The caption to the picture reads: "A market in Greece, which analysts say might give in to investors to avoid legal troubles." Huh? A Greek clergyman buying what might be a sack of cherries in a fruit market that is labeled a hold-out, might come to its senses and give in to avoid legal troubles? Their economy has been held hostage by open air fruit markets? This is bad.
It took me several reads to come to understand what I'm sure the caption meant to say, but what came out rather ambiguously, given my tendency (and maybe that of others) to match the word "market" with the picture.
The clause beginning with "which" refers to the country Greece, possibly giving into investors over bond debt in order to avoid legal troubles. The "market" is just where the old guy is getting some fruit. And paying cash and not charging it.
This is the second such grammatically conundrum I've encountered in as many weeks. Maybe it's me? Daniel Okrent, in his essay appearing in the just released book "Damn Yankees," recounts the story of a 1973 survey filled out by Mickey Mantle that was meant to solicit a recall of "their outstanding event" at Yankee Stadium. This was to gather material to help celebrate the 50th anniversary of the stadium.
Mr Okrent admits to owning a photocopy of a form filled out by Mantle on which he wrote: "I got a blow job under the right field bleachers by the Yankee bull pen."
I may not be the only one who has trouble digesting that statement because of grammar.
I'm sure this kind of syntax is called something. "Ambiguous referential antecedent clauses" maybe? I don't know. I invite any alert readers who might he out there to set the world straight and tells us what this is, and how do we keep it from infecting our prose.
Otherwise, reputations are surely at stake.
http://www.onofframp.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment