Who became a professor?What's the difference between “teacher” and “professor”?Is it customary to call the former President George W. Bush “W.”, and Mrs. Bush “Bar”, in public?What does it mean to be the Louis Kirstein Professor?“Abner's hand became a vise and his voice rang as over metal”What does R. A. Lafferty mean by the word “recension”?How to interpret “Jim Scarborough'd never carried one; that's the younger Jim.” in No Country for Old Menteacher in English: teacher, instructor, professor, mentor, guruIf craven means “contemptibly lacking in courage,” what do “craven desires” and “craven idols” mean?A word for a professor teaching in multiple universities
Simulating these special dice on more regular dice
Python Code for List of Month Names starting with current month
What is the common term to express the barrier of a balcony?
Generating all 2x2 matrices with entries from 0 to 3 whose det is 1 with mod 2 arithmetic
How can conflict be conducted between nations when warfare is never an option?
How important is quick release for a tripod?
Is using Swiss Francs (CHF) cheaper than Euros (EUR) in Switzerland?
Why doesn't the road lose its thickness to the tyre?
How to explain the absence of transmitted diseases between two unconnected cultures
C - random password generator
By what means does the King wage war?
SOLIDWORKS - 3D Sketch of Trombone
When its not okay to cheap out on bike parts
Why did George Lucas set Star Wars in the past instead of the future?
Who is the narrator of Star Wars?
Advent of Code 2019: Day 4
Why don't all States switch to all postal voting?
What does 我们已经帮您踩过了 mean in this peculiarly translated escalator sticker?
New manager unapproved PTO my old manager approved, because of a conference at the same time that's now a "condition of my employment here"
Why should you have travel insurance?
Isn't Social Security set up as a Pension Fund as opposed to a Direct Transfers Scheme?
Keeping a healthy immune system on a generation-ship
How am I ever going to be able to "vet" 120,000+ lines of Composer PHP code not written by me?
Largest smallest gap
Who became a professor?
What's the difference between “teacher” and “professor”?Is it customary to call the former President George W. Bush “W.”, and Mrs. Bush “Bar”, in public?What does it mean to be the Louis Kirstein Professor?“Abner's hand became a vise and his voice rang as over metal”What does R. A. Lafferty mean by the word “recension”?How to interpret “Jim Scarborough'd never carried one; that's the younger Jim.” in No Country for Old Menteacher in English: teacher, instructor, professor, mentor, guruIf craven means “contemptibly lacking in courage,” what do “craven desires” and “craven idols” mean?A word for a professor teaching in multiple universities
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
In sentence
They were rescued by Joseph-Louis Liouville, the son of a captain in Napoleon's army who became a professor in the Collège de France.
who became a professor: Joseph or his father?
Photo of the source:
Why beauty is truth: a history of symmetry / Ian Stewart. ISBN-13: 978-0-465-08236-0
meaning
asked Sep 29 at 10:53
SlavSlav
2191 silver badge6 bronze badges
|
show 12 more comments
In sentence
They were rescued by Joseph-Louis Liouville, the son of a captain in Napoleon's army who became a professor in the Collège de France.
who became a professor: Joseph or his father?
Photo of the source:
Why beauty is truth: a history of symmetry / Ian Stewart. ISBN-13: 978-0-465-08236-0
meaning
asked Sep 29 at 10:53
SlavSlav
2191 silver badge6 bronze badges
2
Joseph-Louis Liouville. Your sentence is missing a comma before "who". But I might be wrong. Please include the source of this sentence.
– Justin
Sep 29 at 10:54
7
This article by J J O'Connor and E F Robertson explains the facts. Joseph-Louis, not his father, became a professor. The sentence as given needs a comma after army to have this reading; as it stands, it indicates that it was the father who became a professor:
– Edwin Ashworth
Sep 29 at 11:07
2
<< Joseph-Louis Liouville, the son of [a captain in Napoleon's army who became a professor] >> vs the sentence using an incidental parenthetical << Joseph-Louis Liouville, the son of a captain in Napoleon's army, who became a professor = Joseph-Louis Liouville (the son of a captain in Napoleon's army) who became a professor // Depending on the date of the original, the rules surrounding comma usage may have been since tightened on this point.
– Edwin Ashworth
Sep 29 at 11:11
6
@Edwin As it stands, the sentence is completely ambiguous. Without knowing the historical facts, there is absolutely no way to tell who became a professor as the sentence stands. A comma would make it unambiguously the son, but no comma does not make it the father even half-unambiguously. The antecedent of who can just as well be “the son of a captain in Napoleon’s army” as “a captain in Napoleon’s army” – or indeed, going by mere nested proximity, the current sentence might be saying that Napoleon’s army became a professor!
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Sep 29 at 11:12
3
@Janus I have to agree that it's not definitive without the comma, but I'd say the default reading is the non-parenthetical one, because the comma would as you say clearly disambiguate. And Gricean requirements demand disambiguation (... and so yes, a rewrite would obviously be the best option). But this (in my second main clause) is down to pragmatics and doubtless somewhatOB. // Whichever way you look at it, nowadays this shouldn't get past an editor.
