PSAT Glitch

[Dennis R. Preston]

>Jumping from branch to branch, the hunters shot at the squirrel.

dInIs


>a bit more on IISIIAU.  (this is off the main topic here, but you
>might find it grimly entertaining.)  my thanks to geoff pullum
>for all the observations that follow.
>
>modern speakers and writers of english show a very strong tendency
>to locate the focus adverbs "only" and "even" early in the clause,
>between subject and predicate (or after the first auxiliary verb):
>   I only saw one dog.           (1)
>         I will only see one dog.
>   I even saw a hippopotamus.
>         I will even see a hippopotamus.
>usage manuals pretty uniformly inveigh against this, insisting that
>the focus adverbs should be located immediately before the constituents
>they focus on:
>   I saw only one dog.           (2)
>         I will see only one dog.
>   I saw even a hippopotamus.
>         I will see even a hippopotamus.
>
>the usual rationale is that examples like (1) are potentially
>ambiguous, between focus on the whole predicate ('the only thing i did
>was see one dog') and some narrower focus ('the only thing i saw was
>one dog' or 'the only number of dogs i saw was one'; note that even
>(2) allows for both of these readings, [only [one dog]] vs.  [[only
>one] dog]).  accordingly, IISIIAU brands examples like (1) as
>unacceptable, since their counterparts in (2) lack the potential
>ambiguity of scope.
>
>now, the cute part.  copy editors are trained to notice these "errors"
>and "fix" them.  they do this rapidly and skillfully.  *and they never
>seem to need to consult the authors about their intentions.* that is,
>the copy editors correctly divine the writers' intentions, virtually
>one hundred percent of the time; they are, after all, intelligent
>people and practiced at comprehending language.  but still they alter
>the text to fit the abstract rule.  the rule lives on, quite
>independently of its purported rationale.  IISIIAU rules, so to speak.
>
>arnold (zwicky at csli.stanford.edu)