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.
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.
Imagine Kennedy gave an amazing speech about “landing an American on the moon” and then sent him up aboard a Russian rocket. I’m guessing most people wouldn’t have been like “Well, technically that’s accurate. Well done Mr. President.”
Ok, but the space agency in charge is…still NASA. These aren’t American astronauts doing a ride-along on a Japanese mission, it’s literally the opposite.
Headline: “the astronaut landing on the moon won’t be an American”
Article: “some non-Americans will be accompanying Americans on an American mission to the moon”
Those claims are not the same.
The first non-American will step foot on the moon. How is that not what the headline says?
The headline implies that only non-Americans will be landing on the moon.
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.
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.
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.
Yes it does.
Imagine Kennedy gave an amazing speech about “landing an American on the moon” and then sent him up aboard a Russian rocket. I’m guessing most people wouldn’t have been like “Well, technically that’s accurate. Well done Mr. President.”
This isn’t about the rocket, it’s about the national origin and the space agency that sent the person
Ok, but the space agency in charge is…still NASA. These aren’t American astronauts doing a ride-along on a Japanese mission, it’s literally the opposite.
It only mentions the person, not the agency.
The article mentions the agency and OP brought agencies into the conversation in the message I replied to. I wouldn’t have hit on it otherwise.
Removed by mod