which he didn't do

[navi]

1) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't intend to do.
2) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do.

I am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he didn't
intend to/didn't buy the house.

Is that correct?




--
Gratefully,
Navi

Lost in the Twilight Zone of the English language
Obsessed with ambiguity
Interested in strange structures

[Snidely]

Post by navi
1) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't intend to do.
2) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do.
I am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he didn't
intend to/didn't buy the house.
Is that correct?

Correct, but they are awkward sentences, methinks.

/dps

[Tony Cooper]

Post by navi
1) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't intend to do.
2) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do.
I am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he didn't
intend to/didn't buy the house.
Is that correct?

They don't make sense. If "he" didn't intend to buy the huse, why was
it necessary for him to be told not to?

[navi]

Thank you both very much,

Tony, you do have a point, but it is possible that that sentence might
be uttered in certain situations. Somebody told him to buy the house. I
told him not to and then he told me that he had no intention of doing
it.


Something like that. I think other scenarios can be made up for that
sentence.

Respectfully,
Navi

[Tony Cooper]

Post by navi
Thank you both very much,
Tony, you do have a point, but it is possible that that sentence might
be uttered in certain situations. Somebody told him to buy the house. I
told him not to and then he told me that he had no intention of doing
it.

If that was the context, then the sentences should reflect that
context. We cannot make sense of sentences that rely on context not
revealed.

Post by navi
Something like that. I think other scenarios can be made up for that
sentence.

The scenario that I see is that you are cobbling up nonsensical
sentences where "ambiguity" is the least of the problem.

[navi]

Well, Tony, first of all the second sentence doesn't have the problem
you mention.

Secondly, I just wanted to see if they were grammatically correct. I
thought one could easily imagine a situation where the first one was
used.

You are right in that ambiguity is something I obsess about. I usually
don't provide a context because a context would make the ambiguity go
away. But the ambiguity is precisely what interests me.

I have said this many times.

It was even said that it should become part of my signature that I am
obsessed with ambiguity, so I did include it in my signature.




--
Gratefully,
Navi

Lost in the Twilight Zone of the English language
Obsessed with ambiguity
Interested in strange structures

[Janet]

Post by Tony Cooper
The scenario that I see is that you are cobbling up nonsensical
sentences where "ambiguity" is the least of the problem.

the problem poser is unambiguously trolling.

Janet

[Snidely]

Post by Janet

Post by Tony Cooper
The scenario that I see is that you are cobbling up nonsensical
sentences where "ambiguity" is the least of the problem.

the problem poser is unambiguously trolling.
Janet

Go have your haggis, Janet.

-d

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 10:15:43 -0000

Post by Janet

Post by Tony Cooper
The scenario that I see is that you are cobbling up nonsensical
sentences where "ambiguity" is the least of the problem.

the problem poser is unambiguously trolling.

He has problems; he wishes to challenge them. I too saw "obvious
troll", but as with most modes of life, if it bothers you you can get
stuck in for a fight or ignore it.

[jerryfriedman]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by navi
1) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't intend to do.
2) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do.
I am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he didn't
intend to/didn't buy the house.
Is that correct?

They don't make sense. If "he" didn't intend to buy the huse, why was
it necessary for him to be told not to?

It wasn't necessary, but people say many things that aren't
necessary. I think this is a normal exchange:

"Don't do X."

"I have no intention of doing X."

--
Jerry Friedman

--

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by navi
1) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't intend to do.
2) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do.
I am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he didn't
intend to/didn't buy the house.
Is that correct?

They don't make sense. If "he" didn't intend to buy the huse, why was
it necessary for him to be told not to?

It wasn't necessary, but people say many things that aren't
"Don't do X."
"I have no intention of doing X."

Your example sounds completely natural. Navi's don't.

[LionelEdwards]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by navi
1) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't intend to do.
2) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do.
I am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he didn't
intend to/didn't buy the house.
Is that correct?

They don't make sense. If "he" didn't intend to buy the huse, why was
it necessary for him to be told not to?

It wasn't necessary, but people say many things that aren't
"Don't do X."
"I have no intention of doing X."

Your example sounds completely natural. Navi's don't.

Perfectly pronounced Cockney.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by navi
1) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't intend to do.
2) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do.
I am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he didn't
intend to/didn't buy the house.
Is that correct?

They don't make sense.  If "he" didn't intend to buy the huse, why was
it necessary for him to be told not to?

It wasn't necessary, but people say many things that aren't
"Don't do X."
"I have no intention of doing X."

Your example sounds completely natural. Navi's don't.

Navi's examples need some way to indicate that there has been an
unexpected change in direction.

I told him not to buy the house, however he said had no intention of
doing so.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by navi
1) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't intend to do.
2) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do.
I am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he didn't
intend to/didn't buy the house.
Is that correct?

They don't make sense. If "he" didn't intend to buy the huse, why was
it necessary for him to be told not to?

It wasn't necessary, but people say many things that aren't
"Don't do X."
"I have no intention of doing X."

Your example sounds completely natural. Navi's don't.

As so often happens with Navi's examples, the problem arises because he
tried to put into a single sentence what would be more naturally
expressed in two sentences.

This might be a question of national tradition. Long sentences are
common in some languages. Modern English has evolved to a point where
short sentences are preferred. We seem to have an unwritten rule "Don't
try to put two ideas into the same sentence". This comes out into the
open in the de facto ban on comma splices.

[Hibou]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by navi
1) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't intend to do.
2) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do.
I am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he
didn't intend to/didn't buy the house.
Is that correct?

As so often happens with Navi's examples, the problem arises because he
tried to put into a single sentence what would be more naturally
expressed in two sentences.
This might be a question of national tradition. Long sentences are
common in some languages. Modern English has evolved to a point where
short sentences are preferred. We seem to have an unwritten rule "Don't
try to put two ideas into the same sentence".

I'm not sure it's quite as clear cut as that. It's a bad idea to put two
unrelated ideas in one sentence, but related ideas often hang out together.

I told him not to buy the house,
but he retorted he hadn't intended to.

Long sentences vary the pace, are fine if they develop an idea
incrementally and don't require one to remember the early bits in order
to understand the later bits. (It's easy to overtax the memory with bad
writing. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Sid went to be with their
trousers on - and the first, third, and last had their shirts on too.)

Post by Peter Moylan
This comes out into the
open in the de facto ban on comma splices.

Comma splices are fine in French, but we prefer semicolons; that is a
national difference, it's true.

[Hibou]

Post by Hibou
Long sentences vary the pace, are fine if they develop an idea
incrementally and don't require one to remember the early bits in order
to understand the later bits. [...]

This one comes to mind:

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of
wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it
was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the
season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of
despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were
all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in
short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its
noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for
evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only."

