Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
Ambiguous or not?
Yes and no!
Yes and no!
Ambiguous or not?
- Thread starter FoxEye
- Start date
Well yeah you could interpret it in two ways - the brackets referring to either "you and your immediate family" or "your immediate family"
Now given that 2 adults are mentioned it seems rather likely that it refers to two parents and their kids so "you and your immediate family"
There's some degree of ambiguity because there are two possible interpretations of what "(max 2 adults and 3 children)" applies to:
1) It applies to "you and your immediate family", in which case the max is 2 adults and 3 children.
2) It applies to "your immediate family", in which case the max is you and 2 adults and 3 children.
The use of the word "and" in the sentence could be interpreted as seperating the two things referred to and thus associating the stated restriction with the second one. English can work that way, so it's a valid interpretation and thus there is some degree of ambiguity.
1) It applies to "you and your immediate family", in which case the max is 2 adults and 3 children.
2) It applies to "your immediate family", in which case the max is you and 2 adults and 3 children.
The use of the word "and" in the sentence could be interpreted as seperating the two things referred to and thus associating the stated restriction with the second one. English can work that way, so it's a valid interpretation and thus there is some degree of ambiguity.
Thanks, all.
I'm actually about to argue that it -is- ambiguous, and that 1+Max(2+3) is a valid interpretation.
So I'm glad for the responses along those lines
Must be something about us coders... (need *)((brackets) everywhere or (I can't be sure) what you) -> mean()
Just wasn't sure if I was being totally unreasonable. Appears not. Hurrah
I'm actually about to argue that it -is- ambiguous, and that 1+Max(2+3) is a valid interpretation.
So I'm glad for the responses along those lines
Must be something about us coders... (need *)((brackets) everywhere or (I can't be sure) what you) -> mean()Just wasn't sure if I was being totally unreasonable. Appears not. Hurrah
To the extent it could be argued to be ambiguous, ‘3 adults’ is nevertheless not a reasonable interpretation of what it is intended to mean, IMHO.
In other words, ambiguity does not necessarily mean than each interpretation is as reasonable as the other.
In other words, ambiguity does not necessarily mean than each interpretation is as reasonable as the other.
Last edited:
There is also no universal standard of "reasonableness", so what you might find unreasonable another might find reasonable.
At least one poster here has said that 1+Max(2,3) is reasonable, in their eyes.
Perhaps you should flip it on its head and ask the question: how many people think it would be unreasonable to say it means 2 adults max (including yourself)?
I think the answer to that question, allowing for ambiguity, is almost (if not actually) nil. I am certain the answer to that questions is ‘less people than the number of people that think it would be unreasonable to say it means 3 adults max (including yourself)’.
Therefore the most reasonable interpretation, out of all of those possible, is that it means 2 adults max (including yourself).
I'd say context is somewhat relevant though. If you've just won a family holiday and you're trying to argue you should be able to take your mum and dad and three younger siblings, I'd say you're probably pushing your luck as the obvious expected context is 2 parents and 3 kids. Other situations would obviously carry different expectations.
Have you read the thread about commuting in motors? I wouldn't be surprised if there were people who would argue it meant 12 adults and 47 children
What if I was driving to Tesco with 3 adults and 1 child, had valid commuting insurance, and put the tickets on the spare passenger seat?
What if 5 people went, all of whom were adults but 3 of whom were children of the other 2? 
I assumed this thread was about language. If it's a real world example, I'd be fairly sure that the person who wrote those words intended them to mean a maximum of 2 adults and 3 children, 5 people in total. That's not exactly what they wrote, but I think it's probably what they meant.
I assumed this thread was about language. If it's a real world example, I'd be fairly sure that the person who wrote those words intended them to mean a maximum of 2 adults and 3 children, 5 people in total. That's not exactly what they wrote, but I think it's probably what they meant.
It was an offer, which we successfully took up last year, with 3 adults and 1 child. This year we were invited again, and so took the same party as last year. This time, however, the attendant flat up said I was an idiot who couldn't count, because "Plainly I can see three adults in front of me". Her other line was "Everybody else understood but you. What does that tell you?"What if 5 people went, all of whom were adults but 3 of whom were children of the other 2?
I assumed this thread was about language. If it's a real world example, I'd be fairly sure that the person who wrote those words intended them to mean a maximum of 2 adults and 3 children, 5 people in total. That's not exactly what they wrote, but I think it's probably what they meant.
We didn't argue, we went to the beach instead. It was no big deal. But due to the attendant's rudeness, I'm considering making a complaint. I was going to add a bit about how there was more than one valid interpretation of their email to us, inviting us to attend. Plainly, in fact, since last year we all got in, and in all likelihood the offer was the same then as now. Although naturally I don't keep emails like that to check.
Your logic doesn't hold.
I don't have to prove that the other interpretation is unreasonable, to assert that my interpretation is reasonable.
Because they can both be reasonable.
What I'm arguing is that it could mean either, not that it can only mean (admittedly the less common) interpretation. It doesn't even matter that one interpretation is less common - why would it? The only way for any interpretation to be unreasonable, is if there were no grounds for that interpretation. Ie, a failure of logic, comprehension... whereby it would be impossible for anyone to hold that interpretation.
They could have said "max party size 2 adults and 3 children" and it would have removed all doubt. "You and your immediate family (max 2 adults and 3 children)" is not 100% unambiguous, because the condition is not clearly applied to either "your immediate family" or "you and your immediate family".
I agree that it's not 100% unambiguous.
However, I would interpret it as 'two adults and three children, including you' every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
The attendant clearly needs some lessons in customer service, and the fact that you were admitted last year is understandably confusing, but I'd be surprised if they changed the wording even if you did make a complaint.
I'd chalk it up to 'one of those things' and move on.
However, I would interpret it as 'two adults and three children, including you' every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
The attendant clearly needs some lessons in customer service, and the fact that you were admitted last year is understandably confusing, but I'd be surprised if they changed the wording even if you did make a complaint.
I'd chalk it up to 'one of those things' and move on.
This, basically. However, in the attendant's shoes I'd have let you in and had someone change the wording. I originally read your OP and interpreted it instantly as 'you and some family, max overall 2+3'. However, after reading your interpretation of you + (a max of 2+3) I couldn't fault that way of looking at it either. You just read it differently. What they perhaps should have said is "We invite you, along with some members of your immediate family if desired (max overall party size of 2 adults and 3 children)".
Same here. As an additional point, if I was making the decision I would consider the overall cost. Does 1 adult cost more than 2 children? If not, then I'd be inclined to let 3 adults and 1 child in as being close enough to 2 adults and 3 children.
you are a person in GD
I'd read it as 2 adults including the OP, but I guess I can see why there is a possible ambiguity re: whether the brackets apply to "you and your immediate family" or just "your immediate family".
Why do you believe there is no ambiguity out of interest?