trackist wrote:
English is ambiguous so technically the phrase in parentheses could apply to Ritz and Hartmann or just Hartmann.
It wasn't just a phrase, it was a phrase phrased in the singular. Great races for Ritz and Hartmann (who set *A* huge PR).
There is no *correct* interpretation other than Hartmann set a PR, unless you incorrectly assume that they were running as a team.
'm the guy who originally told him his argument was dumb but I think he explains it well. Personally I still think there's way too much "don't criticize if you can't do it" attitude in running but this guy makes valid points. At any rate, I think most of us can agree that asking someone if they're in high school to try to dismiss their argument is about as dumb as you can go.
_____________________________________________
Thanks and I think there's s fine line between what the guy said and being critical of race tactics.
One time, during one of those frustratingly slow 1500's, Craig Masback said that the race strategy can't be good for everybody- he critisized MOST of the field.
OR
During an OT final when 12 guys are trying to get 3 spots and someone questions why the guys without the A standard aren't going for it- that's fine and it's a valid criticism.
But the way that guy put it was wrong.
I DO think there is a need for interesting discussion which includes intelligent criticism.
webby wrote:
trackist wrote:English is ambiguous so technically the phrase in parentheses could apply to Ritz and Hartmann or just Hartmann.
It wasn't just a phrase, it was a phrase phrased in the singular. Great races for Ritz and Hartmann (who set *A* huge PR).
There is no *correct* interpretation other than Hartmann set a PR, unless you incorrectly assume that they were running as a team.
No each person sets their own PR. you don't' have a joint PR. This you'd say ritz ran a PR an Hartman ran a PR. Not Ritz and Hartman ran they're PR.
fantastic result for RITZ.
HE RAN WITH a 2:03 marathoner who's broken 59 for the half.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_Kipsang
and he took out a load of b-grade africans as well.
meucci ran over his pay grade by quite a bit, or maybe he got a raise.
http://www.iaaf.org/athletes/italy/daniele-meucci
it is really tough for guys that are all time greats at the mile to run this distance.
coe - ovett - cram - aouita - elliot - walker - bayi - morcelli - l-g, ngeny - what did they run for 10k or the half?
with this in mind, LAGAT in 62 and a half is a great result.
he's on track to have his speed come last lap with moe.
Speaketh the truth wrote:
way to get passed at the End Ritz. The americans have no killer instinct.
What's particularly annoying about this sort of comment is that Ritz might well have finished ahead of Meucci if he had run for second place instead instead of trying to hang with Kipsang and take his shot at first place.
trackist wrote:
Montesquieu wrote:I'm not a dude, and you need to learn how parentheses work in the English language.[quote]
Speaketh the truth wrote:
Ritz did NOT set a PR dude.
English is ambiguous so technically the phrase in parentheses could apply to Ritz and Hartmann or just Hartmann. The significance of the term "both" preceding Ritz and Hartmann suggests that the parenthetical phrase applies to both of the runners. To be more clear, indicate specifically that you refer to the later, as in:
Excellent days, especially given the low temps and slow opening miles, for both Ritz and Hartmann (the latter of whom set a huge PR).
Perhaps more interesting would be to debate the use of commas here (vs. emdash, for example).
PR was singular, not plural. The only real mistake was the idiot who flamed at the beginning that Ritz did not set one. In terms of brief exposition, putting in the whom is really almost out of place and awkward; this is not a newspaper report where it WOULD be appropriate to have it in.
Again, first guy to complain was an idiot in multiple ways - flaming someone when they cannot parse correctly written English prose is the height of bad form (when you are being a jerk, you better be right rather than embarrassingly wrong).
26mi235 wrote:
trackist wrote:English is ambiguous so technically the phrase in parentheses could apply to Ritz and Hartmann or just Hartmann. The significance of the term "both" preceding Ritz and Hartmann suggests that the parenthetical phrase applies to both of the runners. To be more clear, indicate specifically that you refer to the later, as in:
Excellent days, especially given the low temps and slow opening miles, for both Ritz and Hartmann (the latter of whom set a huge PR).
Perhaps more interesting would be to debate the use of commas here (vs. emdash, for example).
PR was singular, not plural. The only real mistake was the idiot who flamed at the beginning that Ritz did not set one. In terms of brief exposition, putting in the whom is really almost out of place and awkward; this is not a newspaper report where it WOULD be appropriate to have it in.
Again, first guy to complain was an idiot in multiple ways - flaming someone when they cannot parse correctly written English prose is the height of bad form (when you are being a jerk, you better be right rather than embarrassingly wrong).
The only thing awkward about the whom is that it's poor english. There is no justification for using the accusitive, it's simply wrong. This guy is however right that the fact that PR is singular does eliminate the possibility that both runners set PRs.