Author |
Topic: GRAMMAR DISTINCTIONS (Read 1137 times) |
|
michaelscwu
Newbie
Gender: 
Posts: 5
|
 |
GRAMMAR DISTINCTIONS
« on: Dec 31st, 2007, 2:16am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
English grammar used to be taught as an analytical subject, but today such rigorous treatment is rarely seen in the States. Consequently, most modernized Americans are unable to discern the differences between the following four sentences:
Only birds read poetry.
Birds only read poetry.
Birds only read poetry. (two different interpretations for this sentence exist)
Birds read only poetry.
For each of these sentences, write a sentence or two showing that you appreciate the distinctions.
Bonus Question: Translate each of the above sentences into formalized logical expressions, using boolean logic symbols and quantifiers (e.g. and, or, not, implies, for all, there exists, etc).
*****************************************
I can't find the answer for this on any of the forums... please help?  
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
ThudnBlunder
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
The dewdrop slides into the shining Sea
Gender:
Posts: 4489
|
|
Re: GRAMMAR DISTINCTIONS
« Reply #1 on: Dec 31st, 2007, 2:52am » |
Quote Modify
|
In short, 'only' qualifies the word that follows it.
|
|
IP Logged |
THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH.....................................................................er, if that's all right with the rest of you.
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: GRAMMAR DISTINCTIONS
« Reply #2 on: Dec 31st, 2007, 2:58am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Dec 31st, 2007, 2:52am, ThudanBlunder wrote:| In short, 'only' qualifies the word that follows it. |
|
Then you wouldn't have two interpretations for "Birds only read poetry."
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: GRAMMAR DISTINCTIONS
« Reply #3 on: Dec 31st, 2007, 3:54am » |
Quote Modify
|
Although I am obsessed with grammar, it is unfortunate that exercises such as this are no longer valid. Semantics (the linguistic meaning) is no longer determined by rules, but by common interpretation. Hence syntax (the significance of word order), the other focus of traditional grammar, is practically obsolete. This means that 2), 3), and 4) have identical meaning to modern ears and no amount of insistence from old school grammarians will persuade people. They will say something like, "Your wrong! Its ambiguous!" And if I could see how they wrote that I would increase the intensity of my weeping.
Anyway...
Approaching this exercise with the rules of traditional grammar is a case of recognising that "only" functions as an adverb or an adjective. That is, it modifies the verb/noun. This is simple with nouns as it modifies the word following it. For example, "the beautiful lady"; here "beautiful" adds the quality of beauty to the lady. Similarly we can list attributes of the lady; for example, "the incredible beautiful lady" is one who is both beautiful and incredible. But if we wish to combine force of one of the adjectives we must use the adverbial form of the other adjective. That is, we have an "incredibly beautiful lady". As with the adjectives the rule here is unambiguous. The adjective always precedes the noun it modifies. Similarly, the adverb that modifies the adjective sits in front of it.
The problem with the word "only" is that it does not modify its form when it acts as an adverb or an adjective; cf. incredible (adjective) and incredibly (adverb). However, syntax makes the first sentence entirely unambiguous, as the adjective always precedes the noun it modifies.
1) Only birds read poetry. <=> Birds are the only creatures that read poetry.
However, syntax allows the adverb to sit in more than one place in a sentence. For example.
The girl runs quickly to the shops.
The girl quickly runs to the shops.
The girl runs to the shops quickly.
Each of these three sentences have identical meaning. The rules for the position of an adverb are more guidelines and would be both too difficult and unnecessary to outline them here. Needless to say, the rules of grammar suggest that the last sentence is preferable because an adverb defining the manner in which the verb is done is placed at the end of the sentence.
So because of this "ambiguity" it is possible that in the fourth sentence "only" is acting as a modifier of the verb or the noun. Here is the adjectival interpretation, but it could be interpreted in the same way as the adverbial interpretations that follow.
4) Birds read only poetry. <=> Birds read nothing else but poetry.
The second/third sentence would be unambiguous if it weren't for the fact that the verb "read" could be the present or past form. For example, "Birds only eat worms", and, "Birds only ate worms".
Hence we could interpret the original sentences as follows.
2) Birds only read (present) poetry. <=> Birds will read poetry, but never listen to it.
3) Birds only read (past) poetry. <=> Birds used to only read poetry, but now they will happily listen to it.
The problem with the way in which English is taught today is that most people would interpret "birds only eat worms" as "birds eat only worms". That is, they ignore the rules of grammar use "only" as an adjectival modifier of the noun "worms" rather than an adverbial modifier of the verb "eat".
So as I mentioned above, in modern English sentences 2), 3), and 4) have identical meaning, and the subtlety of "only" restricting the scope of the verb "read" is lost. That is, syntax is obsolete and word order matters less.
I should also point out that independent of grammar, and using the present tense adverbial form of 2), it would be perfectly valid to draw a host of alternatives to the limiting scope of "only". But these are nothing more than grammatically equivalent examples. For example, "Birds only read poetry" <=> "Birds read it, but don't understand it".
