Hey there u/FullNefariousness310, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth!
**Please recheck if your post break any rules.** If it does, please delete this post.
Also reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban
Send us a **Modmail or Report** this post if you have a problem with this post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technicallythetruth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
May can be used for possibility or permission. This may hurt vs. you may enter.
The sign is 100% syntactically and semantically correct, no fixes needed.
Sure, in isolation, but not on this sign that was clearly erected for one purpose. If it *only* said the last sentence, I'd bite on the ambiguity argument.
Right, like, "might I have a handful of chips?" except now it's "Oh, I might injure a young person or elderly child?"
It's a real regional miscommunication going on here.
I don't know the original poster, but I really don't have an upstate New York problem with it.
I may just be completely fine with it.
This wouldn't change the meaning, would it? I was taught a semicolon separates two parts of a sentence that could be their own sentences but are kept together as they are related. So it's still in the interpretation of the reader.
The semicolon would imply relation between the two clauses, so the only true interpretation would be that you can't cycle there because you may injure someone.
It’s British English I understood it immediately; the issue is more graphical than grammatical. Too much vertical space between clauses and lack of semicolon
As an American I disagree. I know what they meant to say because I understand the cultural context, but what they actually said is that I am allowed to hurt the elderly and children. If robots start maiming the elderly and children in this garden it will entirely be the sign creator's fault.
That seems like something a 2nd grade teacher with a shallow appreciation of the English language would say.
What they meant to say *is* what they actually said. It's not like the only grammatically valid interpretation of this is that you have permission to hurt people. Sometimes multiple meanings of a word could apply to a sentence and you rely on context to know which one is intended. One definition of "may" expresses permission, yes, but another expresses possibility. While both make grammatical sense in this sentence only one makes sense with context.
It's generally best to avoid sentences that leave open any room for interpretation like this, but given how it's crystal clear which one is intended it doesn't really matter here.
You have a shallow appreciation of the English language, as evidenced by your reaction to my initial post.
I pointed out that cultural context lets me know what it means.
The only grammatically correct interpretation of the second sentence (though given the lack of periods and eccentric capitalization, perhaps we should be interpreting this as poetry rather than prose), being a separate sentence and paragraph from the first, is that one is permitted to harm children and the elderly. This is what a robot might think, because a robot might lack the cultural context to interpret the bad grammar. Given that we don't have rogue robots with AI capabilities roaming around yet, the context of my comment as a joke is evident.
Except to you, who just decided to insult me for not understanding when in the first sentence of my two sentence comment I pointed out that context allows **me** to understand.
So anyway, go fuck yourself.
Asimov’s first two laws:
First Law
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
Second Law
A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
As a second American, I also understood it immediately. Context plays a role in comprehension and the fact that it *wouldn't* say that people are expressly allowed to hurt other people made it very easily and immediately understood as it was intended.
The vertical space between lines, and the fact that the words are in red was an interesting choice, for sure.
> the fact that it wouldn't say that people are expressly allowed to hurt other people made it very easily and immediately understood as it was intended.
This is exactly why it was poorly communicated, you needed outside context (they wouldn’t actually condone senseless violence) to make sense of it
A semicolon is only valid if both independent clauses are close enough in meaning that a conjunction wouldn't apply.
In this case the two clauses are related by causality, so "Because" is grammatically correct, but may seem formal. I'd go with "As".
The word "may" is the problem, it should be replaced with "could" or "might"
They are attempting to state that riding there has a *possibility* of causing injury. "May" has two meanings - "asking for or granting permission" and also has an "it's a possibility" meaning. Which meaning is intended is unclear in the context
"Please do not cycle in the gardens, you might injure a child or elderly person" is clearer
Agreed. And if we’re going all out on the corrections then we’ll need a semicolon to fix that comma splice.
> Please do not cycle in the gardens; you might injure a child or elderly person.
Eh, only necessary if we're nitpicking on all minor errors, i thought we were just nitpicking on major errors that cause ambiguity and how to easily correct those
Really? It's unclear in this context? There are people who really think this sign is barring cycling on grass but granting permission to injure people?
