May 12, 2006

What a difference a comma makes

Pop quiz! In an NYT article entitled "Bolivian Says He Won't Pay Energy Companies", Bolivian President Evo Morales was quoted in one of the following two ways. Guess which one. (Answer below the fold.)

(1) "What we are looking for are partners, not bosses, that exploit our natural resources," Mr. Morales said.

(2) "What we are looking for are partners, not bosses that exploit our natural resources," Mr. Morales said.

Answer: (1), but I'll bet that Mr. Morales actually said (2) (more accurately, I'll bet that he said something in Spanish that means roughly the same thing as (2) as opposed to (1)). In case the distinction in meaning that I'm thinking of here is not clear, here's what I think each of the sentences above means -- and I trust this makes clear why I think Mr. Morales actually said (2), not (1).

(1') What we are looking for are partners that exploit our natural resources, not bosses that exploit our natural resources.

(2') What we are looking for are partners that do not exploit our natural resources, not bosses that exploit our natural resources.

I think that (1') is entailed by (1), while (2') is merely (though quite strongly) implicated by (2).

I'm also willing to bet that the crucial additional comma in (1) was added by a writer or editor, and that it does not reflect what Mr. Morales's interpreter said. The reason I think that is because if the interpreter had said something like (1), I think s/he would have said (1'') instead:

(1'') What we are looking for are partners, not bosses, to exploit our natural resources.

Deceptively small difference between that in (1) and to in (1''), isn't it? But the basic meaning in (1') is conveyed much better by (1'') than by (1), it seems to me.

(Readers may recall that I commented on how weird I find references to President Morales simply as "Bolivian" here; it appears this sort of thing is more common than I'd thought.)

[ Comments? ]

Posted by Eric Bakovic at May 12, 2006 01:08 PM