Talk:Drupal

Security

unresolvable ambiguity - no main verb

• There is no verb forming a sentence. To try to understand the intended statement, it is first necessary to resolve the dependent clauses:

There is an unresolvable ambiguity here for the non-expert reader (myself included).

It is unclear to me what the intended referent of has is in the following paragraph:

However, sites that are using the Organic Groups module discussed above has its own access control mechanism based on the group structure which is more appropriate for sites already using that module.

There are 2 possible ways to parse this:

• parallel subordinate clauses.

The first subordinate clause is restrictive but contains an expansive subordinate sub-subclause

It appears that the antecedent of access control mechanism is intended to be be organic groups module since the subject, sites, is plural; if so, a subordinating conjunction is needed:

• ... sites
  • that are using the Organic Groups module discussed above (restrictive) [select subset of all sites]
    • , which has its own access control mechanism based on the group structure... (expansive) [provide further detail about module]

> sites (using module [module has mechanism])

This subordinate clause is followed by another subordinate clause, if the two are parallel, both referring to module, then would require a conjunction,

> sites (using module [module has mechanism] and [module is appropriate] )

the antecedent seems incorrect. Try nesting :

> sites (using module [module has mechanism [mechanism is appropriate] ] )

This produces awkward nested dependent clauses, [x, which y, which z] - grammatically forbidden.

The solution is to refactor by promoting the second [expansive] dependant clause to an adverbial of the main clause, and which refers to the first a (restrictive) subordinate:

However, it is more appropriate for sites that are already using the Organic Groups module discussed above, since it has its own access control mechanism based on the group structure.

> it is appropriate for sites (that use module) [since module has mechanism]

the other possible, but less-likely interpretation is that the referrent of access control mechanism was intended to be sites, insted of module. This case would require a plural verb and possessive pronoun:

However, it is more appropriate for sites that are using the Organic Groups module discussed above, since they have their own access control mechanism based on the group structure.

>it is appropriate for sites (using.module) [ since sites have mechanism]

But this is a logical disjunction.

--Infomaniac 18:24, 19 January 2011 (PST)