Following on from Mari-Lou A's post on syntactic ambiguity - 'When a reader can reasonably interpret the same sentence as having more than one possible structure' - I've come across an article from the real world (well, the courts) where the exact meaning of
'When a reader can reasonably interpret the same sentence as having more than one possible structure'
is debated. The court ruling on the grammar involved was:
For example, the statement, “This basketball team has a seven-foot
center, a huge power forward, and two large guards, who do spectacular
dunks,” differs from the statement, “This basketball team has a
seven-foot center, a huge power forward, and two large guards who do
spectacular dunks.” The first statement conveys that all four players
do spectacular dunks. The latter statement conveys that only the
guards do so.
( http://www.adamsdrafting.com/dont-rely-on-commas-for-disambiguation/ )
I think we'd all agree with this opinion - certainly Ken Adams, commenting on the proceedings in the article, agrees that the court has got its grammar right.
What he takes exception to is that the man on the Clapham omnibus (or its US quivalent) should reasonably be expected to interpret the two sentences the way trained linguists would.