Awkward ambiguity
« previous post | next post »
From David Morris:
The Sydney Morning Herald website is currently showing a headline – "How to not accidentally harass someone at the office party".
(So, how to deliberately harass someone …?)
There are lots of possible parses — the one that bothers David is
[How [to [[not accidentally] [sexually harrass someone at the office party]]]]
…or any of the other possibilities where not is tightly bound to accidentally.
Adam Roberts said,
November 20, 2017 @ 12:38 pm
I knew my old-fashioned fondness for not splitting infinitives would eventually find an actual in-use example to support it!
Keith Clarke said,
November 20, 2017 @ 12:42 pm
Otto Harrass was a member of the Wisconsin State Assembly. One would not wish to accidentally refer to him in this context. I think.
Victor Mair said,
November 20, 2017 @ 1:16 pm
TIMELINE (except where noted, all times are Australian time):
David Morris' original message to Language Log headquarters (11/20/17 6:41 p.m.; received in Philadelphia at 6:27 a.m.)
Obligatory screenshot (11/20/17 10:23 p.m.)
As of 11/20/17 4:58 p.m., Kasey Edwards' comment itself bore this headline:
=====
"Has #MeToo killed the office Christmas Party?"
=====
Paul Mulshine said,
November 20, 2017 @ 1:23 pm
Awkward, but I read it as "How to avoid sexually harassing someone by accident at the office party."
As an old headline writer, I'd say whoever wrote this one was stuck with a bad count, as we say in the trade. Two decks and a bad split on the words.
Lance said,
November 20, 2017 @ 1:27 pm
Really? Would you then phrase it:
1. How not accidentally to harass someone at the office party sexually
2. How not accidentally to harass sexually someone at the office party
3. How not to harass someone sexually at the office party accidentally
because even the best of them (IMHO the third one) looks barely comprehensible. (In fact, I doubt there's a reasonable way to phrase that, keeping "to…harass" as the infinitive, that doesn't involve putting "sexually" between "to" and "harass".)
I'd say the only good way to write the headline is to get rid of "to harass sexually", because "sexual harassment" doesn't turn into a verb very well, and instead write "How to avoid accidentally sexually harassing someone at the office party". (Or, if I were writing the article, "How to avoid the office party".) Bonus: no risk of splitting the infinitive!
David Morris said,
November 20, 2017 @ 4:03 pm
Thanks. The headline is still there this morning (my time), more than 12 hours after I originally saw it.
CP Huxley said,
November 20, 2017 @ 4:39 pm
I was shocked by a headline in the Guardian last month: NHS trust pays £600,000 to abuse victims of children's doctor. Haven't the victims been through enough already?
wanda said,
November 20, 2017 @ 7:17 pm
Why would you need to have the "accidentally" there at all? Presumably, this article is not targeting people who want to avoid deliberately sexually harassing someone. You don't need to read an article to figure out how to do that. Just think of whatever you were going to deliberately do, and don't do it.
Gregory Kusnick said,
November 21, 2017 @ 12:12 am
Personally I'd go with "inadvertently" or "unintentionally". "Accidentally" conflates cluelessness with clumsiness, putting sexual harassment in the same category as spilled drinks.
MCZ said,
November 21, 2017 @ 2:38 am
"How not to sexually harass someone accidentally at the office party" sounds pretty natural to me.
I also agree with others that I would have used "deliberately" if I meant to negate "accidentally" here, or even "non-accidentally" if for some reason I have to keep it.
Keith said,
November 21, 2017 @ 3:10 am
How to avoid accidentally writing ambiguous headlines…
On second thoughts, maybe the writers of headlines are deliberately introducing ambiguity as a form of humour. We all have to find some amusement to get through the work day.
Keith Clarke said,
November 21, 2017 @ 10:50 am
Here's a less (than in comment #2) obtuse pointing-out of the really minor typo in the article:
[sexually harrass someone at the office party]
ajay said,
November 22, 2017 @ 7:27 am
"How not to sexually harass someone accidentally at the office party" sounds pretty natural to me.
But it has a different meaning. That headline implies that there is a right and a wrong way to accidentally sexually harass someone, and here's the wrong way, so you can avoid it from now on. cf "How not to organise your family holiday", say.
David Morris said,
November 22, 2017 @ 3:19 pm
I have no problem with 'accidentally' being placed after 'to' – I'm not a 'split infinitive' fetishist. I even have no problem with 'not' being placed there by itself in some contexts: "The most important thing is to not sexually harass someone at the office party" v "The most important thing is not (to sexually harass someone at the office party); it's (to drink as much beer as you can". I have a problem with *both* 'not' and 'accidentally', being placed there.
Of Gregory's choices, I'd choose 'unintentionally', possibly because it contrasts better with 'intentionally' than 'inadvertently' does with 'advertently'.
mollymooly said,
November 23, 2017 @ 2:01 am
@Lance
I can't speak for Adam Roberts but I venture to suggest that "to avoid doing" is a standard idiomatic negation of "to do" for many who avoid split infinitives.
I personally am comfortable enough with splitting infinitives not to notice when I or others do so in most contexts, but negation is the last holdout which still often sounds unidiomatic for me. I too would use "to avoid … harassing" in the cited example. Where "to do" means "in order to do" then my negative would be "so as not to do".
Of course I realise that "to not do" is simpler and at least as logical; it just happens not to be idiomatic for me (yet).
Xtifr said,
November 24, 2017 @ 6:30 pm
I read it as intended and had to search to find the ambiguity.
For me, at least, I think the "accidentally" would have to be stressed or italicized to switch the meaning. Which, I guess, means that I instinctively bind the "not" in "to not" with the entire infinitive pile-up unless there's a strong reason to do otherwise.
(I think "infinitive pile-up" is a good name for "split by three or more words.") :)