SSN valid for work only

[Crazy Cat 41,857]

1 minute ago, KristineGB said:

Thanks well to me it was confusing. 

Just wait until you start navigating US health care.....😃

[KristineGB 56]

Just now, Lucky Cat said:

Just wait until you start navigating US health care.....😃

Yikes. Seriously?

[Quarknase 1,072]

2 hours ago, Lucky Cat said:

Just wait until you start navigating US health care.....😃

Hahaha oh my god. Yess... I’m so grateful that my employer based insurance only offers 2 healthcare and 2 dental plans so I don’t have to puzzle too many things together. This whole for-profit system is the worst I’ve seen in my life 😃

[geowrian 22,337]

3 hours ago, KristineGB said:

Ahhh gotcha. BUT “Only valid for work with employment authorization” is a whole sentence. Meaning That it goes together with an EAD”. It if it is written that way it it does not mean it is ONLY for work. I am a Communications professional. I may be from another country but I also know proper grammar.

It means it is only valid for work purposes if you have employment authorization.

It says nothing about its validity for other purposes. You read more into what was stated than what was actually there.

 

The sentence appears grammatically correct and clear to me. The text was also reviewed by many people before issuing the cards with that text (it used to use another wording).

If you believe that the text is unclear, feel free to contact USCIS and/or the SSA. Personally, I would have better things to do with my time.

[KristineGB 56]

4 minutes ago, geowrian said:

It means it is only valid for work purposes if you have employment authorization.

It says nothing about its validity for other purposes. You read more into what was stated than what was actually there.

 

The sentence appears grammatically correct and clear to me. The text was also reviewed by many people before issuing the cards with that text (it used to use another wording).

If you believe that the text is unclear, feel free to contact USCIS and/or the SSA. Personally, I would have better things to do with my time.

All I’m really wondering is if I can get my state ID and such. 
 

Yes perhaps I did read too much into what was there because analyzing words is what I do for a living. My mistake. That was why I was asking. 

[KristineGB 56]

27 minutes ago, Quarknase said:

Hahaha oh my god. Yess... I’m so grateful that my employer based insurance only offers 2 healthcare and 2 dental plans so I don’t have to puzzle too many things together. This whole for-profit system is the worst I’ve seen in my life 😃

Oh. Okay I will take it one thing at a time. Lol. 

[randomstairs 303]

It's pretty clear to me but I can see how it's also a bit vague because it can technically be read in two ways:

 

1) VALID FOR WORK ONLY WITH DHS AUTHORIZATION or

2) VALID FOR WORK ONLY WITH DHS AUTHORIZATION

 

Just out of curiosity, how would you write it to make it less vague? 

[green_rabbit 69]

14 minutes ago, randomstairs said:

It's pretty clear to me but I can see how it's also a bit vague because it can technically be read in two ways:

 

1) VALID FOR WORK ONLY WITH DHS AUTHORIZATION or

2) VALID FOR WORK ONLY WITH DHS AUTHORIZATION

 

Just out of curiosity, how would you write it to make it less vague? 

"It is only with DHS authorization that this SSN is valid for work."

 

Quantifier scope ambiguity is fun. (I am a linguist.)

[neoblast 138]

 

A clearer statement would be: SSN REQUIRES DHS AUTHORIZATION FOR WORK" or "SSN NOT VALID FOR WORK WITHOUT DHS AUTHORIZATION". 

 

There's a bit of an ambiguity with the statement when it's not read properly. 

[KristineGB 56]

14 minutes ago, green_rabbit said:

"It is only with DHS authorization that this SSN is valid for work."

 

Quantifier scope ambiguity is fun. (I am a linguist.)

This. This.is.how.it.needs.to.be. 

7 minutes ago, neoblast said:

 

A clearer statement would be: SSN REQUIRES DHS AUTHORIZATION FOR WORK" or "SSN NOT VALID FOR WORK WITHOUT DHS AUTHORIZATION". 

 

There's a bit of an ambiguity with the statement when it's not read properly. 

Correct. I realize that there isn’t a lot of space but this would have been clearer. 

