# Do car journalists know anything about cars?



## jjosh (Oct 13, 2013)

***I know see the error of my ways, it's been a while since I did a reading comprehension exam and I wasnt great at them to start with!***

Was reading a piece in the Telegraph this morning about the just unveiled RS3 and it starts:

"In a world chock full of performance cars, Audi's RS models invariably stand out as highly accomplished missiles with very little compromise in terms of practicality."

Sounds like a catchy opening, and I bet makes sense to those less familiar with the Audi range but....

Isn't this exactly the opposite of what they're known for. The RS4 and RS6 are pretty much as practical as you can get for a performance car, hell the RS6 is an Avant, you could get at least a dozen Swedish flatpack bookcases in it! Maybe it's impractical for using more fuel or for costing more to service? But thats all I can think of.

In fact the only Audi's I could understand being called 'impractical are the TT and R8, of which there isn't even a current RS model in production. I think I woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, there's so much [email protected] being penned these days!


----------



## Danny1 (Sep 2, 2010)

jjosh said:


> Was reading a piece in the Telegraph this morning about the just unveiled RS3 and it starts:
> 
> "In a world chock full of performance cars, Audi's RS models invariably stand out as highly accomplished missiles with very little compromise in terms of practicality."
> 
> ...


Mate, the statement is praising the practicality of the RS models.....


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

Most car Journos do know about cars, but you have to bear in mind the 'system' they operate in.

In order to get commissioned for pieces they need to have good relations with the car manufacturers, otherwise they would not get the cars to play with.

Also remember that many car launches take place in exotic sunny locations, flying there business or first class, staying in 5 star hotels, and being well wined and dined etc, all paid for by the manufacturer, so I bet this means some faults get overlooked from time to time.

Must be a fun job though


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Very little compromise between "missile" and "practicality" means it's nearer one than the other but which? :?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> Very little compromise between "missile" and "practicality" means it's nearer one than the other but which? :?


They don't say there's a compromise between the two. They say it's a performance car with very little compromise to the practicality, which I guess is unusual as performance tends to come at the expense of practicality.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:



> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > Very little compromise between "missile" and "practicality" means it's nearer one than the other but which? :?
> ...


My point was the wording is literally ambiguous and has caused confusion about what the journalist was saying if you read the first two posts :wink:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> My point was the wording is literally ambiguous and has caused confusion about what the journalist was saying if you read the first two posts :wink:


It wasn't ambiguous, the OP just misread it.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

:lol: I rest my case. The journalist used a form of words that could easily be misinterpreted one way or the other.

Either it's a missile with very little compromise made to that extreme to the end of making it a bit more practical.

Or

It's a practical car with very little compromise made to that quality despite being made into a missile.

Sloppy writing requiring you to know the answer before being informed of the writers point.

If I was proof reading it I'd have changed it to:

_"In a world chock full of performance cars, Audi's RS models invariably stand out as highly accomplished missiles but with very little compromise made to their practicality"_

That's clearer


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

it doesn't matter how much you write about it, it's not an ambiguous sentence.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Go on, admit it, my version is clearer :wink:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> Go on, admit it, my version is clearer :wink:


You've just changed "very little compromise in terms of practicality" to "very little compromise made to practicality". They both say *exactly *the same thing with *exactly *the same degree of clarity. I know you like to split hairs over language usage, but there isn't a hair to split here.


----------



## jjosh (Oct 13, 2013)

Haha, I feel like a tool! I now see what the writer meant, although it is a little ambiguous. I stand ashamed and corrected!


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > Go on, admit it, my version is clearer :wink:
> ...


Steady on Mr Kettle :lol:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> Steady on Mr Kettle :lol:


Actually, I only ever seem to get into discussions about language with you, and I'm fairly certain I don't do a good job of hiding how exasperating and pointless I find them.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > Steady on Mr Kettle :lol:
> ...


Well, perhaps that's because I used to edit a magazine and had to watch out for things which could cause confusion (as evidently that did) and because there are the famous spandex argument trousers you must admit :wink:

But don't take offence - far from finding It tedious I have really enjoyed some of the discussions we've had. I think my favorite moment involved discussing the pangolin albeit only briefly


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

I think its a safe bet that every sentence ever written has been misunderstood by at least one person. This doesn't mean that no one has ever written an unambiguous sentence, it means that people often skim through things and don't pay attention as much as they need to.

I also think it's a safe bet that you don't really think the original sentence in the review was ambiguous (because your rewrite basically changed nothing).