Is that a good sentence? I think it is. It's clever and memorable
(famous, even)... and puzzling. It's a good start to the novel. Job done.

[Aidan Kehoe]

Post by Hibou

Post by Hibou
Long sentences vary the pace, are fine if they develop an idea
incrementally and don't require one to remember the early bits in order to
understand the later bits. [...]

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of
wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was
the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of
Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had
everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to
Heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so
far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted
on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of
comparison only."
Is that a good sentence? I think it is. It's clever and memorable (famous,
even)... and puzzling. It's a good start to the novel. Job done.

Yes, but that was written in the nineteenth century, and the fashion in English
has changed in the interim. I broadly agree with Peter.

[Hibou]

Post by Aidan Kehoe

Post by Hibou

Post by Hibou
Long sentences vary the pace, are fine if they develop an idea
incrementally and don't require one to remember the early bits in order to
understand the later bits. [...]

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of
wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was
the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of
Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had
everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to
Heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so
far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted
on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of
comparison only."
Is that a good sentence? I think it is. It's clever and memorable (famous,
even)... and puzzling. It's a good start to the novel. Job done.

Yes, but that was written in the nineteenth century, and the fashion in English
has changed in the interim. I broadly agree with Peter.

Yes, it was written a while ago, but the point I was developing was that
long sentences can work fine.

It's not perhaps the best example. I expect quite a few people have felt
the need to reread it, because it is puzzling. The storyteller's art is
about withholding information, so as to keep people reading; but the
sentence itself is nicely progressive, and one does not need to remember
earlier parts in order to unravel what comes later.

As for fashion - well, I was never very good at it. If I were, I'd be
speaking Merkin.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by navi
1) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't intend to do.
2) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do.
I am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he didn't
intend to/didn't buy the house.
Is that correct?

They don't make sense. If "he" didn't intend to buy the huse, why was
it necessary for him to be told not to?

It wasn't necessary, but people say many things that aren't
"Don't do X."
"I have no intention of doing X."

Your example sounds completely natural. Navi's don't.

As so often happens with Navi's examples, the problem arises because he
tried to put into a single sentence what would be more naturally
expressed in two sentences.

Yes. I've noticed that many times. He tries to pack too much meaning
into too few words.

Post by Peter Moylan
This might be a question of national tradition. Long sentences are
common in some languages. Modern English has evolved to a point where
short sentences are preferred. We seem to have an unwritten rule "Don't
try to put two ideas into the same sentence". This comes out into the
open in the de facto ban on comma splices.

[jerryfriedman]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by navi
1) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't intend to do.
2) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do.
I am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he didn't
intend to/didn't buy the house.
Is that correct?

They don't make sense. If "he" didn't intend to buy the huse, why was
it necessary for him to be told not to?

It wasn't necessary, but people say many things that aren't
"Don't do X."
"I have no intention of doing X."

Your example sounds completely natural. Navi's don't.

As so often happens with Navi's examples, the problem arises because he
tried to put into a single sentence what would be more naturally
expressed in two sentences.

..

I don't think that's true. I still agree with Sam
that to sound natural the sentences needed to be
longer, not shorter.

"I told him not to buy the house, which it turned
out he didn't intend to do."

"I told him not to buy the house, which he ultimately
he didn't do."

--
Jerry Friedman

--

[LionelEdwards]

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by navi
1) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't intend to do.
2) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do.
I am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he didn't
intend to/didn't buy the house.
Is that correct?

They don't make sense. If "he" didn't intend to buy the huse, why was
it necessary for him to be told not to?

It wasn't necessary, but people say many things that aren't
"Don't do X."
"I have no intention of doing X."

Your example sounds completely natural. Navi's don't.

As so often happens with Navi's examples, the problem arises because he
tried to put into a single sentence what would be more naturally
expressed in two sentences.

...
I don't think that's true. I still agree with Sam
that to sound natural the sentences needed to be
longer, not shorter.
"I told him not to buy the house, which it turned
out he didn't intend to do."
"I told him not to buy the house, which he ultimately
he didn't do."

So that navi's number (2):

"I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do."

..is best?

[Peter Moylan]

Post by LionelEdwards

Post by Peter Moylan
As so often happens with Navi's examples, the problem arises
because he tried to put into a single sentence what would be more
naturally expressed in two sentences.

...
I don't think that's true. I still agree with Sam that to sound
natural the sentences needed to be longer, not shorter.
"I told him not to buy the house, which it turned out he didn't
intend to do."
"I told him not to buy the house, which he ultimately he didn't
do."

"I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do."
..is best?

That's OK, but it's stilted. I would have said "I told him not to buy
the house, and he didn't".

Of course some of these variants have subtle differences in meaning, so
I guess the first step has to be figuring out what you intend to say. My
version has a slight flavour of "He took my adivce". Some of the other
possibilities mentioned in this thread mean that he wasn't going to buy
it anyway, so my advice was irrelevant and hardly worth mentioning. In
that case we can simplify the sentence down to "He didn't buy the house."

[Ken Blake]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by LionelEdwards

Post by Peter Moylan
As so often happens with Navi's examples, the problem arises
because he tried to put into a single sentence what would be more
naturally expressed in two sentences.

...
I don't think that's true. I still agree with Sam that to sound
natural the sentences needed to be longer, not shorter.
"I told him not to buy the house, which it turned out he didn't
intend to do."
"I told him not to buy the house, which he ultimately he didn't
do."

"I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do."
..is best?

That's OK, but it's stilted. I would have said "I told him not to buy
the house, and he didn't".

Or "I told him not to buy the house, and he followed my advice."

[Tony Cooper]

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by navi
1) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't intend to do.
2) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do.
I am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he didn't
intend to/didn't buy the house.
Is that correct?

They don't make sense. If "he" didn't intend to buy the huse, why was
it necessary for him to be told not to?

It wasn't necessary, but people say many things that aren't
"Don't do X."
"I have no intention of doing X."
--
Jerry Friedman

Sure, but that's two complete and informative sentences uttered by two
different parties. No further context is needed.

The original was one nonsensical sentence. When spoken by one person,
it indicates that that person knew there was no intent to buy the
house.

Navi is presenting sentences and asking about them as they are
written.

[LionelEdwards]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by navi
1) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't intend to do.
2) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do.
I am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he didn't
intend to/didn't buy the house.
Is that correct?

They don't make sense. If "he" didn't intend to buy the huse, why was
it necessary for him to be told not to?

It wasn't necessary, but people say many things that aren't
"Don't do X."
"I have no intention of doing X."
--
Jerry Friedman

Sure, but that's two complete and informative sentences uttered by two
different parties.

