That's how I read it too. My guess is that's what he meant. It's hard to know, for sure, though, due to the brevity of the statement and lack of context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
plei89 
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mmkn 
^ Yes, amazing what a little coma can do . . .
Q: Are there any style combinations that you object to?
Yes, wearing jeans for any occasion.
versus
Yes, wearing jeans, for any occasion . . .- M
Don't see a difference in adding a comma.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but both of these state that wearing jeans is always inappropriate.
Without the comma: The adverbial phrase "for any occasion" qualifies the "wearing jeans." We're not talking about just "wearing jeans" but specifically about "wearing jeans for any occasion."
With the comma: We're now talking about "wearing jeans" in general. He's against it, period, no matter the occasion. The "for any occassion" is no longer essential to the meaning but has been tacked on for emphasis.
It's impossible to tell for sure which of the two he meant. Whoever transcribed the interview made an interpretive call, and that's what we have to go on. Based on his admiration for Ralph Lauren and the fact he has made jeans before, I'm banking on the "any and all" interpretation.
Edited by ChetBakerSings - 8/12/12 at 11:31pm