On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 01:26:06AM -0700, Steven Brust wrote: > At 10:35 PM 8/18/2003 -0700, David Silberstein wrote: > > On the other hand, he also says: "The > >two artifacts were, or are to be, created together --", which > >ambiguifies the causality and sequence. > > Mark? Pamela? Can he say that? Sure, as long as he's being whimsical about it. If he's being serious, I'd think it should be "ambiguate." Though these opinions simply reflect the ways in which I've happened to see the words used. In a context of literary criticism, I'm much more accustomed to "ambiguate." But I'm not really up on modern lit-crit. And in any case, I guess you might say that the above context is what the Serioli makes it -- whether that would be physics, history, or weapons design I do not know. "Make ambiguous" is less open to various charges, but it creates a sentence that is either very formal -- "makes ambiguous the casuality and sequence" or else is perhaps less formal than is desired -- "makes the casuality and sequence ambiguous." -- Pamela Dean Dyer-Bennet (pddb at demesne.com) "I will open my heart to a blank page and interview the witnesses." John M. Ford, "Shared World"