What does the phrase “to be only able to do X for subset Y is unacceptable” mean?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
What does the phrase “to be only able to do X for subset Y is unacceptable” mean?
Does it mean that the speaker is against doing X?
Or that they think effort should be made to expand X for other subsets?
If you want to stick with the pure language discussion and avoid the political correctness and ethics involved do not read below.
The question actually came as an argument whether the author of the phrase “To be only able to offer a product to one part of population is inequitable and should be unacceptable to the field” meant to say that the product should not be released as is or whether she called for more research. The phrase is from this article: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612322/white-people-only-dna-tests-show-how-unequal-science-has-become/
conditionals
asked Oct 30 at 10:35
Георги Кременлиев
42
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
What does the phrase “to be only able to do X for subset Y is unacceptable” mean?
Does it mean that the speaker is against doing X?
Or that they think effort should be made to expand X for other subsets?
If you want to stick with the pure language discussion and avoid the political correctness and ethics involved do not read below.
The question actually came as an argument whether the author of the phrase “To be only able to offer a product to one part of population is inequitable and should be unacceptable to the field” meant to say that the product should not be released as is or whether she called for more research. The phrase is from this article: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612322/white-people-only-dna-tests-show-how-unequal-science-has-become/
conditionals
asked Oct 30 at 10:35
Георги Кременлиев
42
She is saying two contradicting things - hence the dilemma: on the one hand she says that the product should be withheld until it can be made available to the entire population; on the other hand she says that the product should be released now, because it can save lives.
– michael.hor257k
Oct 30 at 10:46
I read it as an implicit suggestion that doing X is worthwhile, though that suggestion might be overruled by other things in the context; and an explicit statement that doing it only for Y is unacceptable. The writer says that this state should not continue, but leaves it completely open how to fix it. They probably do mean "If it X cannot be extended beyond Y then it shouldn't be done at all", but might mean other things.
– Colin Fine
Oct 30 at 10:50
How could that mean speaker, audience or anyone else was “against” anything, or that effort should be made to expand X (for other subsets)? If you want to move from a pure language discussion and look at political correctness or ethics, why not post the same wording on sites dealing with those?
– Robbie Goodwin
Nov 29 at 22:43
I don't want to move to the political correctness or ethics. I want to understand the meaning of the sentence. From PC POV though the meaning of the sentence is very relevant. Still the argument is very much a linguistic one. Also I would like to understand the downvote.
– Георги Кременлиев
20 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
What does the phrase “to be only able to do X for subset Y is unacceptable” mean?
Does it mean that the speaker is against doing X?
Or that they think effort should be made to expand X for other subsets?
If you want to stick with the pure language discussion and avoid the political correctness and ethics involved do not read below.
The question actually came as an argument whether the author of the phrase “To be only able to offer a product to one part of population is inequitable and should be unacceptable to the field” meant to say that the product should not be released as is or whether she called for more research. The phrase is from this article: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612322/white-people-only-dna-tests-show-how-unequal-science-has-become/
conditionals
asked Oct 30 at 10:35
Георги Кременлиев
42
What does the phrase “to be only able to do X for subset Y is unacceptable” mean?
Does it mean that the speaker is against doing X?
Or that they think effort should be made to expand X for other subsets?
If you want to stick with the pure language discussion and avoid the political correctness and ethics involved do not read below.
The question actually came as an argument whether the author of the phrase “To be only able to offer a product to one part of population is inequitable and should be unacceptable to the field” meant to say that the product should not be released as is or whether she called for more research. The phrase is from this article: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612322/white-people-only-dna-tests-show-how-unequal-science-has-become/
conditionals
conditionals
asked Oct 30 at 10:35
Георги Кременлиев
42
asked Oct 30 at 10:35
Георги Кременлиев
42
edited Oct 30 at 10:40
asked Oct 30 at 10:35
Георги Кременлиев
42
asked Oct 30 at 10:35
Георги Кременлиев
42
asked Oct 30 at 10:35
Георги Кременлиев
42
42
She is saying two contradicting things - hence the dilemma: on the one hand she says that the product should be withheld until it can be made available to the entire population; on the other hand she says that the product should be released now, because it can save lives.
