choice. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.