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Are you not going to admit my rewrite was clearer?

If you don't the pangolin will be very sad...


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> Are you not going to admit my rewrite was clearer?


You asked me this already and I answered.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Well in that case the pangolin is going to pull tongues at you...


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

children :roll:


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

The pangolin also wants to know what you understand this sentence to mean:

_"In a world chock full of Biggletropes, Geoffrey's NingNing models invariably stand out as highly accomplished Condletrudes with very little compromise in terms of Giggleprods."_

Now, to achieve good *Giggleprods* is the *Condletrude* performance being compromised? Or is it that to achieve good *Congletrudes* the *Giggleprod* performance is being compromised? Oh you can't tell now I've taken your understanding of the words away. Ha!

Try this...

_"In a world chock full of Biggletropes, Geoffrey's NingNing models invariably stand out as highly accomplished Condletrudes but with very little compromise made to their Giggleprods"_

Which is the compromised subject? The Giggleprods obviously. It's clearer QED

Pangolin walks away...


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

They still both say the same thing equally clearly.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)




----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

The irony...


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

:lol:


----------



## TomBorehamUK (Feb 2, 2014)

John, in your example and in the article I too see no ambiguity.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Well it tripped one person up and I can see why. Does this help:

"A with very little compromise in terms of B"

Is A or B being compromised? Is that not ambiguous?

It could mean A becomes devalued in respect of improving property B.

It could also mean B becomes devalued in respect of improving property A.

Another example:

"I achieve good lap times with little compromise in terms of the extra wind resistance from my spoiler"

The subject here is speed not being compromised by the spoiler.

"I achieve good lap times with little compromise in terms of discomfort from the lack of padding"

The subject is comfort and how that is not compromised.

My point is not so much which is more correct but rather there was too much room for misunderstanding because of the choice of words.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> Well it tripped one person up and I can see why. Does this help:
> 
> "A with very little compromise in terms of B"
> 
> ...


The important bit is "in terms of". The use of these three words means that the compromise refers to the value that follows i.e. the compromise is in terms of practicality (or 'B', as you seem to think that if you abstract this enough, it will suddenly become as ambiguous as you claim it is). If the compromise referred to (or was in terms of :wink: ) performance, the sentence as it stands would make no sense.

There are numerous reasons why someone would misunderstand a sentence, and most of them are outside the control of the author. But I guess to a hammer, everything looks like a nail.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Poppycock. "In terms of" could refer to the effect B had on A - I think the pangolin had the right idea :roll:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> Poppycock. "In terms of" could refer to the effect B had on A - I think the pangolin had the right idea :roll:


No, 'compromise in terms of' does not and cannot mean 'compromised by'. So, to use one of your examples above:



John-H said:


> "I achieve good lap times with little compromise in terms of the extra wind resistance from my spoiler"
> 
> The subject here is speed not being compromised by the spoiler.


It should read something like "My lap times were not *compromised by* the extra wind resistance from my spoiler", but in it's current state it's saying that your lap times haven't compromised the wind resistance, which clearly makes no sense.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Not everything in black and white is in black and white. There are subtle shades of grey.

I don't agree - "In terms of" can imply a link without defining the subject of "compromise" in this case. With the sloppy form of words given, it is up to the reader to make sense of what is meant from the context. Take for example the following using the same form of words:

"I expect to have a long life with little compromise in terms of the effects of my past smoking"

It's not brilliant English but the meaning is clear and that's the point. Clarity also depends on object and subject. It's clear that the subject of compromise is "life" as it would make no sense to imply "past smoking" could be compromised when it has already happened. The writer is linking his past smoking to his life expectancy. Anyone reading that would understand that because the objects are so well understood in relation to one another. There is no need for it to be rewritten for it to be understood.

But - the understood meaning contradicts your statement:

"No, 'compromise in terms of' does not and cannot mean 'compromised by'."

Clearly it can. Sure, you can change the poor wording to be better English, so it's less ambiguous with other less obvious subject material but that's what I suggested earlier to make the journalist's wording better and you told me it made no difference and would not admit my re-wording helped remove ambiguity.

Now I've given you some more obvious examples that, dare I say, fly in the face of your rigid interpretation of the form of words used by the journalist, I find it ironic that you seek to change them as I did. You are changing them to support your statement and the discomfort my change of subject/object causes within those words, whereas I was simply suggesting a different form of those words would have been clearer in the original example.

This thread was started by the OP because the journalist failed to communicate clearly to him. He even posted because of it. I simply looked at the form of words and saw that it was not 100% clear and spotted the hole he fell through. I posted something in support of him because the wording was sloppy.