Are you racing Athel to become the most prolific Cockney speaker?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by navi
1) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't intend to do.
2) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do.
I am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he didn't
intend to/didn't buy the house.
Is that correct?

They don't make sense. If "he" didn't intend to buy the huse, why was
it necessary for him to be told not to?

It wasn't necessary, but people say many things that aren't
"Don't do X."
"I have no intention of doing X."
--
Jerry Friedman

Sure, but that's two complete and informative sentences uttered by two
different parties. No further context is needed.
The original was one nonsensical sentence. When spoken by one person,
it indicates that that person knew there was no intent to buy the
house.
Navi is presenting sentences and asking about them as they are
written.

Yes, but the problem is that he doesn't present real sentences that
real people have written or said. He invents sentences that no one
would say. If he studied the works of Patricia Cornwell as assiduously
as another poster, he could probably find some real examples to
discuss. If he's not fond of Patricia Cornwell there are many other
writers he could study. For the moment one must agree with Janet.

[Snidely]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by navi
1) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't intend to do.
2) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do.
I am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he didn't
intend to/didn't buy the house.
Is that correct?

They don't make sense. If "he" didn't intend to buy the huse, why was
it necessary for him to be told not to?

It wasn't necessary, but people say many things that aren't
"Don't do X."
"I have no intention of doing X."
--
Jerry Friedman

Sure, but that's two complete and informative sentences uttered by two
different parties. No further context is needed.
The original was one nonsensical sentence. When spoken by one person,
it indicates that that person knew there was no intent to buy the
house.
Navi is presenting sentences and asking about them as they are
written.

Yes, but the problem is that he doesn't present real sentences that real
people have written or said. He invents sentences that no one would say.

I agree that this is often the case.

If
he studied the works of Patricia Cornwell as assiduously as another poster,
he could probably find some real examples to discuss. If he's not fond of
Patricia Cornwell there are many other writers he could study.

Okay.

For the moment
one must agree with Janet.

This I do not agree with.

Surely there are biochemists who become intrigued or even obsessed by
some wierd structure and spend enormous amounts of time trying to
create those structures? Are they trolls?

/dps

[Snidely]

Post by Snidely

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by navi
1) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't intend to do.
2) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do.
I am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he didn't
intend to/didn't buy the house.
Is that correct?

They don't make sense. If "he" didn't intend to buy the huse, why was
it necessary for him to be told not to?

It wasn't necessary, but people say many things that aren't
"Don't do X."
"I have no intention of doing X."
--
Jerry Friedman

Sure, but that's two complete and informative sentences uttered by two
different parties. No further context is needed.
The original was one nonsensical sentence. When spoken by one person,
it indicates that that person knew there was no intent to buy the
house.
Navi is presenting sentences and asking about them as they are
written.

Yes, but the problem is that he doesn't present real sentences that real
people have written or said. He invents sentences that no one would say.

I agree that this is often the case.

If he studied the works of Patricia Cornwell as assiduously as another
poster, he could probably find some real examples to discuss. If he's not
fond of Patricia Cornwell there are many other writers he could study.

Okay.

For the moment one must agree with Janet.

This I do not agree with.
Surely there are biochemists who become intrigued or even obsessed by some
wierd structure and spend enormous amounts of time trying to create those
structures? Are they trolls?

Further, I would say that Navi is genuinely interested in answers to
his questions, whereas a troll is more interested in setting people
arguing, either for his entertainment or for malicious reasons. The
reaction, rather than the question, is the point of trolling.

/dps

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Snidely

Post by Snidely

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by navi
1) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't intend to do.
2) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do.
I am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he didn't
intend to/didn't buy the house.
Is that correct?

They don't make sense. If "he" didn't intend to buy the huse, why was
it necessary for him to be told not to?

It wasn't necessary, but people say many things that aren't
"Don't do X."
"I have no intention of doing X."
--
Jerry Friedman

Sure, but that's two complete and informative sentences uttered by two
different parties. No further context is needed.
The original was one nonsensical sentence. When spoken by one person,
it indicates that that person knew there was no intent to buy the
house.
Navi is presenting sentences and asking about them as they are
written.

Yes, but the problem is that he doesn't present real sentences that real
people have written or said. He invents sentences that no one would say.

I agree that this is often the case.

If he studied the works of Patricia Cornwell as assiduously as another
poster, he could probably find some real examples to discuss. If he's not
fond of Patricia Cornwell there are many other writers he could study.

Okay.

For the moment one must agree with Janet.

This I do not agree with.
Surely there are biochemists who become intrigued or even obsessed by some
wierd structure and spend enormous amounts of time trying to create those
structures? Are they trolls?

If the structure is considered to be "wierd" by the biochemist, I
can't imagine that biochemist - trying to "create" the structure in
his/her writing.

There are people (regardless of occupation) who obsess over what they
consider to be "wierd" usage, but what they spend is enormous amounts
of time in pointing to examples in the writing of others.

Post by Snidely
Further, I would say that Navi is genuinely interested in answers to
his questions, whereas a troll is more interested in setting people
arguing, either for his entertainment or for malicious reasons. The
reaction, rather than the question, is the point of trolling.

I understand that Navi is genuinely interested in answers, but a Venn
diagram of "troll" and "not a troll" would have Navi in the
overlapping portion.

He's trollish in his insistence on complex sentences that often do not
reflect ordinary speech. Quite often my reaction is "No one would say
that, so why are you asking if the phrasing is grammatical or
unambigious?".

He's trollish in his insistence in snipping his original comments when
he replies. He expects the reader of his replies to remember exactly
what he originally posted. Yet, his own memory of what he originally
posted is faulty as I recently pointed out.

[Snidely]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Snidely

Post by Snidely

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by navi
1) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't intend to do.
2) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do.
I am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he didn't
intend to/didn't buy the house.
Is that correct?

They don't make sense. If "he" didn't intend to buy the huse, why was
it necessary for him to be told not to?

It wasn't necessary, but people say many things that aren't
"Don't do X."
"I have no intention of doing X."
--
Jerry Friedman

Sure, but that's two complete and informative sentences uttered by two
different parties. No further context is needed.
The original was one nonsensical sentence. When spoken by one person,
it indicates that that person knew there was no intent to buy the
house.
Navi is presenting sentences and asking about them as they are
written.

Yes, but the problem is that he doesn't present real sentences that real
people have written or said. He invents sentences that no one would say.

I agree that this is often the case.

If he studied the works of Patricia Cornwell as assiduously as another
poster, he could probably find some real examples to discuss. If he's not
fond of Patricia Cornwell there are many other writers he could study.

Okay.

For the moment one must agree with Janet.

This I do not agree with.
Surely there are biochemists who become intrigued or even obsessed by some
wierd structure and spend enormous amounts of time trying to create those
structures? Are they trolls?

