Mark here either has poor reading comprehension, or is intentionally being a little shit by cherry picking part of the title and not reading the whole thing.
The location specified is not ‘north of Antarctica’.
It is, ‘the Weddell Sea, north of Antarctica.’
Giving ‘the Weddell Sea’ as the location is actually decently specific, and the ‘north of Antarctica’ that follows is modifying / adding to the description of ‘the Weddell Sea’… not the entirety of the location description.
I would snarkily, rhetorically, ask if people are even taught how to diagram out a sentence structure anymore, but I already know the answer is ‘not really, no’, because the average adult American literacy level is that of a 6th grader.
Mark, and anyone else who also finds this to be a funny, poignant zinger, need to go back to middle school and relearn grammar.
I think he’s probably trolling us, because he’s doubling down on it elsewhere in the thread in face of all the people explaining it to him. Nobody is that dumb.
While you’re not wrong, you’re also massively over-analyzing and "WELL AKSHULLY"ing what appears to be a silly one-liner, not a serious attempted dunk on the article.
It is still valid to point out that “north of Antartica” is a silly phrase in context, even though it’s fine given the more specific Weddell Sea information. If you did want to help readers know the story based on a more well-known landmark, a less silly phrase would have been simply been “Weddell Sea, near Antarctica”.
It adds something, it specifies the nearest location, if we assume the basic sanity of the sentence. Mediterranean Sea, north of Antarctica would be insane thing to say. Mediterranean Sea, north of Africa however is a proper signifier.
The map he linked literally shows the Ross sea south of Antarctica.
Also since its earth is spherical and its near the south pole you can really go any direction and find a sea… that just becomes a matter of perspective.
In this case, specifically, the wedell sea is to the north of the continent
Tthat’s not south of Antarctica though. It’s below, in terms of the map’s perspective, but “absolute south” is the middle of the picture. Anywhere outside Antarctica is north of Antarctica.
I’m not sure you understand what south means. It’s not “on the bottom of a map”, it’s “towards the south pole”. The south pole is in the middle of the linked map. On Antarctica.
But we also live on an oblong sphere, which is 3 dimensional
The axes of north and south, east and west, are two dimensional
If you have a ship that can sail through anything, with infinite provisions, and you sail past the south pole, you will end up going north. That doesnt suddenly discount the fact that up until a certain point, you were going south. If the sea is immediately around the island, which it is, and is on the opposite side of the exact point of the axis, i wouldnt call that a misnomer.
When you are in that area you’re essentially sailing south until you’re sailing north. If we came at it from the other side it would likely be called something different.
No. There are parts of Antarctica that are north of the sea. That is, you can be in Alaska and travel south and hit the sea. It really depends on where the two points are.
I would snarkily, rhetorically, ask if people are even taught how to diagram out a sentence structure anymore, but I already know the answer is ‘not really, no’, because the average adult American literacy level is that of a 6th grader.
I agree with your overall statement. Just wanted to point out that there are a lot more people than Americans out there.
Nah, spectral IS wrong. The “complaint” isn’t arguing grammar, it’s explicitly pointing out that there’s a very unhelpful couple of words in the sentence.
The sentence “I live north of Antarctica.” gives you basically zero information but is perfectly grammatically correct.
The line may as well have been “The weddel sea, which is made of water,…”
I’m wondering if you fail to realize that the entirety of the antarctic coast is “north of Antarctica” which makes the description a virtually useless modifier.
It seems they forgot to mention it was on earth. They really should have indicated it was within the solar system too. No mention of being located in the Milky Way galaxy or the known universe either.
Mark here either has poor reading comprehension, or is intentionally being a little shit by cherry picking part of the title and not reading the whole thing.
The location specified is not ‘north of Antarctica’.
It is, ‘the Weddell Sea, north of Antarctica.’
Giving ‘the Weddell Sea’ as the location is actually decently specific, and the ‘north of Antarctica’ that follows is modifying / adding to the description of ‘the Weddell Sea’… not the entirety of the location description.
I would snarkily, rhetorically, ask if people are even taught how to diagram out a sentence structure anymore, but I already know the answer is ‘not really, no’, because the average adult American literacy level is that of a 6th grader.
Mark, and anyone else who also finds this to be a funny, poignant zinger, need to go back to middle school and relearn grammar.
Weddell sea is good, mentioning Antarctica is good, the word “North” is meaningless in this context which is what the OP is laughing about.
It should probably say, “off the Antarctic coast”, or even “X kilometers off the Antarctic coast”.
