for more than a century

[giuly90]

Dear teachers,

I'm in doubt about the meaning of this sentence:

"The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is a former 2,800-square-kilometer
marsh that has been drained, diked into islands, and farmed
for more than a century".

Am I right in understanding that "FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY" refers only to "farmed"?

 

[orangutan]

Dear teachers,

I'm in doubt about the meaning of this sentence:

"The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is a former 2,800-square-kilometer
marsh that has been drained, diked into islands, and farmed
for more than a century".

Am I right in understanding that "FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY" refers only to "farmed"?

Interesting question. I would say so, yes. It is the more likely interpretation in any case, and is supported by the comma after "islands".

 

[Anglika]

I would include the draining and diking activities in that century.

 

[kfredson]

Dear teachers,

I'm in doubt about the meaning of this sentence:

"The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is a former 2,800-square-kilometer
marsh that has been drained, diked into islands, and farmed
for more than a century".

Am I right in understanding that "FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY" refers only to "farmed"?

Yes, it seems clear from the context that all of these activities have been happening for more than a century.

 

[Raymott]

Yes, it seems clear from the context that all of these activities have been happening for more than a century.

I'm not so sure. It's a 'former' marsh, so the draining is not still occurring, but the farming is.
I wonder if anyone knows what actually happened historically.

 

[tedtmc]

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is a former 2,800-square-kilometer
marsh that has been drained, diked into islands, and farmed
for more than a century.

Normally, a comma is not put before an 'and'.
With the comma being there, doesn't it make a difference to the sentence?
Only farmed for more than a century?

 

[kfredson]

Normally, a comma is not put before an 'and'.
With the comma being there, doesn't it make a difference to the sentence?
Only farmed for more than a century?

When "and" follows a string of items I consider the use of a comma is considered to be optional. Sometimes it can make things clearer. Here, for instance, it seems better to include a comma so that the eye quickly recognizes the pause between "diked into islands" and "farmed." Writing "diked into islands and farmed.." could lead to at least a momentary confusion. I know that there is some debate out there, but I would prefer to use a comma when the meaning --or just the rhythm--of the sentence calls for it.

Therefore I don't think that the comma solves the question of which of these activities was done "for more than a century." I see Raymott's point; this sentence does seem to be ambiguous, regardless of how it is punctuated.