Americans Like Me

[Vociferous]

I agree, unless that is followed by a verb. Something like;
a) Americans, like me, use the English language.

b) To Americans like me, you need to speak English.

Note: Being a Dutchman, English is my second language, which can be problematic.

Yes, complete sentences will usually make the meaning clear.

 

[iceaura]

"Americans, like me".....
Yes, that would have made the meaning more clear.

No, that gets the meaning actually wrong.
He is not referring to himself as an American like other Americans, but as a particular kind of American different from other kinds of Americans.

But it would have been even better to say something like "For Americans like me" or "To Americans like me".

Those two specify some, not all, Americans. "Americans, like me" refers to them all, and the author being among them all.
Also, it's possible those two would be inaccurate - that the essay intends to describe the kind of American the author is directly, and not via their take on things.

Dutchmen, like me, don't use the word ordinate. Can you define "ordinate" for me?

It's invented to pair with the word "subordinate", hence the quotes.
Commas are often used to set off subordinate clauses, but headlines lack the space for the rest of the sentence - the part the subordinate clause, if that's what it is, is subordinate to. I just used "sub ordinate" to refer to that missing context, the source of the muddle. Sorry about that.

ok, but was it clearer that the author was an American?

That was the default read in an NYT essay.
There is a possibility (yet another reading) that he is not American but is talking about Americans who are like him. But that would be unlikely - an odd read, and a headline writer's mistake - in the NYT letter's page.

"Americans such as myself."

A slightly worse (in my opinion) ambiguity - there's no clear default read between all Americans (he's one of them) and only some Americans (the ones who resemble him somehow). Judgment call; ymmv.

 

[Write4U]

No, that gets the meaning actually wrong.
He is not referring to himself as an American like other Americans, but as a particular kind of American different from other kinds of Americans.

I think that was the point

The author of the article had mixed (one black and one white) parentage. The gist of the article was that people like him were high achievers.

 

[Write4U]

No, that gets the meaning actually wrong.
He is not referring to himself as an American like other Americans, but as a particular kind of American different from other kinds of Americans.

I think that was the point

mathman said,
The author of the article had mixed (one black and one white) parentage. The gist of the article was that people like him were high achievers.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

This was the headline of an article in NY Times Feb. 11. When I looked at it, before reading the article, I realized it had two completely different possible interpretations.

(1) Americans who are like me.
(2) Americans who do like me.

Is this ambiguity unavoidable? It turns out the article was about (1).

i beleive the debatable specificity is "whom".
While it may be arguementative it actuates the definition beyond doubt.

"Americans whom like me" (they like me)
"Americans like me" (they are like me)

Technically because you are talking about a group, the 'whom' is not as correct by some interpretations.

Media Love ambiguity in headlines when it sells more clicks

 

[Dinosaur]

"Americans whom like me" (they like me). If that is the intent, "who" should have been used instead of "whom."

I cannot think of a context in which "whom" would be correct in the above sentence.

"Whom" is used in a sentence as an object, not a subject of the sentence.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

"Americans whom like me" (they like me). If that is the intent, "who" should have been used instead of "whom."

I cannot think of a context in which "whom" would be correct in the above sentence.

"Whom" is used in a sentence as an object, not a subject of the sentence.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage/who-or-whom

‘Who’ or ‘whom’?
There’s an ongoing debate in English about when you should use who and when to use whom. According to the rules of formal grammar, who should be used in the subject position in a sentence, while whom should be used in the object position, and also after a preposition.

In questions
Who made this decision? [here, who is the subject of the sentence]

Whom do you think we should support? [here, whom is the object of support]

To whom do you wish to speak? [here, whom is following the preposition to]

In practice, most people never use whom like this in speech because it sounds extremely formal. They don't use whom at all, and instead use who in all contexts, i.e.:

Who do you think we should support?

Who do you wish to speak to?