– Edwin Ashworth
Sep 29 at 11:18
|
show 12 more comments
In sentence
They were rescued by Joseph-Louis Liouville, the son of a captain in Napoleon's army who became a professor in the Collège de France.
who became a professor: Joseph or his father?
Photo of the source:
Why beauty is truth: a history of symmetry / Ian Stewart. ISBN-13: 978-0-465-08236-0
meaning
asked Sep 29 at 10:53
SlavSlav
2191 silver badge6 bronze badges
In sentence
They were rescued by Joseph-Louis Liouville, the son of a captain in Napoleon's army who became a professor in the Collège de France.
who became a professor: Joseph or his father?
Photo of the source:
Why beauty is truth: a history of symmetry / Ian Stewart. ISBN-13: 978-0-465-08236-0
meaning
meaning
asked Sep 29 at 10:53
SlavSlav
2191 silver badge6 bronze badges
asked Sep 29 at 10:53
SlavSlav
2191 silver badge6 bronze badges
edited Sep 29 at 20:54
Slav
asked Sep 29 at 10:53
SlavSlav
2191 silver badge6 bronze badges
asked Sep 29 at 10:53
SlavSlav
2191 silver badge6 bronze badges
asked Sep 29 at 10:53
SlavSlav
2191 silver badge6 bronze badges
2191 silver badge6 bronze badges
2
Joseph-Louis Liouville. Your sentence is missing a comma before "who". But I might be wrong. Please include the source of this sentence.
– Justin
Sep 29 at 10:54
7
This article by J J O'Connor and E F Robertson explains the facts. Joseph-Louis, not his father, became a professor. The sentence as given needs a comma after army to have this reading; as it stands, it indicates that it was the father who became a professor:
– Edwin Ashworth
Sep 29 at 11:07
2
<< Joseph-Louis Liouville, the son of [a captain in Napoleon's army who became a professor] >> vs the sentence using an incidental parenthetical << Joseph-Louis Liouville, the son of a captain in Napoleon's army, who became a professor = Joseph-Louis Liouville (the son of a captain in Napoleon's army) who became a professor // Depending on the date of the original, the rules surrounding comma usage may have been since tightened on this point.
– Edwin Ashworth
Sep 29 at 11:11
6
@Edwin As it stands, the sentence is completely ambiguous. Without knowing the historical facts, there is absolutely no way to tell who became a professor as the sentence stands. A comma would make it unambiguously the son, but no comma does not make it the father even half-unambiguously. The antecedent of who can just as well be “the son of a captain in Napoleon’s army” as “a captain in Napoleon’s army” – or indeed, going by mere nested proximity, the current sentence might be saying that Napoleon’s army became a professor!
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Sep 29 at 11:12
3
@Janus I have to agree that it's not definitive without the comma, but I'd say the default reading is the non-parenthetical one, because the comma would as you say clearly disambiguate. And Gricean requirements demand disambiguation (... and so yes, a rewrite would obviously be the best option). But this (in my second main clause) is down to pragmatics and doubtless somewhatOB. // Whichever way you look at it, nowadays this shouldn't get past an editor.
– Edwin Ashworth
Sep 29 at 11:18
|
show 12 more comments
2
Joseph-Louis Liouville. Your sentence is missing a comma before "who". But I might be wrong. Please include the source of this sentence.
– Justin
Sep 29 at 10:54
7
This article by J J O'Connor and E F Robertson explains the facts. Joseph-Louis, not his father, became a professor. The sentence as given needs a comma after army to have this reading; as it stands, it indicates that it was the father who became a professor:
– Edwin Ashworth
Sep 29 at 11:07
2
<< Joseph-Louis Liouville, the son of [a captain in Napoleon's army who became a professor] >> vs the sentence using an incidental parenthetical << Joseph-Louis Liouville, the son of a captain in Napoleon's army, who became a professor = Joseph-Louis Liouville (the son of a captain in Napoleon's army) who became a professor // Depending on the date of the original, the rules surrounding comma usage may have been since tightened on this point.
– Edwin Ashworth
Sep 29 at 11:11
6
@Edwin As it stands, the sentence is completely ambiguous. Without knowing the historical facts, there is absolutely no way to tell who became a professor as the sentence stands. A comma would make it unambiguously the son, but no comma does not make it the father even half-unambiguously. The antecedent of who can just as well be “the son of a captain in Napoleon’s army” as “a captain in Napoleon’s army” – or indeed, going by mere nested proximity, the current sentence might be saying that Napoleon’s army became a professor!
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Sep 29 at 11:12
3
@Janus I have to agree that it's not definitive without the comma, but I'd say the default reading is the non-parenthetical one, because the comma would as you say clearly disambiguate. And Gricean requirements demand disambiguation (... and so yes, a rewrite would obviously be the best option). But this (in my second main clause) is down to pragmatics and doubtless somewhatOB. // Whichever way you look at it, nowadays this shouldn't get past an editor.
– Edwin Ashworth
Sep 29 at 11:18
2
2
Joseph-Louis Liouville. Your sentence is missing a comma before "who". But I might be wrong. Please include the source of this sentence.
– Justin
Sep 29 at 10:54
Joseph-Louis Liouville. Your sentence is missing a comma before "who". But I might be wrong. Please include the source of this sentence.
