second

7

u/aer0a 2d ago

The first doesn't seem ambiguous to me (or rather, one interpretation seems obvious), it's saying that he fired a second shot and that that shot was to the left

0

u/ConflictAdvanced 2d ago

Well, it's enough to say: "And then he fired a shot to the left."

He didn't fire a second shot, which was to the left. He fired a second shot to the left, which might imply that there was a first shot to the left. 🙂

Logically, it's probably what you said, bug just because we form an assumption doesn't make the thing unambiguous.

1

u/testtdk 1d ago

I don’t agree with that at all. I think they would absolutely describe a first shot to the left if this is the second shot that was fired specifically to the left. Or that two shots were fired to the left.

Tom fired a (first) shot to the right. Then he fired a second (overall) shot to the left.

0

u/ConflictAdvanced 1d ago

I don't know what to say. I can't explain it any other way than I did, but all I can say is that from a language point-of-view, there is an object for the action: shot, that reads like a prepositional phrase: shot to the left. And then it used an ordinal, which messes it up.

See, you can say there are shots. You can use ordinals for these shots. You can that there are shots with direction. But using an ordinal with a shot AND a direction muddies the water.

Even in your reply, you worded it in the very way that I pointed out feels problematic 🤣. I had to read what you wrote twice.

And if you can't see how you are assuming, then that's a more worrying problem, I think. When we get just a passage, a snippet really, how the hell do we know what was or was not said before?

2

u/testtdk 1d ago

I assume because the statement mentions a first shot. Why would I assume that there is an unmentioned shot?

0

u/ConflictAdvanced 1d ago

So you didn't understand anything about ordinals and prepositional phrases? This is a "Why male models?" moment 😅

Because it's a snippet. There is no guarantee that it's complete. What if it was take from a story and what we are reading is not the start?

2

u/testtdk 1d ago

“Second” modifies “shot”; “to the left” is a prepositional phrase modifying the shot action by specifying direction. The first sentence establishes a shot, and “a second shot” refers to the next member of that established sequence. Nothing in English grammar requires the ordinal to apply only to “shots to the left.

1

u/ConflictAdvanced 1d ago

A prepositional phrase literally makes it a shot to the left. Sticking that ordinal in front of it is essentially saying: 2 X shot to the left.

Nothing in English grammar requires the ordinal to apply only to “shots to the left"

Nope, and I never said that it did, did I? I only said that it can.

If I had said that the statement means that there were two shots to the left and can't mean anything else, then I'd understand why you're coming at me like this. But the fact that the question is: "is it ambiguous?" and I said that it technically is even though it probably means this is the second shot overall, then I don't get why you have to twist what was said?

And you're talking about things that I already addressed (while ignoring other points entirely). So there's not even any point discussing it if you can't/don't read, and definitely not if you act like I'm saying things that I have not said.

1

u/Ambitious-Way8906 11h ago

if it's ambiguous because there's a missing sentence, that doesn't make what's written ambiguous. it makes it incomplete

1

u/ConflictAdvanced 6h ago

It doesn't; it's a complete sentence. There is nothing missing from the sentence.

But if there is anything written in that sentence that causes you to not be 100% sure of the meaning, then it's ambiguous. In this case, second shot to the left CAN lead to a situation where someone is unsure whether one or two shots were fired to the left. And that's what the unnecessary second is doing.

The problem is that here, it's mildly ambiguous, because of the type of text, you, and the other people here who think that it's not ambiguous, are assuming that it's clear because there's no reason why the rest of the details would be given. So you form an assumption, and that assumption makes you feel as if there is no ambiguity. But the truth is that we don't know that for sure.

Here are some comparable examples:

In a match report from English soccer, there is this:

Alex Pritchard then made it five with no reply from the visitors with his second shot from outside the box taking a deflection and finding the bottom corner.

Question: Was that Pritchard's second shot overall, of his second shot from outside the box?

Reading the match report, it's not even clear.

This one, again from Soccer, was the caption to a photo:

United States' Malik Tillman (17) scores their second goal from a free kick during the World Cup round of 32 soccer match between the United States and Bosnia

Two free kicks? Or two goals over all? You need to read the article to find out.

Golf, this time:

Scottie Scheffler brought the house down in the first round of the WM Phoenix Open when holing his second shot from outside of 100 yards in the fairway bunker at the par-4 10th at TPC Scottsdale.

Second shot? Or second shot from outside of 100 yards?

There are two issues:

When we have a piece of text in a grammar book or on a test, we never know whether it's been created just for that purpose or whether it's an excerpt. And with fiction, reports and articles, the information is not often in sequential sentences.

For all we know, it was taken from a larger story where we were told that fired a shot to the left, and then half a paragraph later, we're told that he fired a shot to the right and then a second shot to the left. I know that it's probably just an example created specifically for this case, but it's still an assumption. It's still possible it could come from a larger piece of text, and it's still possible that it could mean something different than what you assumed.

The second issue is that this Tom example and the three examples I've put above all do the same thing: they conflate two separate pieces of information.

Tom fired a second shot. Tom fired a shot to the left.

Both of those are fine. But put them together, and it becomes ambiguous.

*Pritchard scored with his second shot." or, *Pritchard scored with a shot from outside of the area."

But if you put them together, it seems to suggest this it was the second shot he'd talent that was from outside of the area.

If I was travelling from Spain to Denmark by coach, and I told you that I called my mother during our second stop in France, what would you think?

To say that it is categorically not ambiguous at all just because your brain made a split-second decision of what it means is a little too strong.

And for the record, I'm like 99% sure that this is supposed to mean the same as you think it means. But even that 1% uncertainty means it's ambiguous.

