I'm sure we're all familiar with the joke about the man who goes to a café and orders a cup of coffee, with no milk. Not long after placing his order, the waiter returns to his table (for it's that kind of café) and, with downcast face, tells him that they're out of milk—would he accept his coffee with no cream?
Now, the first time I heard, or possibly read, this joke, the man at the cafe was identified as Jean-Paul Sartre. But this is ridiculous! The joke is clearly about determinate negation, and the patron ought, rightly, be G.W.F. Hegel, in search of his Tasse Kaffee.
Relatedly, the Mexican restaurant at the corner of San Antonio and California will serve one an insanely large quantity of pork confit for $7.50. My belief is that if a pig has led a virtuous life, its shoulder is made into carnitas.
My belief is that if a pig has led a virtuous life, its shoulder is made into carnitas.
If you're starting a religion, i'll be your first convert.
Posted by: rone | April 29, 2006 at 07:09 PM
Misplaced modifier alert! Oh no!
Perhaps the sentence can be salvaged by claiming that the return of the waiter happened not long after the waiter placed the order with whomever with whom he would be in the business of placing orders.
Posted by: ben wolfson | April 29, 2006 at 08:51 PM
How about "after placing the order". . I mean, is any kind of modifier necessary? Only one order has been mentioned in the anecdote.
Posted by: Saheli | April 30, 2006 at 11:25 PM
That wouldn't change the misplacedness of the modifier (which is the whole phrase "after placing his/the order", though perhaps I have my terms wrong). The problem is that the sentence as written (or with your revision) would mean that the waiter, not the patron, had placed the order. My proposed reinterpretation would solve that problem, but it's an unnatural reading.
Posted by: ben wolfson | April 30, 2006 at 11:40 PM
Why would the man order his coffee without any milk, when he could more idiomatically order it black?
Posted by: The Modesto Kid | May 01, 2006 at 06:21 AM
would mean that the waiter, not the patron, had placed the order.
Oh dear, I guess that is a problem in that I actually thought that's what was going on--the waitstaff placing the order with the kitchenstaff.
Posted by: Saheli | May 01, 2006 at 06:06 PM
Well, see, that's the alternate interpretation I had intended to introduce with my comment. But it's not what I meant, initially, to say.
If that's what your first reaction really was, so much the better.
Posted by: ben wolfson | May 01, 2006 at 11:31 PM
Why would the man order his coffee without any milk, when he could more idiomatically order it black?
Plot.
Posted by: ben wolfson | May 01, 2006 at 11:31 PM
Ubi carnitas et amor, deus ibi est.
Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | May 05, 2006 at 05:08 AM
Semper carnitas.
Posted by: The Modesto Kid | May 05, 2006 at 05:44 AM
Hegel just causes trouble.
But really, the second mention of placing the order is superfluous! You may skip it entirely, e.g.q.e.d.viz.: "After a short time, the waiter returns..."
Posted by: Michael Roetzel | May 06, 2006 at 11:26 AM