– Justin
Sep 29 at 10:54
7
7
This article by J J O'Connor and E F Robertson explains the facts. Joseph-Louis, not his father, became a professor. The sentence as given needs a comma after army to have this reading; as it stands, it indicates that it was the father who became a professor:
– Edwin Ashworth
Sep 29 at 11:07
This article by J J O'Connor and E F Robertson explains the facts. Joseph-Louis, not his father, became a professor. The sentence as given needs a comma after army to have this reading; as it stands, it indicates that it was the father who became a professor:
– Edwin Ashworth
Sep 29 at 11:07
2
2
<< Joseph-Louis Liouville, the son of [a captain in Napoleon's army who became a professor] >> vs the sentence using an incidental parenthetical << Joseph-Louis Liouville, the son of a captain in Napoleon's army, who became a professor = Joseph-Louis Liouville (the son of a captain in Napoleon's army) who became a professor // Depending on the date of the original, the rules surrounding comma usage may have been since tightened on this point.
– Edwin Ashworth
Sep 29 at 11:11
<< Joseph-Louis Liouville, the son of [a captain in Napoleon's army who became a professor] >> vs the sentence using an incidental parenthetical << Joseph-Louis Liouville, the son of a captain in Napoleon's army, who became a professor = Joseph-Louis Liouville (the son of a captain in Napoleon's army) who became a professor // Depending on the date of the original, the rules surrounding comma usage may have been since tightened on this point.
– Edwin Ashworth
Sep 29 at 11:11
6
6
@Edwin As it stands, the sentence is completely ambiguous. Without knowing the historical facts, there is absolutely no way to tell who became a professor as the sentence stands. A comma would make it unambiguously the son, but no comma does not make it the father even half-unambiguously. The antecedent of who can just as well be “the son of a captain in Napoleon’s army” as “a captain in Napoleon’s army” – or indeed, going by mere nested proximity, the current sentence might be saying that Napoleon’s army became a professor!
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Sep 29 at 11:12
@Edwin As it stands, the sentence is completely ambiguous. Without knowing the historical facts, there is absolutely no way to tell who became a professor as the sentence stands. A comma would make it unambiguously the son, but no comma does not make it the father even half-unambiguously. The antecedent of who can just as well be “the son of a captain in Napoleon’s army” as “a captain in Napoleon’s army” – or indeed, going by mere nested proximity, the current sentence might be saying that Napoleon’s army became a professor!
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Sep 29 at 11:12
3
3
@Janus I have to agree that it's not definitive without the comma, but I'd say the default reading is the non-parenthetical one, because the comma would as you say clearly disambiguate. And Gricean requirements demand disambiguation (... and so yes, a rewrite would obviously be the best option). But this (in my second main clause) is down to pragmatics and doubtless somewhatOB. // Whichever way you look at it, nowadays this shouldn't get past an editor.
– Edwin Ashworth
Sep 29 at 11:18
@Janus I have to agree that it's not definitive without the comma, but I'd say the default reading is the non-parenthetical one, because the comma would as you say clearly disambiguate. And Gricean requirements demand disambiguation (... and so yes, a rewrite would obviously be the best option). But this (in my second main clause) is down to pragmatics and doubtless somewhatOB. // Whichever way you look at it, nowadays this shouldn't get past an editor.
– Edwin Ashworth
Sep 29 at 11:18
|
show 12 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Poor punctuation leads to poor understanding. The sentence, as written, is ambiguous.
In context, the math was rescued by the son of an army captain. It's unlikely (but not impossible) that the army captain of the Napoleonic era, would go on to become a professor of mathematics. Nor would a man's father's credentials likely be of greater significance than his own in this scenario. So, we can likely conclude this to refer to credentials of the son.
I'm reminded of the title joke of the book Eats, Shoots and Leaves, by Lynne Truss.
A panda walks into a café. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and proceeds to fire it at the other patrons.
"Why?" asks the confused, surviving waiter amidst the carnage, as the panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.
"Well, I'm a panda," he says. "Look it up."
The waiter turns to the relevant entry in the manual and, sure enough, finds an explanation. "Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."
answered Sep 29 at 13:04
David MDavid M
21.2k9 gold badges63 silver badges114 bronze badges
I deleted my (Janus') answer. But +1 for your answer. Totally loved the joke!
– Justin
Sep 29 at 13:17
3
@Justin No need to delete. Just click the Community Wiki button when taking someone else's work for an answer. That way you don't earn the rep. Still allows for the answer to be out there.
– David M
Sep 29 at 13:18
Another reason: A professor would be likely to rescue the math, a professor's son less so.
– Barmar
Sep 30 at 16:06
add a comment
|
Obviously there's a missing comma but there's almost zero ambiguity, given the specific facts presented and narrative:
- given that JLL read through Galois' memoirs AND
- grasped their importance AND
- wrote to the French Academy to alert them of their mistake in overlooking them...
JLL seems infinitely more likely to be a professor [and presumably a mathematics professor] than his father. [Unless they were both professors, père et fils, and his father was not necessarily a mathematics professor. But that seems a tortured reading, and in the unlikely event, the article would have said "the professor son of a captain who also became a professor..."]. All this (both explicit and implicit) context allows us to guess around the missing comma, in this particular case.
