OK - I now understand your point. I don't think this, though, is a source of confusion, even though the wording is technically incorrect.I suspect it has to do with the same reason my "throw the cow over the fence some hay" example doesn't really confuse people who know about cows, fences, and hay. It is not logical that this really means throw a cow over the fence. So, readers, correct the mistake while reading without even thinking about it.

Just as clearly, the rule does not mean that the only time the BR is removed from the base is when she is the proper batter. Therefore, it MUST mean what it actually means.

Mike & everyone: I understood the rule, too. (So, Mike, I guess you get to choose why that is so about me, too.) However, due to the confused syntax, I also understand why some others might be confused by it.

OK. I think we understand each other. In my opinion, the insertion of unnecessary and technically incorrect language was confusing. Perhaps this affects me more than most people since my job is to see that writing is unambiguous.

Now:

<b>"throw the cow over the fence some hay"</b>

Or "She answered an ad for someone who could dance on the campus bulletin board."

It is true that no one will suffer permanant misunderstanding about the cow and the hay. People find the faulty syntax (not the grammar) humorous because, for a brief moment, it appears that someone is saying, "Throw the cow over the fence." When the listener hears "some hay." The meaning is clear.

Technically, "cow" at first appears to be the direct object of "throw" until "some hay" appears as the true direct object and renders "cow" the indirect object (throw <i>to the cow . . .</i>).

But there's still a minor ambiguity. The phrase "over the fence" probably modifies "throw," but it could modify "cow," as in, Q: Which cow? A: The cow over the fence, not the cow in the gully or the cow with the brown spots. Perhaps not likely, but plausible.

I have seen business and professional documents that have caused serious problems because an alternative meaning created by the same type of faulty syntax was plausible enough for readers to accept it as the true meaning.

As with rule books, the people doing the writing know what they mean, so they don't necessarily see the ways that people can misinterpret it.

But even Shakespeare wrote ambiguous lines, lines of which scholars still debate the meaning, and sometimes because of syntactical glitches similar to the one with the cow and the hay.

Anyone ever figure out why there is English and then there is American English?

Could it be due to generations removed from the English colonies had difficulty understanding the manner in which it was spoken, so the culture naturally modified THEIR language to the point where it facilitated communication among the citizens?

Or is it possible that it just became accepted because it was easier than teaching the King/Queen's English to those who never hear it?

Or is it because Americans are just too lazy to even attempt to get it correct?

And, yes, I know you should not begin a sentence with a conjunction, but in many circles, this has become an acceptable manner of expression and I used it just because I know it's got to irk someone on this board ;)

Admit it. In this country, people have started to write and type in the same manner in which they speak. There is no way to correct them without being labeled an obnoxious idiot. We live in an apathetic society that just does not care.

Rant off!

I don't care. :cool:

King's English:
http://www.wmich.edu/medieval/resear...OE/aelfric.gif

Translate to American, please! ;)

Yeah, right. Don King, maybe!

You made that mess, you clean it up.

<b>And, yes, I know you should not begin a sentence with a conjunction.</b>

Don't believe everything your teachers told you.

"And the evening and the morning were the first day."

"And the great shroud of the sea rolled on as it rolled five thousand years ago."

"And now was acknowledged the presence of the Red Death. He had come like a thief in the night. And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. And the life of the ebony clock went out with that of the last of the gay. And the flames of the tripods expired. And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all."

Regarding British versus American English, I often have the task of converting an entire ad campaign, journal article, or informational layout from British to American English or vice versa. For pharmaceuticals, the British also often use ™ where we use ®.

It's mostly spellings (color/colour; program/programme; ongoing/on-going; well-being/wellbeing; jewelry/jewellery; randomize/randomise; judgment/judgement; practice/practise; and zillions of others). The British also use different punctuation. And some common British words have meanings different from ours.

In America, if you visit someone at her residence, you "drop by her apartment." In the UK, you "knock her up." Some cross-cultural confusion possible there.

The British have a different word for cigarettes, too.

Winston Churchill said the UK and America were two countries separated by a common language.

If softball gets popular in the UK, someone will have to translate the ASA rule book into British English. In the UK, F1 pitches underarm, not underhand.

<font size = 5>IP</font> Would like to see that anyway.
:)

Because we have discussed what is involved with understanding the written word, I thought contributors to this thread would be interested to learn the consensus that was reached at a recent national forum of marketing consultants who specialize in pharmaceuticals:

<b>"The panel [of experts] reported that patient-education materials that are produced by pharmaceutical companies have to be written at the fourth- to the sixth-grade reading level if they are to be effective."</b>

(For the benefit of readers of this board, the <i>New York Times</i> is considered to be written at the eighth-grade level. Keep in mind, however, that in many American schools, few eighth-graders read at the eighth-grade level. Sometimes none do.)

Softball is very popular in the UK. They are part of the ESF and basically use modified ISF rules. I'm sure we have a few umpires on this board which work ESF games.

http://www.europeansoftball.org/