I'm glad you now support the OP and my assertion that better wording would have helped to clarify. It's all the fun of debate we keep coming back to and despite you saying it's tedious I know you are having a friendly laugh like me :wink:

Incidentally, pangolins are a much endangered species as I'm sure you know. My daughter's favorite animal and mine. Lovable scaly ant eaters to anyone who doesn't know. They've almost been wiped out of large parts of Asia due to deforestation and being considered a "delicacy" fed to tourists and for "medicine".

Now their African existence is threatened too. The cruelty they are subjected to is so wrong. Prince William has taken up their cause saying, 'The pangolin runs the risk of becoming extinct before most people have even heard of them.'

So for this small amount of publicity, just to make one or two people more aware, if pangolins could smile they would do now.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

The original sentence contains two clear and distinct clauses, separated by a conjunctive adverb. The clauses are not dependant on each other; the car stands out as a highly accomplished missile and also, independently, the car has very little compromise in terms of it's practicality. The two clauses are pertinent to each other, (because often performance and practicality are inversely proportional) but are not otherwise connected. The sentence structure perfectly reflects this.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Well, clearly the sentence structure is not "perfect", as I showed you earlier that a change of subject material reversed the focus of the word "compromise" within that structure. "In terms of" could have a number of meanings dependent on context of subject.

You didn't like that and tried to change the wording so that the sentence structure, which previously allowed ambiguity, instead focused the word "compromise" in a unique direction to more clearly suit the subject. Thus removing the structure's ambiguous property.

You can't have it both ways :roll:

Now if I said, "Spandex with very little compromise in terms of forum discussions" I think most people would understand what the subject was :wink:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

The sentence can have the subject material changed to whatever you want, but if the structure is identical then the compromise will still refer to the value that follows it. In order to change the focus of the compromise you need to change the sentence structure - a point I tried to get across when I changed the wording of your example.

I'll be completely honest with you here John. I spent most of this thread thinking that you were pretending that the sentence could mean two different things in order to play devils advocate, and to get a rise out of me for your own amusement. I'm now starting to think that you're actually serious and I'm a little bit stunned.

So, I'll leave it there - my previous post explains how the sentence structure works, how it follows accepted language rules and why it's informative (in the context) but not essential that these two particular clauses are contained within the same sentence. 'With' is not a subordinate conjuntion.



John-H said:


> Now if I said, "Spandex with very little compromise in terms of forum discussions" I think most people would understand what the subject was :wink:


That really doesn't say what you think it does.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > Now if I said, "Spandex with very little compromise in terms of forum discussions" I think most people would understand what the subject was :wink:
> ...


No it was a joke. I could have written, "Spandex with very little compromise in terms of other people" but it didn't seem as ambiguous :wink:

You are right. I am only playing but I am also pointing out that language and understanding can be very subtle and different people can understand different things if the wording is a bit slack even if construction follows grammar guidelines.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> No it was a joke. I could have written, "Spandex with very little compromise in terms of other people" but it didn't seem as ambiguous :wink:


Yeah, that still doesn't say what you think it does.

I think throughout this you've interchangeably used 'compromise' as both a noun and as a verb. Whilst it can be used as both, the sentence structure makes it clear that 'compromise' is used as a verb in the article, and as usual, the object (the thing that is being compromised) follows the verb. You can't then say "but if we treat it as a noun, the whole thing becomes ambiguous".

The only way to take any other meaning from the sentence is to misread it - possibly because you're unaware of the different ways in which the word 'compromise' can be used.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > No it was a joke. I could have written, "Spandex with very little compromise in terms of other people" but it didn't seem as ambiguous :wink:
> ...


It does to most people I'd wager :lol: :wink:

It's just another case in point that people read into sentences what they will for a whole host of reasons.

I think you are missing the point - If you want to ensure that people don't "misread", as you put it, then choose a form of words that leaves no possible ambiguity IN THEIR MIND (your target audience) - not what you think. It's all about communication. It's not always easy to spot the pitfalls people can slip into but especially when two things are being compared it's easy for things to be miscommunicated.