I mean you could argue that it's linguistically also possible that JLL only later in life, became a professor, and in archaeology not anything mathematics-related. But that sounds very unlikely. It's also possible that JLL was a dolphin. Paraphrasing: all human communication has ambiguities if you scrutinize it hard enough, but we each learn to apply the everyday skill of discarding unlikely and silly hypotheses. This one is no different.
answered Sep 29 at 20:42
smcismci
1,73710 silver badges14 bronze badges
1
The ambiguity is at a grammatical level. Otherwise, does this differ significantly from my answer above?
– David M
Sep 29 at 21:18
1
I know there is initial ambiguity at a grammatical level, exacerbated by the punctuation error; but then that ambiguity is disspelled almost completely by the context. Your answer doesn't explicitly say that; and it says "The sentence, as written, is ambiguous." which we both seem to be agree to be wrong.
– smci
Sep 29 at 21:22
I think the dolphin hypothesis is sufficiently ruled out here, as Napoleon was not known to have any dolphins as captains in his army (and if he had any as captains at all, they would have been in the navy). From biology we can understand that a non-dolphin father's son would also be non-dolphin. Other than the last paragraph, this seems like a good answer.
– WBT
Sep 30 at 14:54
Paraphrasing: all human communication has ambiguities if you scrutinize it hard enough, but we each learn to apply the everyday skill of discarding unlikely and silly hypotheses. This one is no different. My serious point about the article is it doesn't explicitly say JLL was the professor, but neither does it explicitly say that JLL wasn't the offspring of a dolphin, via some time-traveler from a future where dolphin reproduction with human traits is very much possible (and if you really want to nitpick, noone proved that JLL was his father's biological son, either).
– smci
Sep 30 at 23:51
add a comment
|
As requested by OP in comments to post this comment as an answer -
As it stands, the sentence is completely ambiguous. Without knowing
the historical facts, there is absolutely no way to tell who became a
professor as the sentence stands. A comma would make it unambiguously
the son, but no comma does not make it the father even
half-unambiguously. The antecedent of who can just as well be “the son
of a captain in Napoleon’s army” as “a captain in Napoleon’s army” –
or indeed, going by mere nested proximity, the current sentence might
be saying that Napoleon’s army became a professor!
Credit - Janus Bahs Jacquet
2
Well done. That's the appropriate thing to do.
– David M
Sep 29 at 13:21
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f514063%2fwho-became-a-professor%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Poor punctuation leads to poor understanding. The sentence, as written, is ambiguous.
In context, the math was rescued by the son of an army captain. It's unlikely (but not impossible) that the army captain of the Napoleonic era, would go on to become a professor of mathematics. Nor would a man's father's credentials likely be of greater significance than his own in this scenario. So, we can likely conclude this to refer to credentials of the son.
I'm reminded of the title joke of the book Eats, Shoots and Leaves, by Lynne Truss.
A panda walks into a café. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and proceeds to fire it at the other patrons.
"Why?" asks the confused, surviving waiter amidst the carnage, as the panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.
"Well, I'm a panda," he says. "Look it up."
The waiter turns to the relevant entry in the manual and, sure enough, finds an explanation. "Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."
answered Sep 29 at 13:04
David MDavid M
21.2k9 gold badges63 silver badges114 bronze badges
I deleted my (Janus') answer. But +1 for your answer. Totally loved the joke!
– Justin
Sep 29 at 13:17
3
@Justin No need to delete. Just click the Community Wiki button when taking someone else's work for an answer. That way you don't earn the rep. Still allows for the answer to be out there.
– David M
Sep 29 at 13:18
Another reason: A professor would be likely to rescue the math, a professor's son less so.
– Barmar
Sep 30 at 16:06
add a comment
|
Poor punctuation leads to poor understanding. The sentence, as written, is ambiguous.
In context, the math was rescued by the son of an army captain. It's unlikely (but not impossible) that the army captain of the Napoleonic era, would go on to become a professor of mathematics. Nor would a man's father's credentials likely be of greater significance than his own in this scenario. So, we can likely conclude this to refer to credentials of the son.
I'm reminded of the title joke of the book Eats, Shoots and Leaves, by Lynne Truss.
A panda walks into a café. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and proceeds to fire it at the other patrons.
"Why?" asks the confused, surviving waiter amidst the carnage, as the panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.
"Well, I'm a panda," he says. "Look it up."
The waiter turns to the relevant entry in the manual and, sure enough, finds an explanation. "Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."
answered Sep 29 at 13:04
David MDavid M
21.2k9 gold badges63 silver badges114 bronze badges
I deleted my (Janus') answer. But +1 for your answer. Totally loved the joke!
– Justin
Sep 29 at 13:17
3
@Justin No need to delete. Just click the Community Wiki button when taking someone else's work for an answer. That way you don't earn the rep. Still allows for the answer to be out there.
– David M
Sep 29 at 13:18
Another reason: A professor would be likely to rescue the math, a professor's son less so.
– Barmar
Sep 30 at 16:06
add a comment
|
Poor punctuation leads to poor understanding. The sentence, as written, is ambiguous.