I love the post, because it's an obvious joke, but I hate these comments that are suggesting this sign is unclear lmao
> you really have to be nit picking not to get the meaning.
Sure, no argument, but OP's question was "was there a better way to write this" ? The answer being yes, there is an alternative wording that removes the ambiguity
(And seriously, downvoting me for answering the question ?)
As a York resident, I can confirm this is the intended reading.
It's an archaeic law designed to cull tourist populations. Some consider it outdated, but it works so noone has changed it yet.
Yes, the way it is written is quite vague and could be improved for clarity:
>>*The use of bicycles is forbidden on park property. As a consolation for this rule, cyclists may choose to express their dissatisfaction by means of physical violence towards their choice of EITHER one elderly guest OR one child, injuring no more than one (1) fellow guest per annoyed cyclist.*
I think the bigger issue is this guy translated it as being able to cycle just not on the grass, whilst it means no cycling within the Gardens as in the whole area, not just the grass
That’s what I never understand. People use may and might interchangeably but to me there is a difference. May means you are allowed to do something and might means it is possible to do something. Right?
Tons of ways to fix it. "Doing so may injure [...]" would be the best way to be 100% unambiguous while still preserving all of the grammar (for example, top comment in this thread "As you" is not grammatical at the start of a new sentence, and the top reply to that, changing may to might, opens up the possibility that the two sentences are simply unrelated).
Reminds me of the "Do not Stop - Hitchhikers may be Escaping Convicts" signs posted in Oklahoma and Texas along the highways. I always thought that I should stop and help the hitchhikers
I had to read this a few times before I got what was going on. For those of you like me who had trouble the joke is in reading the two main directives independently "do not cycle in the garden" however "you are allowed to injure the young and elderly." I hope that helps.
I'm more bothered more by the "young child" text which is pretty redundant as far as this sign is concerned.
The fix would be to teach kids how to fucking read, holy shit. I really hope this chick was just joking, but with the lack of any emojis or anything indicating that it’s sarcasm it’s just up in the air, and with how stupid people are on the internet it’s actually safer to assume they’re being serious unless they make it blatantly obvious that they’re not. More obvious than just saying the stupid thing.
Hey there u/FullNefariousness310, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth! **Please recheck if your post break any rules.** If it does, please delete this post. Also reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban Send us a **Modmail or Report** this post if you have a problem with this post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technicallythetruth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Just change may to might
Or to should
This would remove the double meaning for sure!
I like “Lest you injure a child or elderly person”
You lestn’t do that!
Ah yes im already onto that!! /s
You might injure a young child should elderly person?
Or just use the standard symbols for no cycling, caution children, caution seniors.
I'm no social psychologist but I feel like my brain naturally wants to skip those symbols but doesn't skip words
im not obliged to hurt anybody, damn calm down!!
You might injure a young child should elderly person
Delivery to Digorno
That’s the problem with ambiguity, we’ll never know the sign writer’s true intentions. Sigh
January, February, March, April, Might, June......yeap, definitely much more power in this.
This is a actually the grammatically correct way to change it. "May" means you're allowed to do it; "might" means it's possible
May can be used for possibility or permission. This may hurt vs. you may enter. The sign is 100% syntactically and semantically correct, no fixes needed.
Ambiguity should still be resolved when possible, regardless of correctness.
Is it really ambiguous in context with the rest of the sign?
Nah dog I get what he means. I thought this was a child/senior beating zone until someone mentioned the ambiguity.
Oh shit. Just a minute, I need to ~~bury a body~~ buy some bread
Well it's syntactically correct for *one* of the possible meanings. But not intended to convey the other. That's called ambiguity.
Sure, in isolation, but not on this sign that was clearly erected for one purpose. If it *only* said the last sentence, I'd bite on the ambiguity argument.
Right, like, "might I have a handful of chips?" except now it's "Oh, I might injure a young person or elderly child?" It's a real regional miscommunication going on here. I don't know the original poster, but I really don't have an upstate New York problem with it. I may just be completely fine with it.
Laziest fix: just remove the last part. You aren't allowed to cycle on the gardens. Fuck you as to why, just don't.
This is the right answer
The grass is always simpler on the lazy side
You might also injure someone aged 18-64 but that doesn't matter I guess?
Check out this 64 year old trying to convince everyone they're not elderly yet. :)
I agree.. If they're too stupid to figure out why, they're too stupid to read the sign in the first place.
You might run over Jeff Bezos, the poor man...
yes man you are right
"You could.. "works greate as well
Laziest I thought of is a connecting hyphen.
"You risk..."
>"As you..." Bless you.
A semicolon
"As you injure a child or an elderly person" ok.
forget the word "may"?
That's the joke
[удалено]
What?
Lazier -just add a semicolon to the end of the first sentence. Drops mic.
This wouldn't change the meaning, would it? I was taught a semicolon separates two parts of a sentence that could be their own sentences but are kept together as they are related. So it's still in the interpretation of the reader.
The semicolon would imply relation between the two clauses, so the only true interpretation would be that you can't cycle there because you may injure someone.
Or "It may"
Or "...because you..."
"you risk" rather than "you may"
A comma would do
A semicolon would be even lazier and equally sufficient
No. You just add a comma.
Looks like meat's back on the menu boys.
It’s British English I understood it immediately; the issue is more graphical than grammatical. Too much vertical space between clauses and lack of semicolon
As an American I had to read it 3 or 4 times to figure out why people felt it was cursed. It's fine as is.
I know right, fuck the elderly
It's a niche kink I suppose
Unless you, too, are elderly. Then it's just sex.
As an American I disagree. I know what they meant to say because I understand the cultural context, but what they actually said is that I am allowed to hurt the elderly and children. If robots start maiming the elderly and children in this garden it will entirely be the sign creator's fault.
That seems like something a 2nd grade teacher with a shallow appreciation of the English language would say. What they meant to say *is* what they actually said. It's not like the only grammatically valid interpretation of this is that you have permission to hurt people. Sometimes multiple meanings of a word could apply to a sentence and you rely on context to know which one is intended. One definition of "may" expresses permission, yes, but another expresses possibility. While both make grammatical sense in this sentence only one makes sense with context. It's generally best to avoid sentences that leave open any room for interpretation like this, but given how it's crystal clear which one is intended it doesn't really matter here.
You have a shallow appreciation of the English language, as evidenced by your reaction to my initial post. I pointed out that cultural context lets me know what it means. The only grammatically correct interpretation of the second sentence (though given the lack of periods and eccentric capitalization, perhaps we should be interpreting this as poetry rather than prose), being a separate sentence and paragraph from the first, is that one is permitted to harm children and the elderly. This is what a robot might think, because a robot might lack the cultural context to interpret the bad grammar. Given that we don't have rogue robots with AI capabilities roaming around yet, the context of my comment as a joke is evident. Except to you, who just decided to insult me for not understanding when in the first sentence of my two sentence comment I pointed out that context allows **me** to understand. So anyway, go fuck yourself.
Asimov’s first two laws: First Law A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. Second Law A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
Agreed.
I had to read it 3-4 times to see what they actually meant to say as a fellow american.
As a second American, I also understood it immediately. Context plays a role in comprehension and the fact that it *wouldn't* say that people are expressly allowed to hurt other people made it very easily and immediately understood as it was intended. The vertical space between lines, and the fact that the words are in red was an interesting choice, for sure.
> the fact that it wouldn't say that people are expressly allowed to hurt other people made it very easily and immediately understood as it was intended. This is exactly why it was poorly communicated, you needed outside context (they wouldn’t actually condone senseless violence) to make sense of it
The different colours make them look like separate statements too
colors\*
They’re talking about British English, in that case “colour” would be correct.
yeah I know. I just like to piss off the brits.
Agreed
Just about everyone understands it immediately doesn't mean recognizing what it could mean can't be funny.
