A scientist's decision to kill a bird he'd been searching for for two decades

Re:A scientist's decision to kill a bird he'd been searching... by ScottBurson on Sunday October 18, 2015 @02:19PM (#10409132)

However, it has a different problem. It says he was searching the bird for two decades. I doubt one could get a bird to hold still for that long to be searched.

It should, of course, read "A scientist's decision to kill a bird he'd been searching for for two decades". (I see the problem is in the original.) Alternatively, one could say "... seeking for two decades".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A scientist's decision to kill a bird he'd been searching... by waqf on Sunday October 18, 2015 @02:30PM (#10409170)

I would argue that "two decades" can stand alone with the meaning "for two decades". However, your criticism's still justified because it's a garden-path construction.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A scientist's decision to kill a bird he'd been searching... by dang on Sunday October 18, 2015 @03:30PM (#10409437)

Happy to increment the fors, but that doesn't solve your ambiguity objection. It merely turns "searching" back into the intransitive verb it should be.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A scientist's decision to kill a bird he'd been searching... by ScottBurson on Sunday October 18, 2015 @04:58PM (#10409762)

Thanks — but I don't get your comment. How is it still ambiguous?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A scientist's decision to kill a bird he'd been searching... by dang on Sunday October 18, 2015 @05:44PM (#10409924)

Argh I misread you the first time. Sorry! Good one.

[ Parent | on HN ]