In context, the math was rescued by the son of an army captain. It's unlikely (but not impossible) that the army captain of the Napoleonic era, would go on to become a professor of mathematics. Nor would a man's father's credentials likely be of greater significance than his own in this scenario. So, we can likely conclude this to refer to credentials of the son.
I'm reminded of the title joke of the book Eats, Shoots and Leaves, by Lynne Truss.
A panda walks into a café. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and proceeds to fire it at the other patrons.
"Why?" asks the confused, surviving waiter amidst the carnage, as the panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.
"Well, I'm a panda," he says. "Look it up."
The waiter turns to the relevant entry in the manual and, sure enough, finds an explanation. "Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."
answered Sep 29 at 13:04
David MDavid M
21.2k9 gold badges63 silver badges114 bronze badges
Poor punctuation leads to poor understanding. The sentence, as written, is ambiguous.
In context, the math was rescued by the son of an army captain. It's unlikely (but not impossible) that the army captain of the Napoleonic era, would go on to become a professor of mathematics. Nor would a man's father's credentials likely be of greater significance than his own in this scenario. So, we can likely conclude this to refer to credentials of the son.
I'm reminded of the title joke of the book Eats, Shoots and Leaves, by Lynne Truss.
A panda walks into a café. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and proceeds to fire it at the other patrons.
"Why?" asks the confused, surviving waiter amidst the carnage, as the panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.
"Well, I'm a panda," he says. "Look it up."
The waiter turns to the relevant entry in the manual and, sure enough, finds an explanation. "Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."
answered Sep 29 at 13:04
David MDavid M
21.2k9 gold badges63 silver badges114 bronze badges
edited Sep 30 at 18:25
answered Sep 29 at 13:04
David MDavid M
21.2k9 gold badges63 silver badges114 bronze badges
answered Sep 29 at 13:04
David MDavid M
21.2k9 gold badges63 silver badges114 bronze badges
answered Sep 29 at 13:04
David MDavid M
21.2k9 gold badges63 silver badges114 bronze badges
21.2k9 gold badges63 silver badges114 bronze badges
I deleted my (Janus') answer. But +1 for your answer. Totally loved the joke!
– Justin
Sep 29 at 13:17
3
@Justin No need to delete. Just click the Community Wiki button when taking someone else's work for an answer. That way you don't earn the rep. Still allows for the answer to be out there.
– David M
Sep 29 at 13:18
Another reason: A professor would be likely to rescue the math, a professor's son less so.
– Barmar
Sep 30 at 16:06
add a comment
|
I deleted my (Janus') answer. But +1 for your answer. Totally loved the joke!
– Justin
Sep 29 at 13:17
3
@Justin No need to delete. Just click the Community Wiki button when taking someone else's work for an answer. That way you don't earn the rep. Still allows for the answer to be out there.
– David M
Sep 29 at 13:18
Another reason: A professor would be likely to rescue the math, a professor's son less so.
– Barmar
Sep 30 at 16:06
I deleted my (Janus') answer. But +1 for your answer. Totally loved the joke!
– Justin
Sep 29 at 13:17
I deleted my (Janus') answer. But +1 for your answer. Totally loved the joke!
– Justin
Sep 29 at 13:17
3
3
@Justin No need to delete. Just click the Community Wiki button when taking someone else's work for an answer. That way you don't earn the rep. Still allows for the answer to be out there.
– David M
Sep 29 at 13:18
@Justin No need to delete. Just click the Community Wiki button when taking someone else's work for an answer. That way you don't earn the rep. Still allows for the answer to be out there.
– David M
Sep 29 at 13:18
Another reason: A professor would be likely to rescue the math, a professor's son less so.
– Barmar
Sep 30 at 16:06
Another reason: A professor would be likely to rescue the math, a professor's son less so.
– Barmar
Sep 30 at 16:06
add a comment
|
Obviously there's a missing comma but there's almost zero ambiguity, given the specific facts presented and narrative:
- given that JLL read through Galois' memoirs AND
- grasped their importance AND
- wrote to the French Academy to alert them of their mistake in overlooking them...
JLL seems infinitely more likely to be a professor [and presumably a mathematics professor] than his father. [Unless they were both professors, père et fils, and his father was not necessarily a mathematics professor. But that seems a tortured reading, and in the unlikely event, the article would have said "the professor son of a captain who also became a professor..."]. All this (both explicit and implicit) context allows us to guess around the missing comma, in this particular case.
I mean you could argue that it's linguistically also possible that JLL only later in life, became a professor, and in archaeology not anything mathematics-related. But that sounds very unlikely. It's also possible that JLL was a dolphin. Paraphrasing: all human communication has ambiguities if you scrutinize it hard enough, but we each learn to apply the everyday skill of discarding unlikely and silly hypotheses. This one is no different.
answered Sep 29 at 20:42
smcismci
1,73710 silver badges14 bronze badges
1
The ambiguity is at a grammatical level. Otherwise, does this differ significantly from my answer above?
– David M
Sep 29 at 21:18
1
I know there is initial ambiguity at a grammatical level, exacerbated by the punctuation error; but then that ambiguity is disspelled almost completely by the context. Your answer doesn't explicitly say that; and it says "The sentence, as written, is ambiguous." which we both seem to be agree to be wrong.
– smci
Sep 29 at 21:22
I think the dolphin hypothesis is sufficiently ruled out here, as Napoleon was not known to have any dolphins as captains in his army (and if he had any as captains at all, they would have been in the navy). From biology we can understand that a non-dolphin father's son would also be non-dolphin. Other than the last paragraph, this seems like a good answer.
– WBT
Sep 30 at 14:54
Paraphrasing: all human communication has ambiguities if you scrutinize it hard enough, but we each learn to apply the everyday skill of discarding unlikely and silly hypotheses. This one is no different. My serious point about the article is it doesn't explicitly say JLL was the professor, but neither does it explicitly say that JLL wasn't the offspring of a dolphin, via some time-traveler from a future where dolphin reproduction with human traits is very much possible (and if you really want to nitpick, noone proved that JLL was his father's biological son, either).
– smci
Sep 30 at 23:51
add a comment
|
Obviously there's a missing comma but there's almost zero ambiguity, given the specific facts presented and narrative:
- given that JLL read through Galois' memoirs AND
- grasped their importance AND
- wrote to the French Academy to alert them of their mistake in overlooking them...
JLL seems infinitely more likely to be a professor [and presumably a mathematics professor] than his father. [Unless they were both professors, père et fils, and his father was not necessarily a mathematics professor. But that seems a tortured reading, and in the unlikely event, the article would have said "the professor son of a captain who also became a professor..."]. All this (both explicit and implicit) context allows us to guess around the missing comma, in this particular case.
I mean you could argue that it's linguistically also possible that JLL only later in life, became a professor, and in archaeology not anything mathematics-related. But that sounds very unlikely. It's also possible that JLL was a dolphin. Paraphrasing: all human communication has ambiguities if you scrutinize it hard enough, but we each learn to apply the everyday skill of discarding unlikely and silly hypotheses. This one is no different.
answered Sep 29 at 20:42
smcismci
1,73710 silver badges14 bronze badges
1
The ambiguity is at a grammatical level. Otherwise, does this differ significantly from my answer above?
– David M
Sep 29 at 21:18
1
I know there is initial ambiguity at a grammatical level, exacerbated by the punctuation error; but then that ambiguity is disspelled almost completely by the context. Your answer doesn't explicitly say that; and it says "The sentence, as written, is ambiguous." which we both seem to be agree to be wrong.
– smci
Sep 29 at 21:22
I think the dolphin hypothesis is sufficiently ruled out here, as Napoleon was not known to have any dolphins as captains in his army (and if he had any as captains at all, they would have been in the navy). From biology we can understand that a non-dolphin father's son would also be non-dolphin. Other than the last paragraph, this seems like a good answer.
– WBT
Sep 30 at 14:54
Paraphrasing: all human communication has ambiguities if you scrutinize it hard enough, but we each learn to apply the everyday skill of discarding unlikely and silly hypotheses. This one is no different. My serious point about the article is it doesn't explicitly say JLL was the professor, but neither does it explicitly say that JLL wasn't the offspring of a dolphin, via some time-traveler from a future where dolphin reproduction with human traits is very much possible (and if you really want to nitpick, noone proved that JLL was his father's biological son, either).
– smci
Sep 30 at 23:51
add a comment
|
Obviously there's a missing comma but there's almost zero ambiguity, given the specific facts presented and narrative:
- given that JLL read through Galois' memoirs AND
- grasped their importance AND
- wrote to the French Academy to alert them of their mistake in overlooking them...
JLL seems infinitely more likely to be a professor [and presumably a mathematics professor] than his father. [Unless they were both professors, père et fils, and his father was not necessarily a mathematics professor. But that seems a tortured reading, and in the unlikely event, the article would have said "the professor son of a captain who also became a professor..."]. All this (both explicit and implicit) context allows us to guess around the missing comma, in this particular case.
I mean you could argue that it's linguistically also possible that JLL only later in life, became a professor, and in archaeology not anything mathematics-related. But that sounds very unlikely. It's also possible that JLL was a dolphin. Paraphrasing: all human communication has ambiguities if you scrutinize it hard enough, but we each learn to apply the everyday skill of discarding unlikely and silly hypotheses. This one is no different.
answered Sep 29 at 20:42
smcismci
1,73710 silver badges14 bronze badges
Obviously there's a missing comma but there's almost zero ambiguity, given the specific facts presented and narrative:
- given that JLL read through Galois' memoirs AND
- grasped their importance AND
- wrote to the French Academy to alert them of their mistake in overlooking them...
JLL seems infinitely more likely to be a professor [and presumably a mathematics professor] than his father. [Unless they were both professors, père et fils, and his father was not necessarily a mathematics professor. But that seems a tortured reading, and in the unlikely event, the article would have said "the professor son of a captain who also became a professor..."]. All this (both explicit and implicit) context allows us to guess around the missing comma, in this particular case.
