Timeline for What does the word exception mean in this phrase?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 24 at 21:29 | vote | accept | penguin99 | ||
| Aug 5 at 10:22 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | That's really pointless nitpicking. Obviously the initial reference is to few wild predators, and only a seriously anal writer would avoid saying humans are the exception purely because we wouldn't normally say Humans are predators of pythons. Also note that the OP isn't even questioning that aspect of the text, just the exact scope of the word "few". The text as cited is perfectly good English, and it doesn't reflect well on this site that so many people want to find fault with just about any text presented for clarification. | |
| Aug 5 at 4:38 | comment | added | James Mathai | @FumbleFingers I thought the word 'predator' was only used for animals. | |
| Aug 5 at 3:13 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | @JamesMathai: Though it is not illegal to eat python meat, the Florida Department of Health recently finalized a consumption advisory for Burmese pythons found in Florida, advising “Do Not Consume Python” due to the high levels of mercury found in python meat. The fact that it's called "python meat", and that officials have "advised against" eating it, suggests that at least some people are truly predating them. The text says there are only a few (but not zero) predators / people eating them.. | |
| Aug 5 at 3:03 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | For all I know, there are "other predators" of Burmese pythons in Burma (or other places where they've always lived). But they're an invasive species in Florida, and it's often the case that invasive species overrun their new habitat precisely because none of the (few) predators they normally have to face actually live in the new habitat. Obviously there has to be some leeway, since an "adult" might be anywhere from 2m long (alligator lunch) to 5m long (only likely to be killed by humans). | |
| Aug 5 at 2:35 | comment | added | James Mathai | predator meaning noun an animal that kills and eats other animals.. To use this term for human beings is incorrect. | |
| Aug 5 at 1:34 | comment | added | Peter Kirkpatrick | It's not a contradiction. The exception means that humans are the one species which is definitely on the list. Few is a qualifier saying it's unlikely there are other predators, but I can't guarantee it. (I can't definitively rule out any alligator attacks on pythons over the last 200 years.) | |
| Aug 5 at 1:04 | history | edited | Seowjooheng Singapore |
edited tags
|
|
| Aug 5 at 0:24 | comment | added | penguin99 | My question lies with the contradiction between "few" and "exception". When you say humans are the exception, it would mean that humans are the only predators of the Burmese python. You said "they are the complete list", if they are the complete list, how can you say the Burmese python has a "few" predators? Doesn't "few" mean you have at least more than 1 type of predator? | |
| Aug 4 at 23:36 | history | edited | Seowjooheng Singapore |
edited tags
|
|
| Aug 4 at 23:32 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | It's a very fine point, that I wouldn't have even noticed if you hadn't put the sentence under the microscope. And as @fred2 says, humans don't really "predate" ABPs anyway. To a first approximation, I don't see any problem with either the "few predators / the exception" conflict, OR the labeling of humans as "predators" of ABP. But you asked What does “with humans being the exception" mean? And like I said, it means Humans are the exception. They're not only "included in the list" - they are the [complete] list of what the few predators of the Burmese python are. | |
| Aug 4 at 21:44 | comment | added | penguin99 | “ whereas the word few [predators] implies there should be other animals in that list, the word the [exception] implies there aren't.” So the sentence in the article is wrong right? “Few” and “exception” contradict each other based on your last sentence | |
| Aug 4 at 20:17 | answer | added | fred2 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Aug 4 at 19:51 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | ...of course, it may be that few simply means hardly any humans would prey on adult Burmese pythons, rather than hardly any other predators. I could certainly go with that (I personally have no intention of hunting adult Burmese pythons myself, so certainly not all humans predate on ABP's! :) | |
| Aug 4 at 19:47 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | There's no justification for including the word obvious. Humans are the exception to the statement Adult Burmese pythons have few predators. The fact that it says the exception rather than an exception means (in the writer's opinion) there are no other animals that prey on adult Burmese pythons. What is obvious is that if you make a list of "predators of adult Burmese pythons", humans will be in that list for sure. But whereas the word few [predators] implies there should be other animals in that list, the word the [exception] implies there aren't. | |
| Aug 4 at 19:37 | history | asked | penguin99 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |