Does anyone see ambiguity in this headline about Zalman King?
Erotic Filmmaker Dies
That's the way several news reports mention his death but I think a dash is missing. IMO, it should read
Erotic-Filmmaker Dies
Otherwise you can assume he himself was a porn practioner, rather than the subject of films he produced.
February 06, 2012, 02:26
arnie
I disagree, and can see no ambiguity. I certainly wouldn't use a hyphen there.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
February 06, 2012, 09:32
goofy
I see the potential ambiguity, but I think it's obvious what is intended. Also I'm not sure how a hyphen would help. We don't normally use a hyphen in that sort of construction, do we?
February 06, 2012, 15:56
<Proofreader>
Ahy, but if it was obvious, I wouldn't have mentioned it. Was he a horny film maker or were his movies horn-inspirers? A dash to link "erotic" with "film" would clear it up.
February 06, 2012, 17:08
zmježd
Having known about Zalman King before his demise, I knew he was a maker of erotic films. Now if the headline were "horny filmmaker dies" I'd know what that meant, too. No hyphen is warranted.
—Ceci n'est pas un seing.
February 06, 2012, 17:24
goofy
quote:
Originally posted by Proofreader: Ahy, but if it was obvious, I wouldn't have mentioned it. Was he a horny film maker or were his movies horn-inspirers? A dash to link "erotic" with "film" would clear it up.
I still don't see how a hyphen would make it clearer. We just don't use a hyphen in this construction. If I make historical films, am I a historical-filmmaker?
February 06, 2012, 19:00
Kalleh
Maybe a hyphen isn't the answer, but I absolutely see Proof's point (remember, there are a lot of us literal readers around!). I didn't know Zalman so with the former headline, I'd have thought him erotic.
If a hyphen isn't the answer, perhaps rewording the headline is.
February 07, 2012, 01:18
arnie
quote:
I'd have thought him erotic
Would you really, Kalleh? Or is that hindsight perhaps? Remember that a person wouldn't normally be described as "erotic", that word would normally refer to a thing.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
February 07, 2012, 08:08
<Proofreader>
quote:
a person wouldn't normally be described as "erotic",
Better tell that to Webster's New World which has a def "noun an erotic person"
February 07, 2012, 13:37
goofy
quote:
Originally posted by Proofreader: Better tell that to Webster's New World which has a def "noun an erotic person"
But that can't be the definition in "erotic filmmaker". In that construction it's an adjective, not a noun. Or if it is a noun, it's not modifying King. It's the same construction as "horror filmmaker" or "crime filmmaker".This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,
February 07, 2012, 15:51
Geoff
To me it would be clear if it were to say, "erotic film maker." I have no idea what a filmmaker is.
In Lynn We Truss
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. -J. Krishnamurti
February 07, 2012, 18:56
Kalleh
quote:
Would you really, Kalleh? Or is that hindsight perhaps?
arnie, do you remember my story about my friend from Hawaii? She married a man from China, and their tradition was that she had to go back to China with him to meet his parents, and as she told it to me, "Pour tea on my knees." We were with a number of people at the time, and I blurted out, "Wouldn't you get burned?" Everyone looked at me, not realizing what I was talking about...and then they laughed. So you see, there are some of us who are certified Amelia Bedelias. I was not being cute; I really envisioned her pouring hot tea on her knees.
In this case, I'd like to think I'd read it correctly. But I don't know. Better to write a clear headline.