I mean you could argue that it's linguistically also possible that JLL only later in life, became a professor, and in archaeology not anything mathematics-related. But that sounds very unlikely. It's also possible that JLL was a dolphin. Paraphrasing: all human communication has ambiguities if you scrutinize it hard enough, but we each learn to apply the everyday skill of discarding unlikely and silly hypotheses. This one is no different.
answered Sep 29 at 20:42
smcismci
1,73710 silver badges14 bronze badges
edited Sep 30 at 23:52
answered Sep 29 at 20:42
smcismci
1,73710 silver badges14 bronze badges
answered Sep 29 at 20:42
smcismci
1,73710 silver badges14 bronze badges
answered Sep 29 at 20:42
smcismci
1,73710 silver badges14 bronze badges
1,73710 silver badges14 bronze badges
1
The ambiguity is at a grammatical level. Otherwise, does this differ significantly from my answer above?
– David M
Sep 29 at 21:18
1
I know there is initial ambiguity at a grammatical level, exacerbated by the punctuation error; but then that ambiguity is disspelled almost completely by the context. Your answer doesn't explicitly say that; and it says "The sentence, as written, is ambiguous." which we both seem to be agree to be wrong.
– smci
Sep 29 at 21:22
I think the dolphin hypothesis is sufficiently ruled out here, as Napoleon was not known to have any dolphins as captains in his army (and if he had any as captains at all, they would have been in the navy). From biology we can understand that a non-dolphin father's son would also be non-dolphin. Other than the last paragraph, this seems like a good answer.
– WBT
Sep 30 at 14:54
Paraphrasing: all human communication has ambiguities if you scrutinize it hard enough, but we each learn to apply the everyday skill of discarding unlikely and silly hypotheses. This one is no different. My serious point about the article is it doesn't explicitly say JLL was the professor, but neither does it explicitly say that JLL wasn't the offspring of a dolphin, via some time-traveler from a future where dolphin reproduction with human traits is very much possible (and if you really want to nitpick, noone proved that JLL was his father's biological son, either).
– smci
Sep 30 at 23:51
add a comment
|
1
The ambiguity is at a grammatical level. Otherwise, does this differ significantly from my answer above?
– David M
Sep 29 at 21:18
1
I know there is initial ambiguity at a grammatical level, exacerbated by the punctuation error; but then that ambiguity is disspelled almost completely by the context. Your answer doesn't explicitly say that; and it says "The sentence, as written, is ambiguous." which we both seem to be agree to be wrong.
– smci
Sep 29 at 21:22
I think the dolphin hypothesis is sufficiently ruled out here, as Napoleon was not known to have any dolphins as captains in his army (and if he had any as captains at all, they would have been in the navy). From biology we can understand that a non-dolphin father's son would also be non-dolphin. Other than the last paragraph, this seems like a good answer.
– WBT
Sep 30 at 14:54
Paraphrasing: all human communication has ambiguities if you scrutinize it hard enough, but we each learn to apply the everyday skill of discarding unlikely and silly hypotheses. This one is no different. My serious point about the article is it doesn't explicitly say JLL was the professor, but neither does it explicitly say that JLL wasn't the offspring of a dolphin, via some time-traveler from a future where dolphin reproduction with human traits is very much possible (and if you really want to nitpick, noone proved that JLL was his father's biological son, either).
– smci
Sep 30 at 23:51
1
1
The ambiguity is at a grammatical level. Otherwise, does this differ significantly from my answer above?
– David M
Sep 29 at 21:18
The ambiguity is at a grammatical level. Otherwise, does this differ significantly from my answer above?
– David M
Sep 29 at 21:18
1
1
I know there is initial ambiguity at a grammatical level, exacerbated by the punctuation error; but then that ambiguity is disspelled almost completely by the context. Your answer doesn't explicitly say that; and it says "The sentence, as written, is ambiguous." which we both seem to be agree to be wrong.
– smci
Sep 29 at 21:22
I know there is initial ambiguity at a grammatical level, exacerbated by the punctuation error; but then that ambiguity is disspelled almost completely by the context. Your answer doesn't explicitly say that; and it says "The sentence, as written, is ambiguous." which we both seem to be agree to be wrong.
– smci
Sep 29 at 21:22
I think the dolphin hypothesis is sufficiently ruled out here, as Napoleon was not known to have any dolphins as captains in his army (and if he had any as captains at all, they would have been in the navy). From biology we can understand that a non-dolphin father's son would also be non-dolphin. Other than the last paragraph, this seems like a good answer.
– WBT
Sep 30 at 14:54
I think the dolphin hypothesis is sufficiently ruled out here, as Napoleon was not known to have any dolphins as captains in his army (and if he had any as captains at all, they would have been in the navy). From biology we can understand that a non-dolphin father's son would also be non-dolphin. Other than the last paragraph, this seems like a good answer.
– WBT
Sep 30 at 14:54
Paraphrasing: all human communication has ambiguities if you scrutinize it hard enough, but we each learn to apply the everyday skill of discarding unlikely and silly hypotheses. This one is no different. My serious point about the article is it doesn't explicitly say JLL was the professor, but neither does it explicitly say that JLL wasn't the offspring of a dolphin, via some time-traveler from a future where dolphin reproduction with human traits is very much possible (and if you really want to nitpick, noone proved that JLL was his father's biological son, either).