If the structure is considered to be "wierd" by the biochemist, I
can't imagine that biochemist - trying to "create" the structure in
his/her writing.
There are people (regardless of occupation) who obsess over what they
consider to be "wierd" usage, but what they spend is enormous amounts
of time in pointing to examples in the writing of others.

Post by Snidely
Further, I would say that Navi is genuinely interested in answers to
his questions, whereas a troll is more interested in setting people
arguing, either for his entertainment or for malicious reasons. The
reaction, rather than the question, is the point of trolling.

I understand that Navi is genuinely interested in answers, but a Venn
diagram of "troll" and "not a troll" would have Navi in the
overlapping portion.
He's trollish in his insistence on complex sentences that often do not
reflect ordinary speech. Quite often my reaction is "No one would say
that, so why are you asking if the phrasing is grammatical or
unambigious?".
He's trollish in his insistence in snipping his original comments when
he replies. He expects the reader of his replies to remember exactly
what he originally posted. Yet, his own memory of what he originally
posted is faulty as I recently pointed out.

I would not characterize that as trolling. Sorry, I expect impishness
or malicousness for troll behavior.

-d

[Snidely]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Snidely

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by navi
1) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't intend to do.
2) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do.
I am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he didn't
intend to/didn't buy the house.
Is that correct?

They don't make sense. If "he" didn't intend to buy the huse, why was
it necessary for him to be told not to?

It wasn't necessary, but people say many things that aren't
"Don't do X."
"I have no intention of doing X."
--
Jerry Friedman

Sure, but that's two complete and informative sentences uttered by two
different parties. No further context is needed.
The original was one nonsensical sentence. When spoken by one person,
it indicates that that person knew there was no intent to buy the
house.
Navi is presenting sentences and asking about them as they are
written.

Yes, but the problem is that he doesn't present real sentences that real
people have written or said. He invents sentences that no one would say.

I agree that this is often the case.

If he studied the works of Patricia Cornwell as assiduously as another
poster, he could probably find some real examples to discuss. If he's not
fond of Patricia Cornwell there are many other writers he could study.

Okay.

For the moment one must agree with Janet.

This I do not agree with.
Surely there are biochemists who become intrigued or even obsessed by some
wierd structure and spend enormous amounts of time trying to create those
structures? Are they trolls?

If the structure is considered to be "wierd" by the biochemist, I
can't imagine that biochemist - trying to "create" the structure in
his/her writing.

I was not referring to a biochemist's writing, although that might
follow upon the results of certain laboratory efforts to create the
desired structure.

/dps

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Snidely

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by navi
1) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't intend to do.
2) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do.
I am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he didn't
intend to/didn't buy the house.
Is that correct?

They don't make sense. If "he" didn't intend to buy the huse, why was
it necessary for him to be told not to?

It wasn't necessary, but people say many things that aren't
"Don't do X."
"I have no intention of doing X."
--
Jerry Friedman

Sure, but that's two complete and informative sentences uttered by two
different parties. No further context is needed.
The original was one nonsensical sentence. When spoken by one person,
it indicates that that person knew there was no intent to buy the
house.
Navi is presenting sentences and asking about them as they are
written.

Yes, but the problem is that he doesn't present real sentences that
real people have written or said. He invents sentences that no one
would say.

I agree that this is often the case.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
If he studied the works of Patricia Cornwell as assiduously as another
poster, he could probably find some real examples to discuss. If he's
not fond of Patricia Cornwell there are many other writers he could
study.

Okay.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
For the moment one must agree with Janet.

This I do not agree with.
Surely there are biochemists who become intrigued or even obsessed by
some wierd structure and spend enormous amounts of time trying to
create those structures? Are they trolls?

Maybe, but one doesn't encounter them much. Physics (especially
relativity: see sci.physics.relativity) and evolutionary biology
(talk.origins) are more fertile fields to examine, though in the latter
case they're mainly religious nutters who promote weird ideas.

[Snidely]

Athel Cornish-Bowden submitted this gripping article, maybe on

Post by Snidely

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by navi
1) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't intend to do.
2) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do.
I am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he didn't
intend to/didn't buy the house.
Is that correct?

They don't make sense. If "he" didn't intend to buy the huse, why was
it necessary for him to be told not to?

It wasn't necessary, but people say many things that aren't
"Don't do X."
"I have no intention of doing X."
--
Jerry Friedman

Sure, but that's two complete and informative sentences uttered by two
different parties. No further context is needed.
The original was one nonsensical sentence. When spoken by one person,
it indicates that that person knew there was no intent to buy the
house.
Navi is presenting sentences and asking about them as they are
written.

Yes, but the problem is that he doesn't present real sentences that real
people have written or said. He invents sentences that no one would say.

I agree that this is often the case.

If he studied the works of Patricia Cornwell as assiduously as another
poster, he could probably find some real examples to discuss. If he's not
fond of Patricia Cornwell there are many other writers he could study.

Okay.

For the moment one must agree with Janet.

This I do not agree with.
Surely there are biochemists who become intrigued or even obsessed by some
wierd structure and spend enormous amounts of time trying to create those
structures? Are they trolls?

see sci.physics.relativity) and evolutionary biology (talk.origins) are more
fertile fields to examine, though in the latter case they're mainly religious
nutters who promote weird ideas.

Genuine physicists might obsess over multiverses or different
approaches to quantum gravity. Mathemeticians might obsess over
certain fields of polynomials. Programmers might obsess over the most
elegant form of search.

-d

[jerryfriedman]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by navi
1) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't intend to do.
2) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do.
I am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he didn't
intend to/didn't buy the house.
Is that correct?

They don't make sense. If "he" didn't intend to buy the huse, why was
it necessary for him to be told not to?

It wasn't necessary, but people say many things that aren't
"Don't do X."
"I have no intention of doing X."
--
Jerry Friedman

Sure, but that's two complete and informative sentences uttered by two
different parties. No further context is needed.

Navi's sentences are how the second speaker might
describe the conversation.

I agree with Sam that the first sentence would sound more
natural with something like "but he didn't intend to", or

"I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't
intend to do anyway."

"I told him not to buy the house, which it turned
out he didn't intend to do."

Post by Tony Cooper
The original was one nonsensical sentence. When spoken by one person,
it indicates that that person knew there was no intent to buy the
house.

I see no such implication.

Post by Tony Cooper
Navi is presenting sentences and asking about them as they are
written.

Something for you to keep in mind.

--
Jerry Friedman

--

[LionelEdwards]

Post by navi
1) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't intend to do.
2) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do.
I am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he didn't
intend to/didn't buy the house.
Is that correct?

Of course it is. We don't know when we tell somebody
something, what their intentions will be or might become.