It's no good rigidly sticking to your interpretation of grammar guidelines and refusing to see, with a little empathy, possible alternative interpretations (my little joke above being a good example) as you'll simply continue to miss the point (deliberately I think) ... and the reason I think that is because you previously said you find these discussions tedious. Well, if you really thought that you wouldn't keep coming back for more :wink:


----------



## jjosh (Oct 13, 2013)

Is this really still going! Very much enjoying the debate.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> It does to most people I'd wager :lol: :wink:
> 
> It's just another case in point that people read into sentences what they will for a whole host of reasons.
> 
> I think you are missing the point - If you want to ensure that people don't "misread", as you put it, then choose a form of words that leaves no possible ambiguity IN THEIR MIND (your target audience) - not what you think. It's all about communication.


It isn't possible to choose a form of words that leaves *no possible ambiguity* in the minds of your readers without being in the minds of every single one of them. That's why languages have rules - so that you can write things down with a reasonable expectation that the other person will be able to understand the meaning of those words by applying the same shared rules that were used to compose them. If you choose to deviate from the rules (to make it more conversational, or relaxed) *that's* when you need to understand your target audience. But, the author of the article chose to stick to the rules and constructed a perfectly unambiguous sentence where the only way to make the sentence ambiguous is to ignore the normal rules of basic English sentence structure. If he's guilty of anything, it's optimism, not ambiguity.


John-H said:


> It's not always easy to spot the pitfalls people can slip into but especially when two things are being compared it's easy for things to be miscommunicated.


Sigh. Two things weren't being compared. You're *STILL *mixing up nouns and verbs.



John-H said:


> It's no good rigidly sticking to your interpretation of grammar guidelines and refusing to see, with a little empathy, possible alternative interpretations (my little joke above being a good example) as you'll simply continue to miss the point (deliberately I think) ... and the reason I think that is because you previously said you find these discussions tedious. Well, if you really thought that you wouldn't keep coming back for more :wink:


I'm not "refusing to see possible alternative interpretations". But misunderstanding a sentence is not the same as seeing an alternative interpretation.

If someone were to say something to me in French, I might pick up enough of the words to make an educated guess at what they'd said. Now, if I managed to understand the general subject, but got the actual point of the sentence completely back to front, it would take a spectacular dose of arrogance for me to describe that as a "possible alternative interpretation".

I understand that it's possible to misunderstand a sentence, but that possibility doesn't make the sentence incorrect, or even ambiguous. Ambiguity is a cause, not an effect.


----------



## mwad (Oct 11, 2013)

jjosh said:


> Is this really still going! Very much enjoying the debate.


I'm finding it boring :twisted:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

mwad said:


> jjosh said:
> 
> 
> > Is this really still going! Very much enjoying the debate.
> ...


I'm mortified. What can we do to spice it up a bit for you?


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

I'm finding the thought of more nested quotes mind numbing right now.

So... stuff about rules of grammar - they are guidelines and noting's perfect - but it could have been made clearer and when I re-wrote the sentence it became clearer to the OP so there you go.

The Sigh bit. Back at you that you are STILL missing the point.

The French bit is actually quite good and illustrates 'the point' that your "misinterpretation" is actually a "possible alternative interpretation" in reality - as it was quite likely in the given scenario; that someone spoke to you in French of which you have a weak understanding, which is therefore a poor choice of an attempted communication vehicle.

The French may be grammatically correct but someone with some empathy would say, _"I can see why poor Spandex misunderstood that. The speaker should have used English."_, whereas it would take a complete lack of empathy to say, _"There was nothing grammatically wrong with the French sentence so it was "perfect" to use on Spandex."_ - which is the approach you've been taking.

As for _"Ambiguity is a cause, not an effect"_. Well, that's clearly wrong - imagine you changed your house number to be the same as your next door neighbour. The effect would be ambiguity and the cause would be you with your screwdriver :lol:

I can imagine you arguing that one on the way to the police station







but they'd give up and let you go after a few hours :wink:


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> mwad said:
> 
> 
> > jjosh said:
> ...


 :lol: :lol:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> I'm finding the thought of more nested quotes mind numbing right now.
> 
> So... stuff about rules of grammar - they are guidelines and noting's perfect - but it could have been made clearer and when I re-wrote the sentence it became clearer to the OP so there you go.


The fact that you rewrote something and that made it clearer to the one person who misread it initially doesn't say anything about the original sentence. There are two factors involved, the reader and the text.


John-H said:


> The Sigh bit. Back at you that you are STILL missing the point.


Doesn't that mean you're being too ambiguous, if your target audience hasn't got the faintest idea what you're on about? :lol:



John-H said:


> The French bit is actually quite good and illustrates 'the point' that your "misinterpretation" is actually a "possible alternative interpretation" in reality - as it was quite likely in the given scenario; that someone spoke to you in French of which you have a weak understanding, which is therefore a poor choice of an attempted communication vehicle.


