Then it's odd that so many people, myself included, interpreted it that way.
It doesn't mean it's true.
I'm pretty sure what something implies is dependent upon the reader's interpretation. And it looks like many readers think it implies that a non-American is about to land on the moon even if you didn't think so.
The writers intention. You can read there being an implication, but it doesn't mean it is implied.
Please tell me how you are able to figure out what the writer's intention is from a headline.
Because I would think that would require reading the article and no one is complaining about the contents of the article.
Tell me how you can, perhaps? I can figure it out because... I can? And the article backs that up.
"I can tell the author's intent because I can" is circular reasoning and is not rational or logical. What that tells me is that you know that the author's intent cannot easily be discerned from a headline other than taking it at face value, but you've been backed into a corner and refuse to admit it.
you’ve been backed into a corner and refuse to admit it.
Another example which is wrong.
That's not an example.
But if you are actually claiming that you can tell an author's intent from the title, I assume you would know that O. Henry intended "The Gift of the Magi" to be ironic, right? Because that must have really ruined the ending for you.
Similarly, the end of "The Wizard of Oz" where it turns out that title is actually meant to be a ruse because the wizard is not actually a wizard must have been a huge disappointment to you.
The rest of us, however, do not have this special ability you have and have to take titles at face value until we read the context.
That’s not an example.
Great that it only applies to others and not yourself.
Did you not read the rest of my post?
Did you know without reading the book, watching the film or even just hearing the plot that there was no wizard in The Wizard of Oz? You knew it just from reading the title?
And let's talk about movies- you would know without knowing anything about those films that "Chinatown" does not take place in Chinatown and "Fargo" does not take place in Fargo apart from a few seconds, right?
So, you can read the context to find that the way I interpreted it was the correct way.
Which is what people did. And which is not what people's problem is.
No. The article also says you are not correct. You didn't tell me how you can understand it other than what you think. The same logic.
We are not talking about the article, we are talking about the headline.
Which is a way to verify your interpretation is wrong.
This is not something anyone has disputed. This is about the first impression upon reading the headline.
Yeah, you're correct. It's not vague at all. One astronaut is not American and that's what he headline says.
It says "an astronaut is landing on the moon" implying there is only one on this mission.
Furthermore, is implies it's imminent. Which is also not true.
It doesn't. Present Continuous is used for future plans.
If I say "my brother is traveling to France," that doesn't mean "at some point in the future, my brother will travel to France."
At least I've never heard anyone use "is" followed by an action that way.
It's very clunky in its usage. Which isn't good English, but neither is the title, so I'm over it.
Perhaps you're not a native speaker, but it absolutely is used that way in real life. My brother is travelling to France in August, for example.
So you mean if you add a qualifier, that changes the meaning?
Are you saying that as he goes to France in August, you would never say "my brother is traveling to France?"
And you still haven't answered me about The Wizard of Oz and Fargo.
Because I do not care for weird analogies.
You added an example, I made it make clearer sense for you, someone who had never heard of Present Continuous for plans in their lives, apparently.
I'm waking up early tomorrow, so I'm done.
So you wouldn't say "my brother is traveling to France" while he's on the plane? What do you say? "My brother is will be were traveling to France?"
And you claimed you could infer an author's intent from a title. Therefore you can tell me that you knew for a fact before seeing or hearing about the movie Fargo just from the title alone that only a few seconds of the film took place in Fargo. Correct or not?
It doesn't, it refers to one but can be of many. A person is attending a football match for the first time today. It doesn't mean no one else is.
No. The sentence you posted implies a football match was never before attended by any person.
If you want to say one of many, you should say Some person/someone.
Or you can qualify the person. E.g. A non-american astronaut will be landing on the moon for the first time.
Nope, because you know football matches have been attended by people. Ignoring basic facts doesn't make your understand correct, it's silly.
Yes, so we are talking about a sentence in the headline where we don't have extra context, yet you make an sentence where it is clear the sentence is stupid based on outside context and argue it should be interpreted the other way around because otherwise we know it is stupid. Amazing logic.
Just because I can deduce what you actually meant does not mean the sentence is correct.
You have kept your eyes and ears shut your whole life?
I for one don't know how many astronauts are being sent to the moon when. And if most people do, no point writing this article, is there?
We know people have been to the moon before.
So what? No one is saying the sentence says or implies for the first time. It just implies one person will be going this time.
So you know the context. It doesn't imply that, just a faulty assumption/logical fallacy.
That is like me saying there is one pope and your takeaway is there is at least one. Yes, the sentence does not explicitly state there is only one, but it strongly implies it, just like the title.
It doesn't state it, and it's not really important if it's one of a few on a crew (as you would expect).