Maybe he bought the house?

[Tony Cooper]

Post by navi
1) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't intend to do.
2) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do.
I am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he didn't
intend to/didn't buy the house.
Is that correct?

I don't think "navi" understands what the word "ambiguous" means. For
a statement to be "ambiguous", it must be "open to more than one
interpretation", "having a double meaning", or "unclear" because "a
choice between alternatives has not been made".

The sentence: "I have a red shirt and a green shirt and I wore one of
them yesterday." is not ambigious. It has one interpretation: the
person wore one of those two shirts yesterday.

However, the sentence "I have a red shirt and a green shirt and I wore
it yesterday" is ambiguous. The sentence does not identify if "it" -
the shirt worn yesterday - is red or green.

A sentence that does not completely explain what transpired is not
necessarily ambigious. It may be just an incomplete explanation.

There was no basis for questioning his samples above for ambiguity or
ruling out ambiguity. Neither example contained a conflict.

What remains is just two sentences that could have been better worded.

[Bebercito]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by navi
1) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't intend to do.
2) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do.
I am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he didn't
intend to/didn't buy the house.
Is that correct?

I don't think "navi" understands what the word "ambiguous" means. For
a statement to be "ambiguous", it must be "open to more than one
interpretation", "having a double meaning", or "unclear" because "a
choice between alternatives has not been made".
The sentence: "I have a red shirt and a green shirt and I wore one of
them yesterday." is not ambigious. It has one interpretation: the
person wore one of those two shirts yesterday.
However, the sentence "I have a red shirt and a green shirt and I wore
it yesterday" is ambiguous. The sentence does not identify if "it" -
the shirt worn yesterday - is red or green.
A sentence that does not completely explain what transpired is not
necessarily ambigious. It may be just an incomplete explanation.
There was no basis for questioning his samples above for ambiguity or
ruling out ambiguity. Neither example contained a conflict.

I suppose the ambiguity Navi had in mind actually lay in the possibility
of the double negation resulting in a positive statement, whereby one
could understand the construction as: "He didn't he buy the house" or
"He didn't
not buy the house" (= "H the house?").

(= "He bought the house).

But, granted, that's rather far-fetched.

Post by Tony Cooper
What remains is just two sentences that could have been better worded.

--

--

[Bebercito]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by navi
1) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't intend to do.
2) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do.
I am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he didn't
intend to/didn't buy the house.
Is that correct?

I don't think "navi" understands what the word "ambiguous" means. For
a statement to be "ambiguous", it must be "open to more than one
interpretation", "having a double meaning", or "unclear" because "a
choice between alternatives has not been made".
The sentence: "I have a red shirt and a green shirt and I wore one of
them yesterday." is not ambigious. It has one interpretation: the
person wore one of those two shirts yesterday.
However, the sentence "I have a red shirt and a green shirt and I wore
it yesterday" is ambiguous. The sentence does not identify if "it" -
the shirt worn yesterday - is red or green.
A sentence that does not completely explain what transpired is not
necessarily ambigious. It may be just an incomplete explanation.
There was no basis for questioning his samples above for ambiguity or
ruling out ambiguity. Neither example contained a conflict.

I suppose the ambiguity Navi had in mind actually lay in the possibility
of the double negation resulting in a positive statement, whereby one
could understand the construction as: "He didn't he buy the house" or
"He didn't
not buy the house" (= "H the house?").

But, granted, that's rather far-fetched.

Post by Tony Cooper
What remains is just two sentences that could have been better worded.

--

[navi]

Thank you all very much, especially Snidely, Jerry, and Berbercito,

I didn't even ask if the sentences were ambiguous. I just asked if they
were grammatical.


Berbercito has an amazing eye (or ear?) for ambiguity. I'd seen the
possibility of the second interpretation, and had rejected that
interpretation as too 'farfetched' (Berbercito's expression). I thought
nobody except someone with an intense obsession with ambiguity would
even notice the second interpretation. I am impressed by Berbercito!

Tony, I'd say your 'ambiguous' sentence in on the verge of being
meaningless, unless there is some weird context.

You don't have a red shirt. You don't have a green shirt. And you never
wear your white cap I gave you as a gift last Christmas.

"I have a red shirt and a green shirt and I wore it yesterday."

Maybe that would work.

It is not that easy to come up with ambiguous sentences. I think
linguists look for them and write about them. Ambiguity plays an
important role in Chomskyan linguistics.

--
Gratefully,
Navi

Lost in the Twilight Zone of the English language
Obsessed with ambiguity
Interested in strange structures

[Tony Cooper]

Post by navi
Thank you all very much, especially Snidely, Jerry, and Berbercito,
I didn't even ask if the sentences were ambiguous. I just asked if they
were grammatical.

You have an irritating habit of over-zealous snippage. You post your
comments in your replies, but don't include your original comment.
This means the reader must go back to the original post to understand
your comment.

In this case, you *did* raise the subject of ambiguity. You wrote: "I
am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he didn't
intend to/didn't buy the house."

You brought up ambiguity, but didn't ask about the grammatical aspect.

Don't confuse meaning with grammer. A sentence can be quite clear and
convey the writer's exact meaning and still be ungrammatical.

"I don't never eat no meat" is a sentence that conveys the writer's
exact meaning but is not grammatically acceptable or ambigious.

Post by navi
Tony, I'd say your 'ambiguous' sentence in on the verge of being
meaningless, unless there is some weird context.

Well, yes, that is the problem with ambigious sentences! They verge
on being meaningless. That's why we should avoid them. If the
meaning is clear it is not ambigious.

Post by navi
You don't have a red shirt. You don't have a green shirt. And you never
wear your white cap I gave you as a gift last Christmas.

Why have you posted those sentences? They are not ambigious. The
meaning is quite clear and direct.

Post by navi
"I have a red shirt and a green shirt and I wore it yesterday."
Maybe that would work.

No "maybe" to it. It works as an example of ambigiousness.

Post by navi
It is not that easy to come up with ambiguous sentences. I think
linguists look for them and write about them. Ambiguity plays an
important role in Chomskyan linguistics.

I'm not a follower of Chomskyan linguistics, but I don't think
ambiguity plays an important role. What might be an important role is
the *avoidance* of ambiguity.

Your statement implies a need for ambiguity.

[navi]

Thank you all very much, especially Snidely and Jerry,

I am using the regular internet site and when I click on 'reply' I just
get a blank page. The previous content it not there.

Tony, you do have a point about my question. I did ask whether the
sentences were ambiguous. I am sorry. In any case, Snidely had already
answered my question. There was no need for further comments as far as I
can see. The ambiguity question (whether it was there or not) was
solved.

