Question 1208389
<pre>
Ikleyn and I both interpreted the 9 cm the same way, as the depth of the water
in the bowl.  However, I interpreted the 42 cm as the diameter of the bowl and
Ikleyn interpreted the 42 cm as the diameter of the surface of the water, not
the bowl.  
Let's analyze this sentence as it was posted:</pre>The water in a hemi-spherical bowl <b><font size=5>is</b></font> 42 cm across the top <b><font size=5>is</b></font> 9 cm deep.<pre>First of all, the sentence is very ungrammatical. It is of the form

"X <b><font size=5>is</b></font> Y <b><font size=5>is</b></font> Z".

Such is a bad violation of English grammar.

The way I interpreted it was simply by omitting the first <b><font size=5>is</b></font>.</pre>The water in a hemi-spherical bowl 42 cm across the top <b><font size=5>is</b></font> 9 cm deep.<pre>Simply omitting that first <b><font size=5>is</b></font> makes it grammatically correct and perfectly 
clear and understandable as the way I interpreted it.

Ikleyn considered the sentence as though there were a period after the word "top".  
In other words, she interpreted it as if it had been written like this:</pre>The water in a hemi-spherical bowl <b><font size=5>is</b></font> 42 cm across the top.{{{matrix(1,3," "," "," ")}}}<b><font size=5>is</b></font> 9 cm deep<pre>
Interpreting the sentence that way leaves the last part 

"<b><font size=5>is</b></font> 9 cm deep" 

dangling in the air, as just a predicate with no grammatical subject.
 
I maintain that mine is the more obvious way to interpret the ungrammatical
thing that was posted. 

We keep getting posts with bad English grammar.  I suspect it is because these
are being translated from another language into English by someone whose first-
learned language was NOT English. 

Edwin</pre>