Or - bear with me here - it’s just a funny detail and people are laughing about it. Because any sea is obviously going to be north of it
Just looking at that map seems to show the Ross sea to the south
Sir do you know how globes work?
I think he’s probably trolling us, because he’s doubling down on it elsewhere in the thread in face of all the people explaining it to him. Nobody is that dumb.
deleted by creator
I see you’ve bought into the globey lie of a round earth.
Uh?
Probably the author made this exact mistake
Nothing is more South than the south pole. Everything is north of it. The map is looking directly at the “bottom” of the earth.
While you’re not wrong, you’re also massively over-analyzing and "WELL AKSHULLY"ing what appears to be a silly one-liner, not a serious attempted dunk on the article.
I am not going to apologize for having humor standards above that of a middle schooler.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
It is still valid to point out that “north of Antartica” is a silly phrase in context, even though it’s fine given the more specific Weddell Sea information. If you did want to help readers know the story based on a more well-known landmark, a less silly phrase would have been simply been “Weddell Sea, near Antarctica”.
I’d go with “the Antarctic’s Weddell Sea”.
Nope. You could as well say: Mediterranean Sea, north of Antarctica.
I have two dollars, less than infinity.
The temperature is pleasant, higher than absolute zero.
Doesn’t add anything. There are no seas south of Antarctica.
It adds something, it specifies the nearest location, if we assume the basic sanity of the sentence. Mediterranean Sea, north of Antarctica would be insane thing to say. Mediterranean Sea, north of Africa however is a proper signifier.
Is there any Mediterranean Sea south of Africa?
If you don’t know where Mediterranean Sea is, saying it’s north of Africa is a useful thing. Regardless of how many Mediterranean Seas there are.
The map he linked literally shows the Ross sea south of Antarctica.
Also since its earth is spherical and its near the south pole you can really go any direction and find a sea… that just becomes a matter of perspective.
In this case, specifically, the wedell sea is to the north of the continent
Tthat’s not south of Antarctica though. It’s below, in terms of the map’s perspective, but “absolute south” is the middle of the picture. Anywhere outside Antarctica is north of Antarctica.
Let me guess, you think earth is flat cause maps are flat.
Tell me you didnt read my comment without telling me
I did. Doesnt mean you made any sense. Any direction from Antarctica is north no matter what perspective.
deleted by creator
I’m not sure you understand what south means. It’s not “on the bottom of a map”, it’s “towards the south pole”. The south pole is in the middle of the linked map. On Antarctica.
Yes i get that
But we also live on an oblong sphere, which is 3 dimensional
The axes of north and south, east and west, are two dimensional
If you have a ship that can sail through anything, with infinite provisions, and you sail past the south pole, you will end up going north. That doesnt suddenly discount the fact that up until a certain point, you were going south. If the sea is immediately around the island, which it is, and is on the opposite side of the exact point of the axis, i wouldnt call that a misnomer.
When you are in that area you’re essentially sailing south until you’re sailing north. If we came at it from the other side it would likely be called something different.
deleted by creator
It looks like some parts are south, east or west of parts of Antarctica. Sure, it’s all north of the south pole but that isn’t the question.
deleted by creator
No. There are parts of Antarctica that are north of the sea. That is, you can be in Alaska and travel south and hit the sea. It really depends on where the two points are.
deleted by creator
The Weddell Sea, north of Antarctica, brought to you by the department of redundancy department.
I agree with your overall statement. Just wanted to point out that there are a lot more people than Americans out there.
You better believe I’m here for this squabbling
You’re not wrong, you’re just insufferable.
Nah, spectral IS wrong. The “complaint” isn’t arguing grammar, it’s explicitly pointing out that there’s a very unhelpful couple of words in the sentence.
The sentence “I live north of Antarctica.” gives you basically zero information but is perfectly grammatically correct.
The line may as well have been “The weddel sea, which is made of water,…”
Could you enlighten me, then? How on earth does “north of Antarctica” modifiy or add to “the Weddell Sea” in any way, shape, or form?
See nonrestrictive modifiers
I’m wondering if you fail to realize that the entirety of the antarctic coast is “north of Antarctica” which makes the description a virtually useless modifier.
Nothing wrong with the grammar, just the logic.
It seems they forgot to mention it was on earth. They really should have indicated it was within the solar system too. No mention of being located in the Milky Way galaxy or the known universe either.
A 6th grader’s literacy level means they can write a book report.
Prime “AKSHUALLY” moment.