It doesn't.
Then it's odd that so many people, myself included, interpreted it that way.
It doesn't mean it's true.
I'm pretty sure what something implies is dependent upon the reader's interpretation. And it looks like many readers think it implies that a non-American is about to land on the moon even if you didn't think so.
The writers intention. You can read there being an implication, but it doesn't mean it is implied.
Please tell me how you are able to figure out what the writer's intention is from a headline.
Because I would think that would require reading the article and no one is complaining about the contents of the article.
Tell me how you can, perhaps? I can figure it out because... I can? And the article backs that up.
"I can tell the author's intent because I can" is circular reasoning and is not rational or logical. What that tells me is that you know that the author's intent cannot easily be discerned from a headline other than taking it at face value, but you've been backed into a corner and refuse to admit it.
Another example which is wrong.
That's not an example.
But if you are actually claiming that you can tell an author's intent from the title, I assume you would know that O. Henry intended "The Gift of the Magi" to be ironic, right? Because that must have really ruined the ending for you.
Similarly, the end of "The Wizard of Oz" where it turns out that title is actually meant to be a ruse because the wizard is not actually a wizard must have been a huge disappointment to you.
The rest of us, however, do not have this special ability you have and have to take titles at face value until we read the context.
Great that it only applies to others and not yourself.
Did you not read the rest of my post?
Did you know without reading the book, watching the film or even just hearing the plot that there was no wizard in The Wizard of Oz? You knew it just from reading the title?
And let's talk about movies- you would know without knowing anything about those films that "Chinatown" does not take place in Chinatown and "Fargo" does not take place in Fargo apart from a few seconds, right?
So, you can read the context to find that the way I interpreted it was the correct way.
Which is what people did. And which is not what people's problem is.
No. The article also says you are not correct. You didn't tell me how you can understand it other than what you think. The same logic.
We are not talking about the article, we are talking about the headline.
Which is a way to verify your interpretation is wrong.
This is not something anyone has disputed. This is about the first impression upon reading the headline.
Yeah, you're correct. It's not vague at all. One astronaut is not American and that's what he headline says.
It says "an astronaut is landing on the moon" implying there is only one on this mission.
Furthermore, is implies it's imminent. Which is also not true.
It doesn't. Present Continuous is used for future plans.
If I say "my brother is traveling to France," that doesn't mean "at some point in the future, my brother will travel to France."
At least I've never heard anyone use "is" followed by an action that way.
It's very clunky in its usage. Which isn't good English, but neither is the title, so I'm over it.
Perhaps you're not a native speaker, but it absolutely is used that way in real life. My brother is travelling to France in August, for example.
So you mean if you add a qualifier, that changes the meaning?
Are you saying that as he goes to France in August, you would never say "my brother is traveling to France?"
And you still haven't answered me about The Wizard of Oz and Fargo.
Because I do not care for weird analogies.
You added an example, I made it make clearer sense for you, someone who had never heard of Present Continuous for plans in their lives, apparently.
I'm waking up early tomorrow, so I'm done.
So you wouldn't say "my brother is traveling to France" while he's on the plane? What do you say? "My brother is will be were traveling to France?"
And you claimed you could infer an author's intent from a title. Therefore you can tell me that you knew for a fact before seeing or hearing about the movie Fargo just from the title alone that only a few seconds of the film took place in Fargo. Correct or not?
It doesn't, it refers to one but can be of many. A person is attending a football match for the first time today. It doesn't mean no one else is.
No. The sentence you posted implies a football match was never before attended by any person.
If you want to say one of many, you should say Some person/someone.
Or you can qualify the person. E.g. A non-american astronaut will be landing on the moon for the first time.
Nope, because you know football matches have been attended by people. Ignoring basic facts doesn't make your understand correct, it's silly.
Yes, so we are talking about a sentence in the headline where we don't have extra context, yet you make an sentence where it is clear the sentence is stupid based on outside context and argue it should be interpreted the other way around because otherwise we know it is stupid. Amazing logic.
Just because I can deduce what you actually meant does not mean the sentence is correct.
You have kept your eyes and ears shut your whole life?
I for one don't know how many astronauts are being sent to the moon when. And if most people do, no point writing this article, is there?
We know people have been to the moon before.
So what? No one is saying the sentence says or implies for the first time. It just implies one person will be going this time.
So you know the context. It doesn't imply that, just a faulty assumption/logical fallacy.
That is like me saying there is one pope and your takeaway is there is at least one. Yes, the sentence does not explicitly state there is only one, but it strongly implies it, just like the title.
It doesn't state it, and it's not really important if it's one of a few on a crew (as you would expect).
Yes it does.