An ambiguous sentence, as far as I know, shows that the 'surface
structure' can reflect two different 'deep structures'. Peter Daniels
explained this much better long ago. It does have an important role in
linguistics.

Ambiguity is unavoidable in natural languages. It must be avoided in
certain cases, but not necessarily in others. It is not always avoided
in the cases where it should be avoided. It is used intentionally in
poetry and creative writing and humor and...

Lar3ryca's post (which I fail to understand) illustrates that. I take my
lunch so I have to take an uber or else it will get cold. I can't walk
to work because I eat my lunch and therefore don't have the time to walk
to work.


I am not a troll. And I don't enjoy arguing with anyone. I just want
answers to my questions. As I have said time and again, I have a
particular form of OCD which focuses on language, especially the English
language.

As I said, I was perfectly satisfied with Snidely's brief and precise
reply and considered the case closed.


A chemical element can only be known properly by the way it combines
with other elements. An entity is only known through its interactions
with other entities. You can tease out grammatical niceties only by
constructing sentences that are complex. If you keep everything simple,
you won't understand how things work. That is my opinion. But it is true
that in my languages we tend to make long sentences.

Respectfully,
Navi

[Tony Cooper]

Post by navi
Thank you all very much, especially Snidely and Jerry,
I am using the regular internet site and when I click on 'reply' I just
get a blank page. The previous content it not there.

I would hope you would see the problem. It requires the reader to
scroll back to find what you replying to, and that is not always easy.
I don't know what *the* regular internet site is. Whatever it is
seems to be irregular since no one else who posts here seems to have
the same problem.

Post by navi
Tony, you do have a point about my question. I did ask whether the
sentences were ambiguous. I am sorry. In any case, Snidely had already
answered my question. There was no need for further comments as far as I
can see. The ambiguity question (whether it was there or not) was
solved.

Snidely's reply was "Correct, but they are awkward sentences,
methinks".

It's a concise and accurate answer, but this is not a forum where the
questioner is a referee who blows a whistle and ends the play. Any
post is an invitation to all to add their own comments.

Post by navi
Ambiguity is unavoidable in natural languages. It must be avoided in
certain cases, but not necessarily in others. It is not always avoided
in the cases where it should be avoided. It is used intentionally in
poetry and creative writing and humor and...
Lar3ryca's post (which I fail to understand) illustrates that.

Congratulations. You have created an example of an ambiguous
statement that a real person - you - have utttered.

The ambiguity is that you said you don't understand Lar3ryca's post,
but that it is an illustration of "that". What is "that"? Poetry?
Humor? Creative writing? ....?

I'll plonk for "humor". He wrote: "What I want to know is, do you
walk to work or take your lunch?"

Post by navi
I take my lunch so I have to take an uber or else it will get cold. I can't walk
to work because I eat my lunch and therefore don't have the time to walk
to work.

Nonsense met with nonsense.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by navi
Thank you all very much, especially Snidely and Jerry,
I am using the regular internet site and when I click on 'reply' I
just get a blank page. The previous content it not there.

I would hope you would see the problem. It requires the reader to
scroll back to find what you replying to, and that is not always
easy. I don't know what *the* regular internet site is. Whatever it
is seems to be irregular since no one else who posts here seems to
have the same problem.

Navi is using Rocksolid Light, which is a web interface to Usenet. I'd
never heard of it before, and can't find any unbiased reviews of it.

It seems to be relatively new, and might even have been devised to
compensate for the demise of Google Groups. Thus, it's possible that
it's still missing a few features.

However, a search did turn up postings on Rocksolid Light that include
quotations from previous posters, using the conventional '>' form of
quotation. Maybe Navi has failed to set some important configuration option.

[musika]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by navi
Thank you all very much, especially Snidely and Jerry,
I am using the regular internet site and when I click on 'reply' I
just get a blank page. The previous content it not there.

I would hope you would see the problem.  It requires the reader to
scroll back to find what you replying to, and that is not always
easy. I don't know what *the* regular internet site is.  Whatever it
is seems to be irregular since no one else who posts here seems to
have the same problem.

Navi is using Rocksolid Light, which is a web interface to Usenet. I'd
never heard of it before, and can't find any unbiased reviews of it.
It seems to be relatively new, and might even have been devised to
compensate for the demise of Google Groups. Thus, it's possible that
it's still missing a few features.
However, a search did turn up postings on Rocksolid Light that include
quotations from previous posters, using the conventional '>' form of
quotation. Maybe Navi has failed to set some important configuration option.

There is a <Quote> button at the bottom of the reply window.

[navi]

Post by musika
There is a <Quote> button at the bottom of the reply window.

Thank you very much, Ray.
We cross-posted. I found it.


Respectfully,
Navi

[Snidely]

Lo, on the 12/18/2024, Peter Moylan did proclaim ...

Post by Peter Moylan
Navi is using Rocksolid Light, which is a web interface to Usenet. I'd

Rust-Oleum has a RockSolid garage floor coating kit. It might not be
so light and might not help with the web.

/dps

[lar3ryca]

Post by Snidely
Lo, on the 12/18/2024, Peter Moylan did proclaim ...

Post by Peter Moylan
Navi is using Rocksolid Light, which is a web interface to Usenet. I'd

Rust-Oleum has a RockSolid garage floor coating kit.  It might not be so
light and might not help with the web.

Be careful using that around Charlotte.

[navi]

Post by Tony Cooper
I would hope you would see the problem. It requires the reader to
scroll back to find what you replying to, and that is not always easy.
I don't know what *the* regular internet site is. Whatever it is
seems to be irregular since no one else who posts here seems to have
the same problem.

Thanks. I found the solution. There is a 'quote' feature. I'll use it
from now on.

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by navi
Tony, you do have a point about my question. I did ask whether the
sentences were ambiguous. I am sorry. In any case, Snidely had already
answered my question. There was no need for further comments as far as I
can see. The ambiguity question (whether it was there or not) was
solved.

Snidely's reply was "Correct, but they are awkward sentences,
methinks".

Yes, and that was a perfect answer. The sentences are grammatical but
awkward. That's a concise, precise, perfect answer a learner can use. I
won't use the sentences, but will know I might come across them (or
things like them) and will know what they mean if I do.

Post by Tony Cooper
It's a concise and accurate answer, but this is not a forum where the
questioner is a referee who blows a whistle and ends the play. Any
post is an invitation to all to add their own comments.

I wasn't blowing a whistle. I was merely making the point that a
question that can be answered in one or two sentences to the full
satisfaction of the questioner hardly merits the suspicion of having
been laboriously and meticulously fabricated by a devious, malignant
troller who has not yet managed to find a better method to make a
nuisance of himself than by devising ambiguous sentences and enquiring
about them in a grammar forum which does not have too many users. (Now
that is a long sentence!)

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by navi
Ambiguity is unavoidable in natural languages. It must be avoided in
certain cases, but not necessarily in others. It is not always avoided
in the cases where it should be avoided. It is used intentionally in
poetry and creative writing and humor and...
Lar3ryca's post (which I fail to understand) illustrates that.

Congratulations. You have created an example of an ambiguous
statement that a real person - you - have utttered.
The ambiguity is that you said you don't understand Lar3ryca's post,
but that it is an illustration of "that". What is "that"? Poetry?
Humor? Creative writing? ....?
I'll plonk for "humor". He wrote: "What I want to know is, do you
walk to work or take your lunch?"

Actually, 'that' was supposed to mean the fact that 'it is used
intentionally in poetry and creative writing, and humor and...'

In this case it was used for humor, but 'that' referred to the
intentional use in a number of cases such as humor.

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by navi
I take my lunch so I have to take an uber or else it will get cold. I can't walk
to work because I eat my lunch and therefore don't have the time to walk
to work.

Nonsense met with nonsense.

We're lucky nothing exploded!



Respectfully,
Navi

[Tony Cooper]

Post by navi

Post by Tony Cooper
I would hope you would see the problem. It requires the reader to
scroll back to find what you replying to, and that is not always easy.
I don't know what *the* regular internet site is. Whatever it is
seems to be irregular since no one else who posts here seems to have
the same problem.

Thanks. I found the solution. There is a 'quote' feature. I'll use it
from now on.

Good. It's appreciated.

Post by navi

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by navi
Tony, you do have a point about my question. I did ask whether the
sentences were ambiguous. I am sorry. In any case, Snidely had already
answered my question. There was no need for further comments as far as I
can see. The ambiguity question (whether it was there or not) was
solved.

Snidely's reply was "Correct, but they are awkward sentences,
methinks".

Yes, and that was a perfect answer. The sentences are grammatical but
awkward. That's a concise, precise, perfect answer a learner can use. I
won't use the sentences, but will know I might come across them (or
things like them) and will know what they mean if I do.

Post by Tony Cooper
It's a concise and accurate answer, but this is not a forum where the
questioner is a referee who blows a whistle and ends the play. Any
post is an invitation to all to add their own comments.

I wasn't blowing a whistle. I was merely making the point that a
question that can be answered in one or two sentences to the full
satisfaction of the questioner hardly merits the suspicion of having
been laboriously and meticulously fabricated by a devious, malignant
troller who has not yet managed to find a better method to make a
nuisance of himself than by devising ambiguous sentences and enquiring
about them in a grammar forum which does not have too many users. (Now
that is a long sentence!)

I don't object to long sentences because they contain a large number
of words. It's long and complex sentences that I feel should be
avoided. It's sentences that are complex because the writer
incorporates diverse points in one sentence when it would have been
better to separate the points into individual sentences.

Post by navi

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by navi
Ambiguity is unavoidable in natural languages. It must be avoided in
certain cases, but not necessarily in others. It is not always avoided
in the cases where it should be avoided. It is used intentionally in
poetry and creative writing and humor and...
Lar3ryca's post (which I fail to understand) illustrates that.

Congratulations. You have created an example of an ambiguous
statement that a real person - you - have utttered.
The ambiguity is that you said you don't understand Lar3ryca's post,
but that it is an illustration of "that". What is "that"? Poetry?
Humor? Creative writing? ....?
I'll plonk for "humor". He wrote: "What I want to know is, do you
walk to work or take your lunch?"

Actually, 'that' was supposed to mean the fact that 'it is used
intentionally in poetry and creative writing, and humor and...'
In this case it was used for humor, but 'that' referred to the
intentional use in a number of cases such as humor.

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by navi
I take my lunch so I have to take an uber or else it will get cold. I can't walk
to work because I eat my lunch and therefore don't have the time to walk
to work.

Nonsense met with nonsense.

We're lucky nothing exploded!
Respectfully,
Navi

[lar3ryca]

Post by navi
Thank you all very much, especially Snidely, Jerry, and Berbercito,
I didn't even ask if the sentences were ambiguous. I just asked if they
were grammatical.
Berbercito has an amazing eye (or ear?) for ambiguity. I'd seen the
possibility of the second interpretation, and had rejected that
interpretation as too 'farfetched' (Berbercito's expression). I thought
nobody except someone with an intense obsession with ambiguity would
even notice the second interpretation. I am impressed by Berbercito!
Tony, I'd say your 'ambiguous' sentence in on the verge of being
meaningless, unless there is some weird context.
You don't have a red shirt. You don't have a green shirt. And you never
wear your white cap I gave you as a gift last Christmas.
"I have a red shirt and a green shirt and I wore it yesterday."
Maybe that would work.
It is not that easy to come up with ambiguous sentences. I think
linguists look for them and write about them. Ambiguity plays an
important role in Chomskyan linguistics.

What I want to know is, do you walk to work or take your lunch?

Post by navi
--
Gratefully,
Navi
Lost in the Twilight Zone of the English language
Obsessed with ambiguity
Interested in strange structures

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by lar3ryca

Post by navi
Thank you all very much, especially Snidely, Jerry, and Berbercito,
I didn't even ask if the sentences were ambiguous. I just asked if they
were grammatical.
Berbercito has an amazing eye (or ear?) for ambiguity. I'd seen the
possibility of the second interpretation, and had rejected that
interpretation as too 'farfetched' (Berbercito's expression). I thought
nobody except someone with an intense obsession with ambiguity would
even notice the second interpretation. I am impressed by Berbercito!
Tony, I'd say your 'ambiguous' sentence in on the verge of being
meaningless, unless there is some weird context.
You don't have a red shirt. You don't have a green shirt. And you never
wear your white cap I gave you as a gift last Christmas.
"I have a red shirt and a green shirt and I wore it yesterday."
Maybe that would work.
It is not that easy to come up with ambiguous sentences. I think
linguists look for them and write about them. Ambiguity plays an
important role in Chomskyan linguistics.

What I want to know is, do you walk to work or take your lunch?

I take my lunch and the bus.

[Snidely]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by navi
1) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't intend to do.
2) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do.
I am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he didn't
intend to/didn't buy the house.
Is that correct?

I don't think "navi" understands what the word "ambiguous" means. For
a statement to be "ambiguous", it must be "open to more than one
interpretation", "having a double meaning", or "unclear" because "a
choice between alternatives has not been made".
The sentence: "I have a red shirt and a green shirt and I wore one of
them yesterday." is not ambigious. It has one interpretation: the
person wore one of those two shirts yesterday.
However, the sentence "I have a red shirt and a green shirt and I wore
it yesterday" is ambiguous. The sentence does not identify if "it" -
the shirt worn yesterday - is red or green.

