I love stuff like this:
Hero Veteran Takes Out Man Threatening Shoppers, Staff With Knife in South Carolina Walmart
Who's using the knife? Was the criminal brandishing a knife, or did the hero veteran take the criminal out with a knife? I think the latter scenario would be awesome.
This is what we call a misplaced modifier. It creates ambiguity. The classic example is:
The woman chased the dogs in the police car.
Here's another possible ambiguity:
Hero Veteran Takes Out Man Threatening Shoppers, Staff
It sure seems as if the hero vet didn't stop with stabbing the criminal: he started stabbing the Walmart staff as well. "Hero veteran" or "Maniac with knife"? Or what if the staff was armed with a single knife, so the veteran felt obliged to take them down, too, after he took out the main criminal?
So far, these are the possible scenarios:
1. hero veteran takes out [man using a knife to threaten shoppers and staffers]
2. hero veteran takes out [man threatening shoppers and staffers] by using a knife
3. hero veteran takes out [man threatening shoppers] + [staffers armed with a knife]
But what if we lean on the ambiguity of "takes out"?
4. hero veteran takes [man threatening shoppers] + [staffers armed with a knife] out to dinner
I no longer know what to believe, which means it may be time to read the article.
Less ambiguous titles for the same story are out there:
South Carolina veteran takes down knife-wielding man threatening staff, shoppers in Walmart (FOX News)
Veteran Takes Out Knife-Wielding Man At Walmart [Daily Caller]
Etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment