Wordsmith.org: the magic of words

Wordsmith Talk

About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us  

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
No point in criticizing a usage based on one's willful misunderstanding of it.


Faldo hates when people do that.

#156279 05/27/06 10:28 AM
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Quote:


Or you can use common sense and interpret it as meaning that they spend two hours watching TV as opposed to 48 minutes being read to. No point in criticizing a usage based on one's willful misunderstanding of it.




Well, *my common sense tells me this means kids spend less time, i.e., 48 minutes, watching TV when they are also (at a different) time being read to.

#156280 05/27/06 11:34 AM
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
If that's the case then the sentence wasn't written very well. So now I'm with Myridon.

#156281 05/27/06 10:32 PM
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
M
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
M
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Quote:

Quote:


Or you can use common sense and interpret it as meaning that they spend two hours watching TV as opposed to 48 minutes being read to. No point in criticizing a usage based on one's willful misunderstanding of it.




Well, *my common sense tells me this means kids spend less time, i.e., 48 minutes, watching TV when they are also (at a different) time being read to.





The sentence may not be well written but it doesn't stand this interpretation, surely? That would require the sentence to have included another word:

They average about two hours of screen time, compared with 48 minutes when also being read to.

#156282 05/28/06 12:36 AM
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Quote:



They average about two hours of screen time, compared with 48 minutes when also being read to.




Wull … that's why it's not well written. The whole concept of being read to was just pulled out of the blue with no hint as to how it related to the subject at hand.

And my apologies to Myridon for getting all haughty and stuff.

#156283 05/28/06 11:25 PM
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
M
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
M
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Quote:

Quote:



They average about two hours of screen time, compared with 48 minutes when also being read to.




Wull … that's why it's not well written. The whole concept of being read to was just pulled out of the blue with no hint as to how it related to the subject at hand.

And my apologies to Myridon for getting all haughty and stuff.




I don't get that at all - I'm still with the common sense you abandoned a while ago! The sentence, albeit not charming, offers a straightforward time comparison: 2 hours in front of a screen, 48 mins being read to. It coulda been 73 minutes picking their nose but. The comparitor needs no further logical or linguistic introduction. Common sense supplies the assumed link: 2 sources of stimulus for the child.

#156284 05/29/06 11:26 AM
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
I still don't get it, mav. Why would you read to a child while the TV is on? Is that what the research is saying? What does that prove?

#156285 05/29/06 11:49 AM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
I'm with Anna on this one. kids who get read to watch 48 minutes; those who don't get read to watch 2 hours.


formerly known as etaoin...
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,539
Likes: 1
W
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
W
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,539
Likes: 1
That's what I thought it meant, too, after putting it through the but-it-isn't-a-very-clear-sentence-is-it filter.

#156287 05/30/06 03:58 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 557
M
addict
Offline
addict
M
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 557
Quote:

I'm with Anna on this one. kids who get read to watch 48 minutes; those who don't get read to watch 2 hours.




Yes, sorry for being overly literal then leaving the room. Certainly this is the what the writer meant. The problem is that it says nothing as to how the two things are related. Does this imply that parents are reading to the children for the other 72 minutes or can the parents read for 5 minutes during breakfast and somehow reduce post-dinner TV watching? Without more complete data, this is as nonsensical a statement as the oft quoted correlation between safety pin usage and car accidents.

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Jackie 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Statistics
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,328
Members9,182
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
Newest Members
Ineffable, ddrinnan, TRIALNERRA, befuddledmind, KILL_YOUR_SUV
9,182 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 691 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters(30 Days)
Top Posters
wwh 13,858
Faldage 13,803
Jackie 11,613
tsuwm 10,542
wofahulicodoc 10,539
LukeJavan8 9,916
AnnaStrophic 6,511
Wordwind 6,296
of troy 5,400
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site. Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.

Home | Today's Word | Yesterday's Word | Subscribe | FAQ | Archives | Search | Feedback
Wordsmith Talk | Wordsmith Chat

© 1994-2024 Wordsmith

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5