– michael.hor257k
Oct 30 at 10:46
I read it as an implicit suggestion that doing X is worthwhile, though that suggestion might be overruled by other things in the context; and an explicit statement that doing it only for Y is unacceptable. The writer says that this state should not continue, but leaves it completely open how to fix it. They probably do mean "If it X cannot be extended beyond Y then it shouldn't be done at all", but might mean other things.
– Colin Fine
Oct 30 at 10:50
How could that mean speaker, audience or anyone else was “against” anything, or that effort should be made to expand X (for other subsets)? If you want to move from a pure language discussion and look at political correctness or ethics, why not post the same wording on sites dealing with those?
– Robbie Goodwin
Nov 29 at 22:43
I don't want to move to the political correctness or ethics. I want to understand the meaning of the sentence. From PC POV though the meaning of the sentence is very relevant. Still the argument is very much a linguistic one. Also I would like to understand the downvote.
– Георги Кременлиев
20 hours ago
add a comment |
She is saying two contradicting things - hence the dilemma: on the one hand she says that the product should be withheld until it can be made available to the entire population; on the other hand she says that the product should be released now, because it can save lives.
– michael.hor257k
Oct 30 at 10:46
I read it as an implicit suggestion that doing X is worthwhile, though that suggestion might be overruled by other things in the context; and an explicit statement that doing it only for Y is unacceptable. The writer says that this state should not continue, but leaves it completely open how to fix it. They probably do mean "If it X cannot be extended beyond Y then it shouldn't be done at all", but might mean other things.
– Colin Fine
Oct 30 at 10:50
How could that mean speaker, audience or anyone else was “against” anything, or that effort should be made to expand X (for other subsets)? If you want to move from a pure language discussion and look at political correctness or ethics, why not post the same wording on sites dealing with those?
– Robbie Goodwin
Nov 29 at 22:43
I don't want to move to the political correctness or ethics. I want to understand the meaning of the sentence. From PC POV though the meaning of the sentence is very relevant. Still the argument is very much a linguistic one. Also I would like to understand the downvote.
– Георги Кременлиев
20 hours ago
She is saying two contradicting things - hence the dilemma: on the one hand she says that the product should be withheld until it can be made available to the entire population; on the other hand she says that the product should be released now, because it can save lives.
– michael.hor257k
Oct 30 at 10:46
She is saying two contradicting things - hence the dilemma: on the one hand she says that the product should be withheld until it can be made available to the entire population; on the other hand she says that the product should be released now, because it can save lives.
– michael.hor257k
Oct 30 at 10:46
I read it as an implicit suggestion that doing X is worthwhile, though that suggestion might be overruled by other things in the context; and an explicit statement that doing it only for Y is unacceptable. The writer says that this state should not continue, but leaves it completely open how to fix it. They probably do mean "If it X cannot be extended beyond Y then it shouldn't be done at all", but might mean other things.
– Colin Fine
Oct 30 at 10:50
I read it as an implicit suggestion that doing X is worthwhile, though that suggestion might be overruled by other things in the context; and an explicit statement that doing it only for Y is unacceptable. The writer says that this state should not continue, but leaves it completely open how to fix it. They probably do mean "If it X cannot be extended beyond Y then it shouldn't be done at all", but might mean other things.
– Colin Fine
Oct 30 at 10:50
How could that mean speaker, audience or anyone else was “against” anything, or that effort should be made to expand X (for other subsets)? If you want to move from a pure language discussion and look at political correctness or ethics, why not post the same wording on sites dealing with those?
– Robbie Goodwin
Nov 29 at 22:43
How could that mean speaker, audience or anyone else was “against” anything, or that effort should be made to expand X (for other subsets)? If you want to move from a pure language discussion and look at political correctness or ethics, why not post the same wording on sites dealing with those?