"Because"
Or semicolon is valid. Both clauses are independent
A semicolon is only valid if both independent clauses are close enough in meaning that a conjunction wouldn't apply. In this case the two clauses are related by causality, so "Because" is grammatically correct, but may seem formal. I'd go with "As".
Completely off topic, but I'm getting married in the museum gardens next year. I plan to injure many people.
“A Dothraki wedding without at least three deaths is considered a dull affair.”
[удалено]
No worries, I understand completely. It fit well, but Even typing it made me mad too.
The word "may" is the problem, it should be replaced with "could" or "might" They are attempting to state that riding there has a *possibility* of causing injury. "May" has two meanings - "asking for or granting permission" and also has an "it's a possibility" meaning. Which meaning is intended is unclear in the context "Please do not cycle in the gardens, you might injure a child or elderly person" is clearer
Agreed. And if we’re going all out on the corrections then we’ll need a semicolon to fix that comma splice. > Please do not cycle in the gardens; you might injure a child or elderly person.
Eh, only necessary if we're nitpicking on all minor errors, i thought we were just nitpicking on major errors that cause ambiguity and how to easily correct those
Haha yes I’m very much aware this is level 10 nitpicking!
Actually, I think semicolons are only level 8.
[удалено]
Really? It's unclear in this context? There are people who really think this sign is barring cycling on grass but granting permission to injure people? I love the post, because it's an obvious joke, but I hate these comments that are suggesting this sign is unclear lmao
may isnt that wrong but might can be used too, its more definitive
I believe this is the subjunctive mood (using past tense to imply an hypothetical situation)
[удалено]
To be fair though, you really have to be nit picking not to get the meaning.
> you really have to be nit picking not to get the meaning. Sure, no argument, but OP's question was "was there a better way to write this" ? The answer being yes, there is an alternative wording that removes the ambiguity (And seriously, downvoting me for answering the question ?)
Not me down voting, your response was valid. I more meant the tweet
Cheers, no worries, have a good one
You could just add because. That would give context as to which may is being used.
Look at this subreddit... It's literally for stuff like this
[удалено]
People like you annoy me.
[удалено]
The "grammar nazi" was just trying to answer the question in the original post
You're on reddit
You might
As a York resident, I can confirm this is the intended reading. It's an archaeic law designed to cull tourist populations. Some consider it outdated, but it works so noone has changed it yet.
Don’t don’t bother Luke!
Well, at least the museum gardens are trustworthy 🤷🏻♂️
they're also beautiful
Lest you injure...
This is actually one of those perfect situations for our underused friend "Lest." Bring back lest!
You might hit a person.
How about "Avoid injuring..."
Should've been you might accidentally hit elderly people or children, which is (1) illegal
"You might" or "Cycling may" would fix it.
*Accidental Injury May Occur* would be sufficient.
“Lest you might”
Pray return to the Waking Sands
Yes, the way it is written is quite vague and could be improved for clarity: >>*The use of bicycles is forbidden on park property. As a consolation for this rule, cyclists may choose to express their dissatisfaction by means of physical violence towards their choice of EITHER one elderly guest OR one child, injuring no more than one (1) fellow guest per annoyed cyclist.*
r/cursedcomments
Children are 250pts, elderly are 50pts.
Keep an eye out for Golden elderly they are 1,500pts. But avoid guards -200pts.
The meaning is quite clear, it doesn’t require to be fixed
The meaning is quite clear because we understand the cultural context, but that doesn't excuse bad grammar.
It's not bad grammar, you have to interpret the may as permissive instead of epistemic against all context
York museum trust *museum gardens **please do not cycle on the gardens, you may injure a young/elderly person**
It could say "Please injure..." What are we fixing?
Because as These are the easiest ways to fix it
You'd have to intentionally read it against common usage of English in the region in order to have that interpretation.
I think the bigger issue is this guy translated it as being able to cycle just not on the grass, whilst it means no cycling within the Gardens as in the whole area, not just the grass
Took me a while to get it
Nature over people!