[KristineGB 56]

32 minutes ago, randomstairs said:

It's pretty clear to me but I can see how it's also a bit vague because it can technically be read in two ways:

 

1) VALID FOR WORK ONLY WITH DHS AUTHORIZATION or

2) VALID FOR WORK ONLY WITH DHS AUTHORIZATION

 

Just out of curiosity, how would you write it to make it less vague? 

It would need to be longer but because I understand that space is limited. If I had to keep it down to something shorter I would say “Only valid for work with DHS authorization.” Or “Valid for work with DHS authorization”. I feel like the “only” doesn’t necessarily need to be there. But if I had more space I’d use what @green_rabbitand @neoblast said. 
 

My first thought when I read it was that it was just for work and that I may not be able to get other stuff with it. I probably overthought stuff. I tend to do that. Deconstruct the sentence and find all sorts of meaning in it. Which is why I did ask this question on here. 

[Zoeeeeeee 797]

3 hours ago, randomstairs said:

It's pretty clear to me but I can see how it's also a bit vague because it can technically be read in two ways:

 

1) VALID FOR WORK ONLY WITH DHS AUTHORIZATION or

2) VALID FOR WORK ONLY WITH DHS AUTHORIZATION

 

Just out of curiosity, how would you write it to make it less vague? 

I've worked in comms for years, both in corporate and as an editor. There's nothing wrong with the sentence as it is - it's grammatically correct and clear in meaning.

 

For the sentence to be read 'VALID FOR WORK ONLY WITH DHS AUTHORIZATION'  there would need to be a comma after the word 'only' - that's how you would emphasize the section in bold, to be read in that way. As there's no comma, that means it means it should be read as you've written for your second example.

 

Edited May 31, 2020 by Zoeeeeeee

[KristineGB 56]

5 minutes ago, Zoeeeeeee said:

I've worked in comms for years, both in corporate and as an editor. There's nothing wrong with the sentence as it is - it's grammatically correct and clear in meaning.

 

For the sentence to be read 'VALID FOR WORK ONLY WITH DHS AUTHORIZATION'  there would need to be a comma after the word 'only' - that's how you would emphasize the section in bold, to be read in that way. As there's no comma, that means it means it should be read as you've written for your second example.

 

It doesn’t sound awkward? I feel like it sounds awkward and could have been written better. Also in comms. 

[Zoeeeeeee 797]

1 minute ago, KristineGB said:

It doesn’t sound awkward? I feel like it sounds awkward and could have been written better. Also in comms. 

It's awkward to a degree - but that's only because it's written in 'corporate-speak'...which, from Social Security, DMV, UCSIS, etc, I'd expect. Obviously the key focus for many companies, particularly those that are customer and retail-centric, is using what my employer charmingly called 'genuinely helpful language'...but for a lot of industries, they just don't care. 

 

If I was proofing their cards, sure, I'd flag it for being too formal/corporate...but grammatically, it's accurate. 

 

I guess we should just be glad they didn't find a way to include 'ensure' in that sentence too...🤣 (can never resist a comms 101 joke).

[KristineGB 56]

2 minutes ago, Zoeeeeeee said:

It's awkward to a degree - but that's only because it's written in 'corporate-speak'...which, from Social Security, DMV, UCSIS, etc, I'd expect. Obviously the key focus for many companies, particularly those that are customer and retail-centric, is using what my employer charmingly called 'genuinely helpful language'...but for a lot of industries, they just don't care. 

 

If I was proofing their cards, sure, I'd flag it for being too formal/corporate...but grammatically, it's accurate. 

 

I guess we should just be glad they didn't find a way to include 'ensure' in that sentence too...🤣 (can never resist a comms 101 joke).

Lol! Good one. 
 

Yeah maybe that is what it is. I have a broadcast  journalism background but I’m not an editor and while I do write, I am not great at grammar rules per se. I mean I’m pretty good at being grammatically correct but if you asked me to explain by providing grammatical rules, I won’t be able to. I am a bookworm and most of how I write and edit is based on gut feel. So admittedly, I was not 100% sure that the sentence structure was incorrect. I was only 90% convinced. Haha.