– smci
Sep 30 at 23:51
Paraphrasing: all human communication has ambiguities if you scrutinize it hard enough, but we each learn to apply the everyday skill of discarding unlikely and silly hypotheses. This one is no different. My serious point about the article is it doesn't explicitly say JLL was the professor, but neither does it explicitly say that JLL wasn't the offspring of a dolphin, via some time-traveler from a future where dolphin reproduction with human traits is very much possible (and if you really want to nitpick, noone proved that JLL was his father's biological son, either).
– smci
Sep 30 at 23:51
add a comment
|
As requested by OP in comments to post this comment as an answer -
As it stands, the sentence is completely ambiguous. Without knowing
the historical facts, there is absolutely no way to tell who became a
professor as the sentence stands. A comma would make it unambiguously
the son, but no comma does not make it the father even
half-unambiguously. The antecedent of who can just as well be “the son
of a captain in Napoleon’s army” as “a captain in Napoleon’s army” –
or indeed, going by mere nested proximity, the current sentence might
be saying that Napoleon’s army became a professor!
Credit - Janus Bahs Jacquet
2
Well done. That's the appropriate thing to do.
– David M
Sep 29 at 13:21
add a comment
|
As requested by OP in comments to post this comment as an answer -
As it stands, the sentence is completely ambiguous. Without knowing
the historical facts, there is absolutely no way to tell who became a
professor as the sentence stands. A comma would make it unambiguously
the son, but no comma does not make it the father even
half-unambiguously. The antecedent of who can just as well be “the son
of a captain in Napoleon’s army” as “a captain in Napoleon’s army” –
or indeed, going by mere nested proximity, the current sentence might
be saying that Napoleon’s army became a professor!
Credit - Janus Bahs Jacquet
2
Well done. That's the appropriate thing to do.
– David M
Sep 29 at 13:21
add a comment
|
As requested by OP in comments to post this comment as an answer -
As it stands, the sentence is completely ambiguous. Without knowing
the historical facts, there is absolutely no way to tell who became a
professor as the sentence stands. A comma would make it unambiguously
the son, but no comma does not make it the father even
half-unambiguously. The antecedent of who can just as well be “the son
of a captain in Napoleon’s army” as “a captain in Napoleon’s army” –
or indeed, going by mere nested proximity, the current sentence might
be saying that Napoleon’s army became a professor!
Credit - Janus Bahs Jacquet
As requested by OP in comments to post this comment as an answer -
As it stands, the sentence is completely ambiguous. Without knowing
the historical facts, there is absolutely no way to tell who became a
professor as the sentence stands. A comma would make it unambiguously
the son, but no comma does not make it the father even
half-unambiguously. The antecedent of who can just as well be “the son
of a captain in Napoleon’s army” as “a captain in Napoleon’s army” –
or indeed, going by mere nested proximity, the current sentence might
be saying that Napoleon’s army became a professor!
Credit - Janus Bahs Jacquet
edited Sep 29 at 13:12
community wiki
2 revs
Justin
2
Well done. That's the appropriate thing to do.
– David M
Sep 29 at 13:21
add a comment
|
2
Well done. That's the appropriate thing to do.
– David M
Sep 29 at 13:21
2
2
Well done. That's the appropriate thing to do.
– David M
Sep 29 at 13:21
Well done. That's the appropriate thing to do.
– David M
Sep 29 at 13:21
add a comment
|
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f514063%2fwho-became-a-professor%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
Joseph-Louis Liouville. Your sentence is missing a comma before "who". But I might be wrong. Please include the source of this sentence.
– Justin
Sep 29 at 10:54
7
This article by J J O'Connor and E F Robertson explains the facts. Joseph-Louis, not his father, became a professor. The sentence as given needs a comma after army to have this reading; as it stands, it indicates that it was the father who became a professor:
– Edwin Ashworth
Sep 29 at 11:07
2
<< Joseph-Louis Liouville, the son of [a captain in Napoleon's army who became a professor] >> vs the sentence using an incidental parenthetical << Joseph-Louis Liouville, the son of a captain in Napoleon's army, who became a professor = Joseph-Louis Liouville (the son of a captain in Napoleon's army) who became a professor // Depending on the date of the original, the rules surrounding comma usage may have been since tightened on this point.
– Edwin Ashworth
Sep 29 at 11:11
6
@Edwin As it stands, the sentence is completely ambiguous. Without knowing the historical facts, there is absolutely no way to tell who became a professor as the sentence stands. A comma would make it unambiguously the son, but no comma does not make it the father even half-unambiguously. The antecedent of who can just as well be “the son of a captain in Napoleon’s army” as “a captain in Napoleon’s army” – or indeed, going by mere nested proximity, the current sentence might be saying that Napoleon’s army became a professor!
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Sep 29 at 11:12
3
@Janus I have to agree that it's not definitive without the comma, but I'd say the default reading is the non-parenthetical one, because the comma would as you say clearly disambiguate. And Gricean requirements demand disambiguation (... and so yes, a rewrite would obviously be the best option). But this (in my second main clause) is down to pragmatics and doubtless somewhatOB. // Whichever way you look at it, nowadays this shouldn't get past an editor.
– Edwin Ashworth
Sep 29 at 11:18