brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy) (05/08/85)
[Time flies like an arrow] About me parsing this sentence: >>> I think the point of whether it is good or not good to carry personal >>> defense weapons (unconcealed) is moot when compared with the fact that if I >>> WANT to and am not violating someone else's personal rights, I should be >>> able to. [Jay Mitchell] as either: >> ...I should be able to [carry personal defense weapons]. >> ...I should be able to [violate someone else's personal rights]. Gary Samuelson says: >How can "I should be able to" refer to anything other than >"to carry personal defense weapons" (the only infinitive present)? A comma after "WANT to, and am..." would separate the clause as a parenthetical remark, instead of a main subject of the sentence. As it stands, leading in with "If I WANT to and am not [now] doing xxx", can be parsed as wanting to do xxx; the ending "able to" pairs with the "WANT to". The phrase "violating someone else's personal rights" is bracketed by "WANT to" and "able to"; "carry personal defense weapons" is at the other end of the sentence (which is really two sentences joined by "...when compared with the fact that..."). >There is also a syntactic problem -- >..."If I am not doing X, I should be able to do X" is nonsense, even >if that were a grammitically possible interpretation. Not if it's something like entering a contest that you can only enter once. The point is, I actually *did* start to parse the sentence the "wrong way" at first. If it makes no sense, well, it WAS in net.flame... Aren't parsing flames even MORE FUN than spelling flames? Lots wordier! Merlyn Leroy If I WANT to and am not goofing off posting news, I should be able to.