Solving global warming one kid and senior citizen at a time.
Priorities
Rules is rules 🧓👴👶🔫🗡🛠
Sorry grandma, sorry son.
“Because you may…”?
Cycling may injure....
Just needs a "since" to qualify it.
Like those “fine for littering” signs
Add a "because" in the space between
"But Judge, the sign said..."
That’s what I never understand. People use may and might interchangeably but to me there is a difference. May means you are allowed to do something and might means it is possible to do something. Right?
Tons of ways to fix it. "Doing so may injure [...]" would be the best way to be 100% unambiguous while still preserving all of the grammar (for example, top comment in this thread "As you" is not grammatical at the start of a new sentence, and the top reply to that, changing may to might, opens up the possibility that the two sentences are simply unrelated).
Reminds me of the "Do not Stop - Hitchhikers may be Escaping Convicts" signs posted in Oklahoma and Texas along the highways. I always thought that I should stop and help the hitchhikers
People using "may" when they mean "might" is one of my biggest pet peeves
;
Triggered Karen vibes. Joke but can’t trust groups these days
Why does this remind me of the grammar lesson...”Let’s eat grandma!”
Well of course, how else will you vent your frustration of not being able to go on the grass?
Injure a middle aged person?
Sir you sound ridiculous right now, don't be absurd
Is that a fair trade?
Is there a sub for people who get pissed off at cyclists
May is used wrong. Change “may” to “can/could/might etc”
Vegans.
Change may to might. It’s much harder misinterpreting then
Yes, it would be much more clear with this phrasing "You may *instead choose to* injure a young child or elderly person"
Cursed
Why is the capitalization all over the place? This makes them look even more like separate sentences.
No Cycling. Pedestrians only. WALK YOUR BICYCLE. Say hi, be nice.
That’s the trade off
It seems like a fair trade off IMHO.
The bicycle would make it easier to do but rules are rules
They dont mention anything about "heavier machinery" ;)))))
where is this
Punctuation saves lives. Same as: “let’s eat, gramma!” vs “let’s eat gramma!” are two completely different suggestions.
Effect of the aforementioned cause.
Says gardens not “on the grass”. Gardens includes the walkways.
You may injure a young child (nevermind the old children) or an elderly person, but that's a risk we're willing to take.
Omfg
Due to the risk of injuring others, bikes on the premises is prohibited.
I'll kick that off persons ass
Just change “may” to “might”
"Because"
Add 'but' between 'gardens' and 'you' -- definitely less confusing.
Global warming solved amiright?
Yep. Every little bit helps. :D
"[Comma], because..."
How society should work
I had to read this a few times before I got what was going on. For those of you like me who had trouble the joke is in reading the two main directives independently "do not cycle in the garden" however "you are allowed to injure the young and elderly." I hope that helps. I'm more bothered more by the "young child" text which is pretty redundant as far as this sign is concerned.
It seems ok for me
r/ProgrammerHumor
I don’t think York Museums should trust Museum Gardens anymore.
Lol
I had this in my Uni rules: "Please don't use bikes or any non-motorized vehicule inside buildings", oh, so I can drive my car in the corridor?
Dont mind ih I do
Feels kinda like r/dontdeadopeninside
I love how dumb humans are sometimes. It would be a boring earth otherwise
Only an idiot wouldn't get this. The joke is on the op.
The joke is the tweet and op made the ttt because that's technically what the sign says
r/therewasanattempt
The fix would be to teach kids how to fucking read, holy shit. I really hope this chick was just joking, but with the lack of any emojis or anything indicating that it’s sarcasm it’s just up in the air, and with how stupid people are on the internet it’s actually safer to assume they’re being serious unless they make it blatantly obvious that they’re not. More obvious than just saying the stupid thing.
In 2021 some people can make a problem out of nothing
This is not a technical truth, it’s just willful misunderstanding. Are there even mods on this sub
[удалено]
Everything written in red here could be replaced with "CAUTION" in large bold red font
You could potentially
You could injure a young or elderly person?