– Robbie Goodwin
Nov 29 at 22:43
I don't want to move to the political correctness or ethics. I want to understand the meaning of the sentence. From PC POV though the meaning of the sentence is very relevant. Still the argument is very much a linguistic one. Also I would like to understand the downvote.
– Георги Кременлиев
20 hours ago
I don't want to move to the political correctness or ethics. I want to understand the meaning of the sentence. From PC POV though the meaning of the sentence is very relevant. Still the argument is very much a linguistic one. Also I would like to understand the downvote.
– Георги Кременлиев
20 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
This is interesting, because the placement of "only" can be very confusing, and is supposed to adhere to strict rules regarding its position in the sentence. However, most speakers of English do not stick to these rules, as their meaning is generally obvious when other clues, such as context are taken into account.
I would assume here that the speaker believes that X should be made available to other subsets, not just Y. However, I can only tell that by looking at the actual sentence and its context.
Here what the speaker should have said is:
"To be able to do X for only subset Y is unacceptable"
This is because "only" should be placed as close as possible to the word or phrase that it modifies. However, like most speakers of English, the speaker here is not conforming to this rather strict rule, as the meaning can be gleaned from the context. Also, sticking blindly to this rule can sometimes make speech sound a little archaic (IMO).
For some more examples, see this website: https://getitwriteonline.com/articles/placement-of-only/
answered Oct 30 at 15:01
Tim Foster
41210
Would your answer change if X cannot physically be made available for other subsets?
– Георги Кременлиев
Oct 30 at 15:11
Perhaps, but again it would depend on context. In this context it seems like people are working to get X available for other subsets.
– Tim Foster
Oct 30 at 15:17
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
This is interesting, because the placement of "only" can be very confusing, and is supposed to adhere to strict rules regarding its position in the sentence. However, most speakers of English do not stick to these rules, as their meaning is generally obvious when other clues, such as context are taken into account.
I would assume here that the speaker believes that X should be made available to other subsets, not just Y. However, I can only tell that by looking at the actual sentence and its context.
Here what the speaker should have said is:
"To be able to do X for only subset Y is unacceptable"
This is because "only" should be placed as close as possible to the word or phrase that it modifies. However, like most speakers of English, the speaker here is not conforming to this rather strict rule, as the meaning can be gleaned from the context. Also, sticking blindly to this rule can sometimes make speech sound a little archaic (IMO).
For some more examples, see this website: https://getitwriteonline.com/articles/placement-of-only/
answered Oct 30 at 15:01
Tim Foster
41210
Would your answer change if X cannot physically be made available for other subsets?
– Георги Кременлиев
Oct 30 at 15:11
Perhaps, but again it would depend on context. In this context it seems like people are working to get X available for other subsets.
– Tim Foster
Oct 30 at 15:17
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
This is interesting, because the placement of "only" can be very confusing, and is supposed to adhere to strict rules regarding its position in the sentence. However, most speakers of English do not stick to these rules, as their meaning is generally obvious when other clues, such as context are taken into account.
I would assume here that the speaker believes that X should be made available to other subsets, not just Y. However, I can only tell that by looking at the actual sentence and its context.
Here what the speaker should have said is:
"To be able to do X for only subset Y is unacceptable"
This is because "only" should be placed as close as possible to the word or phrase that it modifies. However, like most speakers of English, the speaker here is not conforming to this rather strict rule, as the meaning can be gleaned from the context. Also, sticking blindly to this rule can sometimes make speech sound a little archaic (IMO).
For some more examples, see this website: https://getitwriteonline.com/articles/placement-of-only/
answered Oct 30 at 15:01
Tim Foster
41210
Would your answer change if X cannot physically be made available for other subsets?
– Георги Кременлиев
Oct 30 at 15:11
Perhaps, but again it would depend on context. In this context it seems like people are working to get X available for other subsets.
– Tim Foster
Oct 30 at 15:17
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
This is interesting, because the placement of "only" can be very confusing, and is supposed to adhere to strict rules regarding its position in the sentence. However, most speakers of English do not stick to these rules, as their meaning is generally obvious when other clues, such as context are taken into account.
