Stupid Children Shows
It's been bugging me ever since Helios created the thread, and now I need an answer, damn it!
Helios said:
Is there a way to keep the structure of the sentence yet indicate whether stupid is referring to "children" or "children shows"? He put brackets to indicate, but is there an actual English rule that can be followed to make the same indication? Or would the sentence have to be completely restructured to do so?
One means that the shows are about stupid children, the other means the children shows themselves are stupid.
My first thought was a hyphen, saying "stupid children-shows", which would indicate the children shows are stupid, but removing the hyphen doesn't mean the children are stupid.
This is what my brain distracts me with when I'm trying to solve a complex problem.
Helios said:
| No, not stupid [children shows]. [Stupid children] shows. |
Is there a way to keep the structure of the sentence yet indicate whether stupid is referring to "children" or "children shows"? He put brackets to indicate, but is there an actual English rule that can be followed to make the same indication? Or would the sentence have to be completely restructured to do so?
One means that the shows are about stupid children, the other means the children shows themselves are stupid.
My first thought was a hyphen, saying "stupid children-shows", which would indicate the children shows are stupid, but removing the hyphen doesn't mean the children are stupid.
This is what my brain distracts me with when I'm trying to solve a complex problem.
Well without the brackets and with apostrophes, these two are:
No, not stupid children shows'
Stupid refers to shows ie No, not stupid shows for children.
No, not stupid children shows.
Stupid refers to children.
No, not stupid children shows'
Stupid refers to shows ie No, not stupid shows for children.
No, not stupid children shows.
Stupid refers to children.
| No, not stupid children shows' |
Show can't possess anything. I believe you can say, "No, not stupid children's shows". This would have stupid referring to the shows.
Would "stupid children shows" really have stupid describe children and not the shows? Feels wrong. Maybe not because that's not the English rule but simply because it would be so easy to assume someone is referring to "children shows" and not the children.
This may be a British thing, but we would refer to a show for children as a children's show, not a children show.
On that basis, it would be logical that:
Stupid children's show would mean "a stupid show for children"
Stupid children show would mean "a show featuring stupid children"
Having said that, most people don't instinctively use such rigorous logic for parsing natural language, especially in a casual context such as an online forum, so I think either phrase has a high likelihood of being misinterpreted, even by literate readers.
On that basis, it would be logical that:
Stupid children's show would mean "a stupid show for children"
Stupid children show would mean "a show featuring stupid children"
Having said that, most people don't instinctively use such rigorous logic for parsing natural language, especially in a casual context such as an online forum, so I think either phrase has a high likelihood of being misinterpreted, even by literate readers.
It wouldn't be uncommon to say, "that's a kid show" or "that's a kids' show".
So saying, "These stupid kid shows" would be normally interpreted as saying the "kid shows" are stupid (though I suppose the rules of English would dictate that its a show about a single stupid kid).
Saying, "These stupid kids shows" without the apostrophe would indicate that you mean the shows are about stupid kids - though this can easily be misunderstood as well (definitely when spoken).
The biggest confusion with "Stupid children shows" is that children is already plural. By making "kid" in the previous example plural and leaving the apostrophe out, it brings out the fact that we mean "stupid kids" and not "kids' shows".
But "stupid children shows" really rolls off the tongue for me, with "children shows" feeling the same as "children's shows".
Oh well.
So saying, "These stupid kid shows" would be normally interpreted as saying the "kid shows" are stupid (though I suppose the rules of English would dictate that its a show about a single stupid kid).
Saying, "These stupid kids shows" without the apostrophe would indicate that you mean the shows are about stupid kids - though this can easily be misunderstood as well (definitely when spoken).
The biggest confusion with "Stupid children shows" is that children is already plural. By making "kid" in the previous example plural and leaving the apostrophe out, it brings out the fact that we mean "stupid kids" and not "kids' shows".
But "stupid children shows" really rolls off the tongue for me, with "children shows" feeling the same as "children's shows".
Oh well.
Last edited on
Well, a hyphen makes it a compound adjective and confirms that stupid doesn't qualify shows:
"stupid-children shows"
means that the children are stupid (Helios' intention, I think).
On the other hand,
"stupid children shows"
probably lacks the optional comma separating two adjectives:
"stupid, children's shows"
in which case it is the shows that are stupid.
But beware of leaving the ambiguity: in English schools and anything written in the press you would probably get arrested by the thought police for juxtaposing "stupid" and "children" in any way, shape or form.
I should stick to coding. Except for the most-vexing parse!
"stupid-children shows"
means that the children are stupid (Helios' intention, I think).
On the other hand,
"stupid children shows"
probably lacks the optional comma separating two adjectives:
"stupid, children's shows"
in which case it is the shows that are stupid.
But beware of leaving the ambiguity: in English schools and anything written in the press you would probably get arrested by the thought police for juxtaposing "stupid" and "children" in any way, shape or form.
I should stick to coding. Except for the most-vexing parse!
What about stupid shows with stupid children?
And more so: stupid shows with stupid children for stupid children...
Or: shows with stupid children for stupid children...
Or: stupid shows with children for stupid children...
Or: stupid shows with stupid children for children...
truth table...
So I would say stupid refers at first to both children and show. But leaves open what children (viewer/actor/both).
And more so: stupid shows with stupid children for stupid children...
Or: shows with stupid children for stupid children...
Or: stupid shows with children for stupid children...
Or: stupid shows with stupid children for children...
truth table...
So I would say stupid refers at first to both children and show. But leaves open what children (viewer/actor/both).
Last edited on
| What about stupid shows with stupid children? And more so: stupid shows with stupid children for stupid children... Or: shows with stupid children for stupid children... Or: stupid shows with children for stupid children... Or: stupid shows with stupid children for children... |
Aaand, I need an aspirin after trying to read that.
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.