0

Was taking some work notes, and the line:

He goes M.I.A. when I don’t agree to an appointment within 24 hours

Gave me pause. It could mean either:

  1. He goes M.I.A. after 24 hours since I didn't get back to him
  2. He goes M.I.A. much sooner since he couldn't get the appointment slot spanning from now to the next 24 hours

I am hurting my brain. I am wanting meaning #2. What's a succinct way to clarify the line?

Edwin Ashworth
  • 83,272
Malachi
  • 103
  • "Within 24 hours" means the range of time within which the appointment occurs, not the duration. – alphabet May 16 '23 at 21:13
  • 3
    @alphabet Yes, but it could modify "appointment" or "don't agree". – Barmar May 16 '23 at 21:13
  • 1
    Questions about syntactic ambiguities are often posted on this site, and those who post them hope to get answers that are responsive to the specifics of some problematic wording that they have encountered. Closing their questions as duplicates of a different question about syntactic ambiguities amounts to ignoring their concerns. In this case it is the nature of the subject matter that makes the ambiguity real (both readings are reasonable), and thus unlike many of the contrived, textbook examples of syntactic ambiguities, in which one of the readings is strained. – jsw29 May 17 '23 at 21:03
  • @jsw29 thank you. It's a rare breed that fights the good fight in an eloquent and respectable way. You are a true hero – Malachi May 18 '23 at 18:04

2 Answers2

3

Add the elided relative pronoun, which connects the prepositional phrase to the noun it modifies.

He goes MIA when I don't agree to an appointment that's within 24 hours.

or use entirely different wording

He goes MIA if the appointment can't be within 24 hours.

Barmar
  • 20,741
  • 1
  • 38
  • 59
1

Yes, communication about scheduling, appointments, and suchlike is often ambiguous in this way. See, for example Schedule on Tuesday, and note that the two answers interpret 'schedule on Tuesday' differently.

In the OP's case, within 24 hours can be taken to qualify agree or appointment. Under the former reading, what is important is whether the agreement to the request for an appointment is provided within 24 hours of the request, and nothing has been implied about when the time that the appointment would be for (it could be for a time far in the future, for all we know). Under the latter reading, what is important is whether the appointment itself is for a time that is within 24 hours of the request.

It can be argued that the fact that within 24 hours is closer to appointment than to agree makes the latter reading more reasonable, i.e. that if the former reading had been intended, the formulation would have been 'agree, withing 24 hours, to an appointment'. That argument has some force, but is unlikely to be decisive, particularly when one is analysing something that has been said in a quick flow of casual communication.

So, the sentence is ambiguous when considered on its own; it can be disambiguated only if one has some further knowledge of whatever it is about and the surrounding circumstances.

jsw29
  • 8,463