I would assume here that the speaker believes that X should be made available to other subsets, not just Y. However, I can only tell that by looking at the actual sentence and its context.
Here what the speaker should have said is:
"To be able to do X for only subset Y is unacceptable"
This is because "only" should be placed as close as possible to the word or phrase that it modifies. However, like most speakers of English, the speaker here is not conforming to this rather strict rule, as the meaning can be gleaned from the context. Also, sticking blindly to this rule can sometimes make speech sound a little archaic (IMO).
For some more examples, see this website: https://getitwriteonline.com/articles/placement-of-only/
answered Oct 30 at 15:01
Tim Foster
41210
This is interesting, because the placement of "only" can be very confusing, and is supposed to adhere to strict rules regarding its position in the sentence. However, most speakers of English do not stick to these rules, as their meaning is generally obvious when other clues, such as context are taken into account.
I would assume here that the speaker believes that X should be made available to other subsets, not just Y. However, I can only tell that by looking at the actual sentence and its context.
Here what the speaker should have said is:
"To be able to do X for only subset Y is unacceptable"
This is because "only" should be placed as close as possible to the word or phrase that it modifies. However, like most speakers of English, the speaker here is not conforming to this rather strict rule, as the meaning can be gleaned from the context. Also, sticking blindly to this rule can sometimes make speech sound a little archaic (IMO).
For some more examples, see this website: https://getitwriteonline.com/articles/placement-of-only/
answered Oct 30 at 15:01
Tim Foster
41210
answered Oct 30 at 15:01
Tim Foster
41210
answered Oct 30 at 15:01
Tim Foster
41210
answered Oct 30 at 15:01
Tim Foster
41210
41210
Would your answer change if X cannot physically be made available for other subsets?
– Георги Кременлиев
Oct 30 at 15:11
Perhaps, but again it would depend on context. In this context it seems like people are working to get X available for other subsets.
– Tim Foster
Oct 30 at 15:17
add a comment |
Would your answer change if X cannot physically be made available for other subsets?
– Георги Кременлиев
Oct 30 at 15:11
Perhaps, but again it would depend on context. In this context it seems like people are working to get X available for other subsets.
– Tim Foster
Oct 30 at 15:17
Would your answer change if X cannot physically be made available for other subsets?
– Георги Кременлиев
Oct 30 at 15:11
Would your answer change if X cannot physically be made available for other subsets?
– Георги Кременлиев
Oct 30 at 15:11
Perhaps, but again it would depend on context. In this context it seems like people are working to get X available for other subsets.
– Tim Foster
Oct 30 at 15:17
Perhaps, but again it would depend on context. In this context it seems like people are working to get X available for other subsets.
– Tim Foster
Oct 30 at 15:17
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f470752%2fwhat-does-the-phrase-to-be-only-able-to-do-x-for-subset-y-is-unacceptable-mean%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
She is saying two contradicting things - hence the dilemma: on the one hand she says that the product should be withheld until it can be made available to the entire population; on the other hand she says that the product should be released now, because it can save lives.
– michael.hor257k
Oct 30 at 10:46
I read it as an implicit suggestion that doing X is worthwhile, though that suggestion might be overruled by other things in the context; and an explicit statement that doing it only for Y is unacceptable. The writer says that this state should not continue, but leaves it completely open how to fix it. They probably do mean "If it X cannot be extended beyond Y then it shouldn't be done at all", but might mean other things.
– Colin Fine
Oct 30 at 10:50
How could that mean speaker, audience or anyone else was “against” anything, or that effort should be made to expand X (for other subsets)? If you want to move from a pure language discussion and look at political correctness or ethics, why not post the same wording on sites dealing with those?
– Robbie Goodwin
Nov 29 at 22:43
I don't want to move to the political correctness or ethics. I want to understand the meaning of the sentence. From PC POV though the meaning of the sentence is very relevant. Still the argument is very much a linguistic one. Also I would like to understand the downvote.
– Георги Кременлиев
20 hours ago