David's World

If you read out the signs aloud, you should have a tendency to stress words that are underlined. That's good - because written emphasis should mark whatever needs to be stressed.

The linguistic analysis of where people put stress in spoken language isn't complete, and the rules are rather messy. But linguists agree that context plays a role, and that normally, you would emphasize elements that represent new information rather than already-known details, or information that applies to the proposition at hand as opposed to an imaginary alternative. (cf. e.g., Pierrehumbert & Hirschberg 1990, and Steedman 1991).

And that's what's strange about "No alcohol to be consumed on mosque premises". Just underlining "no" is odd - because "no" does not bear any content that would distinguish it from the contrast set of various possible signs such as "no smoking", or "no joking". Underlining "consumed" is even more odd - would the salient alternative be to sell some wine, or to bring a beer bottle along? Would the Imam be happy with me brewing some beer in his courtyard? I doubt it!

Of course, the licensing law is super-important in the UK. UK pubs allow you to consume alcohol, but not normally out in front of the pub: you have to stay on the premises. But if that's what is meant here, I would have underlined "on mosque premises", as in: we'll happily sell you some booze, but you'll have to drink it elsewhere. But that's most definitely not the case. At Edinburgh's Mosque, they do yummy lamb and chicken curries lunches, and imported middle-eastern soda.

The next question a linguist would ask: is this confusion due to the producers of the signs being non-native speakers of English? Is, say, Arabic information structure differently marked?

Be it as it may, I'd underline "no alcohol". That's because consuming curry and tea is what's tolerated instead.