How can my misinterpretation, which gets the entire meaning of the sentence wrong, ever be considered a possible alternative interpretation? This isn't a primary school class, where we have to say "good effort, that's sort of right" to every child so they don't get discouraged no matter how wrong they are. There has to come a point where the 'interpretation' is so far off that you have to move the blame from the author to the reader.



John-H said:


> The French may be grammatically correct but someone with some empathy would say, _"I can see why poor Spandex misunderstood that. The speaker should have used English."_, whereas it would take a complete lack of empathy to say, _"There was nothing grammatically wrong with the French sentence so it was "perfect" to use on Spandex."_ - which is the approach you've been taking.


Ok, let's remove this weird empathy concept, as it implies a connection that simply cannot exist in 'broadcast' content. Let's say I found an article on the net in French and completely misunderstood the point of a sentence. Now, the author doesn't speak any English and besides, they can't predict the level of French comprehension of every single reader who might come across their text. Don't we reach that point I mention above, where we have to just accept that the author wrote a perfectly structured sentence and I simply misunderstood it due to my weak understanding of the language in which it was written? Or will you still try to bloody mindedly blame the author??



John-H said:


> As for _"Ambiguity is a cause, not an effect"_. Well, that's clearly wrong - imagine you changed your house number to be the same as your next door neighbour. The effect would be ambiguity and the cause would be you with your screwdriver :lol:


No, the cause will be the ambiguity of having two identically numbered houses and the effect will be undelivered mail. In itself, me with a screwdriver doesn't create ambiguity. It creates fear.

Regardless, the point I'm making is that ambiguity isnt the _effect_ of someone misunderstanding something, it's the _cause _of it. Ambiguity in writing either exists in the text or it doesn't. A piece of text isn't unambiguous for the first 30 readers, then suddenly ambiguous because reader number 31 misunderstands something.

<edit>By the way, I wrote this entire post whilst unicycling across a tightrope suspended over a crocodile infested river. I can only hope this provides enough drama and excitement to stop Mwad getting too bored.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

I forgot about this. (Oh no!) So anyway, the original paragraph:

"In a world chock full of performance cars, Audi's RS models invariably stand out as highly accomplished missiles with very little compromise in terms of practicality."

"In terms of" is ambiguous to an extent as it could apply in either direction, so could mean:

"In a world chock full of performance cars, Audi's RS models invariably stand out as highly accomplished missiles but with very little compromise made to their practicality"

Or it could mean:

"In a world chock full of performance cars, Audi's RS models invariably stand out as highly accomplished missiles with very little compromise despite a need for practicality"

It depends how you read it.

The original may tend to mean one interpretation rather than another to a particular individual, with various interpretations of grammatical rules applied but it is meant for general consumption. The point is that it is not 100% clear to everyone reading it - hence the original post and subsequent discussion. If it was 100% clear we would not have discussed it.

I was bored but I know Spandex will have the last word....... :wink:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> I was bored but I know Spandex will have the last word....... :wink:


I tried to have the last word but you insisted on posting this nonsense. So, assuming you don't also want to have the last word, let's leave it there.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > I was bored but I know Spandex will have the last word....... :wink:
> ...


Or will he? :lol: Nonsense indeed Mr Cuddles :roll: At least you agree with me that you want the last word ........ (will he resist?)


----------



## TomBorehamUK (Feb 2, 2014)

Actually, I'll have the last word thankyou chaps.


----------



## MichaelAC (Sep 7, 2009)

Well, I've only just seen this. Personally, I'd say that the journalist's line was perfectly clear and most would understand it quite easily. The phrase 'bleeding obvious' comes to mind. In the office, where I work, people talk to me in what might be considered to be incorrect English and they also send me emails that certainly are grammatically incorrect, much as I will admit, my own writing is on frequent occasions. However, having the opportunity to hear or read them in context, it's obvious what they are trying to communicate to me and communication is the key here.

If I were being deliberately pedantic or arrogant and choosing to highlight their incorrect English, I might try to take issue with their grammar or speech and pretend to misunderstand but that would be a tad supercilious of me and so I don't 

The art of communication relies on more than simply grammar. The English language as a means of communication is an art and not a science.....


----------



## Mr Funk (Apr 27, 2014)

Christ on a bike, fun here isn't it?

Back on the original subject, I've been watching the Classic Car show on Channel 5 and it's not half as shat as you'd think. Wilson is vaguely irritating but Jodie Kidd has a real spark and passion.


----------

