"REFUSED TO STOP MAKING FILMS"

[cateycloggs]

Does no one care if what they are saying is what they mean? Just watching Janina Ramirez on BBC4 introducing some short films made by women who (in her repeated words) , "refused to stop making films".

Presumably it is supposed to be inspiring for International Women's Day and has been written into a script, rehearsed and edited before broadcast but her words still contradict her actual meaning. Why? How?

I understand typos in hastily written messages but this is supposed to be a serious promotion of skilled meaningful work by women that in my opinion is scuppered by the careless introduction.

This happens so often in so many areas of communication. Readers and listeners are forced to deduce meaning from context as though the words and syntax and grammar mean nothing in themselves.

Does anyone else notice this or care?

What was it supposed to be?
No idea who she is, but I'm not sure what's wrong with the sentence.

What's the problem with the sentence? The meaning seems pretty clear to me...

What do you mean?

What on earth are you talking about?

Glad it’s not just me who is confused...

What was wrong with the sentence?

I think she means that nobody had actually asked them to stop making films? As in the word "refused" suggests that there was a demand, which is clearly not true?

I saw your post earlier, OP, but didn't understand what the problem was so I didn't respond.

Seems I'm not the only one, what's wrong?

Are you railing against hyperbole?

Sorry to everyone who has replied, not ignoring you, just offline. Also sorry I was having a little rant about something maybe no-one else has seen or noticed. May I say I was specifying the name of the presenter and show only to allow identification in case any one else had seen or heard the programme. The point is the presenter was introducing short films made by women who had persisted in making their films by saying (repeatedly) that they "had refused to stop making films".

Of course there was more to the context than that. But what had they refused? "To stop making films" - they had stopped making films and wanted to continue in their stopping.

To me the sentence means they had been told/asked/ordered to make films but had persisted in stopping. That is what they had refused to do was the stopping, i.e. they would not make films ever. It is a double negative.

OK, I see had that sentence can be construed as the refusal was of the whole phrase - they would not stop making their films. They had refused or rejected the entire final clause of the sentence. Is that what everybody else sees or would have heard in the original sentence? So please pedants tell me what function or term the last phrase has?

Confused!

It sounds perfectly clear to me.

'Stop making films'

'I refuse to stop making films'

So the women refused to stop making films.

What have I missed?

I don’t understand your point. They refused to stop making films i.e. they are still making films.

I haven’t seen the programme so don’t know if there’s a wider context I’m missing?

I don't think you understand what the sentence is saying. These women did not stop making films, the continued making films. They "refused to stop making films".

Nope, still don't get it, sorry.

If someone said "Stop moving!" to me and I refused to stop moving, that would mean that I carried on moving. I just can't understand how you're interpreting it as a double negative.

To me the sentence means they had been told/asked/ordered to make films but had persisted in stopping.

Definitely not what the sentence means. If I refused to stop at a red light, I continued driving and ran the light.

It's not hyperbole, merryhouse. (Pathetic joke deleted) My wider point was that I frequently see or read statements that are actually contradictory to the writer's meaning but which go uncorrected.

Obviously allowances have to be made for everyday speech or casual postings and anyone can make a mistake or mistype as I have demonstrated myself all too often but here I was referring to my frustration at confusing syntax in a professionally produced BBC cultural programme.

To be honest I have been trying to puzzle the phrasing out myself and have confused myself so I would genuinely appreciate an explanation of what the final phrase is in grammar terms. Apologies to all who did not see the programme or see no problem in the phrase.

To me the sentence means they had been told/asked/ordered to make films but had persisted in stopping.

I can't work out how the sentence could possibly mean what you think. What they refused to do was stop.

Where the women being told that they had to make films or being told that they had to stop making films?

If the latter, the sentence makes perfect sense if the women continued to make films despite being told to stop. They refused to stop doing something (i.e., making films) despite being ordered to stop.

*Were the women (not Where!)

Agree with other posters - you are the one interpreting it oddly.

To refuse to do something
To stop doing something

To refuse to stop making films

The grammatical explanation is quite simply that you've got two verbs (refuse and stop) both requiring another verb after them. Refuse takes infinitive with to, stop takes either -ing or infinitive with to (with change of meaning)
In this case refuse to do what? = Refuse to stop. Stop doing what? = Making films.

There's really no "can mean" or "can be interpreted as" with this one.

Ok, many thanks to all above who have given examples that are very clear and show my misunderstanding. I still think the context was unfortunate and my wider point stands. I have no examples to hand so cannot make my argument here.

Thanks all for your time and help.

Refuse to do something or you can refuse to stop doing something. I. This case they refused to stop. Nothing more to it.

I get you. Don't worry op. You are right. The best I can call it is sloppy.

@GettingUntrapped

I get you. Don't worry op. You are right. The best I can call it is sloppy.

It's not sloppy at all.