I'm not sure that example qualifies as grammatical,since the second
phrase has a singular that refers back to a plural. The sentence you
presented first as non-ambiguous is grammatical, because there is a
selection ("one of") from a plural {"them") that refers back to a
plural.

Post by Tony Cooper
A sentence that does not completely explain what transpired is not
necessarily ambigious. It may be just an incomplete explanation.

I think a lot of sentences that Navi puzzles about do have ambiguity.
But only when taken in isolation, and those sentences would never occur
in isolation; they would always have a context that resolves the
ambiguity.

Post by Tony Cooper
There was no basis for questioning his samples above for ambiguity or
ruling out ambiguity. Neither example contained a conflict.
What remains is just two sentences that could have been better worded.

In this thread, that has truth.

/dps

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Snidely

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by navi
1) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't intend to do.
2) I told him not to buy the house, which he didn't do.
I am assuming that the sentences are unambiguous and mean that he didn't
intend to/didn't buy the house.
Is that correct?

I don't think "navi" understands what the word "ambiguous" means. For
a statement to be "ambiguous", it must be "open to more than one
interpretation", "having a double meaning", or "unclear" because "a
choice between alternatives has not been made".
The sentence: "I have a red shirt and a green shirt and I wore one of
them yesterday." is not ambigious. It has one interpretation: the
person wore one of those two shirts yesterday.
However, the sentence "I have a red shirt and a green shirt and I wore
it yesterday" is ambiguous. The sentence does not identify if "it" -
the shirt worn yesterday - is red or green.

I'm not sure that example qualifies as grammatical,since the second
phrase has a singular that refers back to a plural.

I'm not concerned about the grammatical aspect of the example. The
ambiguity aspect makes the example non-acceptable because the meaning
is lost. If a sentence has no meaning, it doesn't make any difference
if the grammar is or isn't correct.

Post by Snidely
The sentence you
presented first as non-ambiguous is grammatical, because there is a
selection ("one of") from a plural {"them") that refers back to a
plural.

Post by Tony Cooper
A sentence that does not completely explain what transpired is not
necessarily ambigious. It may be just an incomplete explanation.

I think a lot of sentences that Navi puzzles about do have ambiguity.
But only when taken in isolation, and those sentences would never occur
in isolation; they would always have a context that resolves the
ambiguity.

Post by Tony Cooper
There was no basis for questioning his samples above for ambiguity or
ruling out ambiguity. Neither example contained a conflict.
What remains is just two sentences that could have been better worded.

In this thread, that has truth.
/dps

[Snidely]

[wider context elided]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Snidely

Post by Tony Cooper
The sentence: "I have a red shirt and a green shirt and I wore one of
them yesterday." is not ambigious. It has one interpretation: the
person wore one of those two shirts yesterday.
However, the sentence "I have a red shirt and a green shirt and I wore
it yesterday" is ambiguous. The sentence does not identify if "it" -
the shirt worn yesterday - is red or green.

I'm not sure that example qualifies as grammatical,since the second
phrase has a singular that refers back to a plural.

I'm not concerned about the grammatical aspect of the example. The
ambiguity aspect makes the example non-acceptable because the meaning
is lost. If a sentence has no meaning, it doesn't make any difference
if the grammar is or isn't correct.

The ambiguity and the grammatical error are inextricably tied. It
would be impressive to construct an example of ambiguity paralleling
your non-ambiguous example and to have it be grammatical.


/dps

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Snidely
[wider context elided]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Snidely

Post by Tony Cooper
The sentence: "I have a red shirt and a green shirt and I wore one of
them yesterday." is not ambigious. It has one interpretation: the
person wore one of those two shirts yesterday.
However, the sentence "I have a red shirt and a green shirt and I wore
it yesterday" is ambiguous. The sentence does not identify if "it" -
the shirt worn yesterday - is red or green.

I'm not sure that example qualifies as grammatical,since the second
phrase has a singular that refers back to a plural.

I'm not concerned about the grammatical aspect of the example. The
ambiguity aspect makes the example non-acceptable because the meaning
is lost. If a sentence has no meaning, it doesn't make any difference
if the grammar is or isn't correct.

The ambiguity and the grammatical error are inextricably tied. It
would be impressive to construct an example of ambiguity paralleling
your non-ambiguous example and to have it be grammatical.

The reason the grammatical aspect is of no concern when there is both
an ambiguity and a a grammatical errror is because the ambiguity
renders the statement ununderstandable. The rejection is based on the
ambiguity before the grammatical error is taken into account.

In a statement with a grammatical error only, the meaning can usually
be grasped.

"Measles and mumps was common when I was a kid, and I had it" contains
both grammatical error and an ambiguity, but the ambiguity is the
notable problem. We're stumped for meaning.

"Measles and mumps was common when I was a kid, and I had both."
contains a grammatical error but no ambiguity. The meaning is clear,
but we notice the grammatical error. Well, some of us do.

[Snidely]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Snidely
[wider context elided]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Snidely

Post by Tony Cooper
The sentence: "I have a red shirt and a green shirt and I wore one of
them yesterday." is not ambigious. It has one interpretation: the
person wore one of those two shirts yesterday.
However, the sentence "I have a red shirt and a green shirt and I wore
it yesterday" is ambiguous. The sentence does not identify if "it" -
the shirt worn yesterday - is red or green.

I'm not sure that example qualifies as grammatical,since the second
phrase has a singular that refers back to a plural.

I'm not concerned about the grammatical aspect of the example. The
ambiguity aspect makes the example non-acceptable because the meaning
is lost. If a sentence has no meaning, it doesn't make any difference
if the grammar is or isn't correct.

The ambiguity and the grammatical error are inextricably tied. It
would be impressive to construct an example of ambiguity paralleling
your non-ambiguous example and to have it be grammatical.

The reason the grammatical aspect is of no concern when there is both
an ambiguity and a a grammatical errror is because the ambiguity
renders the statement ununderstandable. The rejection is based on the
ambiguity before the grammatical error is taken into account.
In a statement with a grammatical error only, the meaning can usually
be grasped.
"Measles and mumps was common when I was a kid, and I had it" contains
both grammatical error and an ambiguity, but the ambiguity is the
notable problem. We're stumped for meaning.

The ambigutiy and the grammatical error are intertwined. We notice the
ambigutiy because of the grammatical error.

Post by Tony Cooper
"Measles and mumps was common when I was a kid, and I had both."
contains a grammatical error but no ambiguity. The meaning is clear,
but we notice the grammatical error. Well, some of us do.

Not all grammatical errors produce ambiguity. Many, however, do
produce discomfort in the listeners.

/dps