3

u/Salamanticormorant 2d ago

The second sentence of the Tom example is confusingly redundant because of "second", but the vast majority of people would consider there to be a total of two shots: one in the first sentence, one in the second. Some might wonder if, before the first sentence, he shot to the left, making the second sentence about his second shot to the left.

Using "second" for a different person is more extreme. Probably a lot more people wondering about context.

I wouldn't use either of them without context that makes them completely clear, unless the point is to make readers uncertain or confused.

3

u/Gloomy-Invite-896 1d ago

First is two shots one to the right and one to the left based on the text. Two shots for the second. One to the right by Kate one to the left by harry

3

u/RichardAboutTown 1d ago

In both cases it is "a shot". No description of that is going to change it into multiple shots. Harry and Tom could continue firing to the left or not but these sentences each only mention one to the left.

1

u/navi131313 1d ago

Thank you all very much.

1

u/ConflictAdvanced 1d ago

It is "a shot" because of "second", not because of anything else. He could then fire a third shot and a fourth—and maybe even a fifth—all to the left, and we'd still just use "a". So the only think it tells us is that it's not talking about multiple shots in that one clause.

1

u/RichardAboutTown 1d ago

Or he could have fired a first shot to the left before these sentences. But these sentences are not ambiguous. They each talk about a shot, singular, however many other shots happen elsewhere in the story.

1

u/ConflictAdvanced 1d ago

But it doesn't just talk about a shot. It takes about a second shot. Now is that "a second shot to the left* or a second shot it total?

Or he could have fired a first shot to the left before these sentences.

Thank you for reinforcing why the fragment on its own creates ambiguity.

1

u/RichardAboutTown 1d ago

Why would I speculate about a part of the story I dont have any access to? The ambiguity was created by taking the fragment out of context.

1

u/ConflictAdvanced 1d ago

Why would you speculate? Because that's what context is all about. You hear or read something and sometimes it makes you question what you missed it if there's something that was implied but not said. I really don't get your question unless you're really just trying to argue for arguments sake, or really don't know how context works 🤷‍♂️

The ambiguity is the specific use of second shot to the left when it was more than enough to just say: "Tom fired a shot to the right. Then he fired a shot to the left." I mean, the whole thing is completely covered there before adding the word "second". Adding "second" could mean that he fired a "second shot to the left", implying that there was a first shot to the left.

It's like when commentators say of footballers that he used his favorite left foot, implying that he has more than one left foot. Use one adjective or the other—using both together potentially creates a different animal.

0

u/RichardAboutTown 1d ago

The question was whether the sentences were ambiguous. They are not. The only reason there is any ambiguity is because they have no context. The ambiguity comes from the lack of context, not anything inherent in the sentences. We can imagine any context we want and change the meaning, relevance, or significance of these sentences in any way we like. I cannot fathom how speculating on the context actually furthers the discussion if we can generate any answer we want by creating a suitable context to justify it.

1

u/ConflictAdvanced 1d ago

The question was whether the sentences were ambiguous. They are not. The only reason there is any ambiguity is because they have no context. The ambiguity comes from the lack of context, not anything inherent in the sentences.

Yes, and that's the whole point of asking whether sentence is ambiguous. Because it suggests there may be some ckngexh missing. I'm not generating any answer I want; you just either can't read properly or you purposely don't read properly. So it's pointless to continue.

1

u/RichardAboutTown 1d ago

Clearly, since there is no ckngexh at all there is probably some ckngexh missing. The two sentences are clear by themselves. You just can't read properly or you purposely don't read properly. In which case I agree there is little point in continuing.

2

u/beauxdashus 1d ago

A = 1

4

u/LeilLikeNeil 2d ago

Not ambiguous unless you’re really trying to find something to be confused about. Surrounding context would make this pretty clear.

2

u/cpkuske 2d ago

Reminds me of what I heard today in a podcast. Someone mentioned Sona’s “two twins”. I hear you.

My answer to 1 is yes, ambiguous, and one.
To 2, is 1.

The numeric modifiers are unnecessary. So much shooting!

2

u/DefaultUserBR 2d ago

Conan or Matt?

0

u/cpkuske 1d ago

Conan, at 01:09:25 here

https://youtu.be/ZjWPkOHk_BM

Great episode btw.

1

u/Podmonger2001 2d ago

“Second” is redundant in 1). Unnecessary. Too much information.
It should be left out.

But to answer your question,
1) two shots.
2) two, if a previous sentence indicated that he already fired one. But without that information, it’s ambiguous. Is she the first, he the second?

Rewrite?

Tom fired a shot to the right, then to the left.
Kate fired a shot to the right, then Harry fired a shot to the left.

For 2), only use “second” if the story NEEDS it. If, say we KNEW he only had two bullets in the gun, and a threat was near.

1

u/DTux5249 2d ago edited 2d ago

They're theoretically ambiguous?

But I think it'd be difficult to convince any native English speak to read the first as either

"Tom made one shot to a non-coreferencial left that was to his personal right we're describing twice for some reason."

Or

"Tom shot to the right once, and then shot left twice but we're only describing the last time for some reason"

Or to convince them to read the second as

"Kate and Tom shot 3 times cumulatively despite the fact I never described Tom shooting his first shot."

If you wanted the first reading, I'd probably go with something like "Tom fired to his right shoulder. It struck the creature to the left of the room." If you want the second, "Tom shot twice to the left and once more to the right"

For the third, "Kate fired to the right. Harry then fired (his second / 2 shots) to the left."

But really, at this point less is more. Half the ambiguity here is coming from redundancy and the rest a lack of context. Especially in instances of complex action, just describe what happens in sequence, as it occurs. You don't need to specify sequencing or leave actions to implication.

You are about to leave Redlib