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 31st, 2007, 6:42am by Sir Col » |
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
michaelscwu
Newbie
Gender:
Posts: 5
|
|
Re: GRAMMAR DISTINCTIONS
« Reply #4 on: Dec 31st, 2007, 4:40am » |
Quote Modify
|
Wow Sir Col you're good
Great analyzation
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
ThudnBlunder
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
The dewdrop slides into the shining Sea
Gender:
Posts: 4489
|
|
Re: GRAMMAR DISTINCTIONS
« Reply #5 on: Dec 31st, 2007, 5:03am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Dec 31st, 2007, 2:58am, towr wrote:
Then you wouldn't have two interpretations for "Birds only read poetry."
|
|
Do these two interpretations depend on the tense of 'read'?
If so, all the sentences have two interpretations.
on Dec 31st, 2007, 3:54am, Sir Col wrote:| for example, "the incredible beautiful lady" is one whom is both beautiful and incredible. |
|
While we are on the topic, as "the incredible beautiful lady" is the subject (and not the object) of the sentence, should we not use 'who' rather than 'whom'? 
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 31st, 2007, 5:30am by ThudnBlunder » |
IP Logged |
THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH.....................................................................er, if that's all right with the rest of you.
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: GRAMMAR DISTINCTIONS
« Reply #6 on: Dec 31st, 2007, 6:41am » |
Quote Modify
|
Oops! 
The danger of discussing grammar is that you run the risk of being hoisted by your own petard. My students, for whom I often tease about their grammar, would certainly have enjoyed that faux pas.
|
|
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
michaelscwu
Newbie
Gender:
Posts: 5
|
|
Re: GRAMMAR DISTINCTIONS
« Reply #7 on: Dec 31st, 2007, 7:04am » |
Quote Modify
|
what exactly is the difference between the subject and object of a sentence? I have trouble distinguishing between their dissimilarities.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
    
Gender:
Posts: 2874
|
|
Re: GRAMMAR DISTINCTIONS
« Reply #8 on: Dec 31st, 2007, 8:01am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Dec 31st, 2007, 7:04am, michaelscwu wrote:| what exactly is the difference between the subject and object of a sentence? I have trouble distinguishing between their dissimilarities. |
|
The subject is the entity that does; the object is the entity that is done to.
For example, when "I hit you," I'm the subject - the one doing the hitting, while you are the object - the one being hit.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
michaelscwu
Newbie
Gender:
Posts: 5
|
|
Re: GRAMMAR DISTINCTIONS
« Reply #9 on: Dec 31st, 2007, 8:19am » |
Quote Modify
|
o ic. i think i get it now. thx
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Astrix
Newbie
Posts: 37
|
|
Re: GRAMMAR DISTINCTIONS
« Reply #10 on: Dec 31st, 2007, 11:34am » |
Quote Modify
|
You missed a couuple interpretations.
"birds only read poetry." Could be
Birds only (read poetry), that is, they do nothing all day but read poetry.
I am an only child, so a sentence like
Only children read poetry, could also mean
children who have no brothers or sisters read poetry. But I'm not sure if there's such a thing as an only bird.
Then there's the situation where this sentence is spoken in answer to another statement, and only, coming first, means Except. Only "birds read poetry" could explain why the previous statement was incorrect.
Finally, if we put this entire discussion into iambic pentameter, poetry about the word "only" could legitimately be called "only poetry," just as there's cowboy poems, love poems...
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 31st, 2007, 11:46am by Astrix » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: GRAMMAR DISTINCTIONS
« Reply #11 on: Jan 1st, 2008, 6:12am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Dec 31st, 2007, 3:54am, Sir Col wrote:| Semantics (the linguistic meaning) is no longer determined by rules |
|
Was it ever?
Perhaps I shouldn't read it as if there's a 'solely' before determined; but in any case syntax has always been a guide to, not (sole) determiner of, semantics.
Quote:| Hence syntax (the significance of word order), the other focus of traditional grammar, is practically obsolete. |
|
It is still very much of importance; however the range of valid (in the sens of generally acceptable) syntactical structures has become larger. The reason is quite simple, we have become less isolated.
Where once you might have had a town/local variant and perhaps an upper-class variant of a language which you needed to know as; these days everyone and their dog can get on TV and youtube, and people travel and move all over the place. You have to cope with a much larger variety of speech.
Acceptable alphabetizing anyone by chance except in is not sentence still the to typically words your. Grammatical structure is still very much important to intelligibility. But there is more choice (well, a wider range of choices that are acceptable to a wide public. I daresay there are actually fewer choicer overall, even disregarding extinct languages).
Quote:| The second/third sentence would be unambiguous if it weren't for the fact that the verb "read" could be the present or past form. |
|
Hmm, the way I parsed it, I got
[birds [[only read] poetry]] or [birds [only [read poetry]]]
adding past/present tense gets me to 4 interpretations.
[edit]I should have read the rest of the thread, cause Astrix already mentioned this interpretation for 2/3 as well.[/edit]
on Dec 31st, 2007, 5:03am, ThudanBlunder wrote:| Do these two interpretations depend on the tense of 'read'? |
|
No, they depend on whether "only" modifies the verb or the verb phrase in the sentence.
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 1st, 2008, 6:20am by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Pyotr
Newbie
Posts: 13
|
|
Re: GRAMMAR DISTINCTIONS
« Reply #12 on: Mar 7th, 2008, 6:43am » |
Quote Modify
|
Can't you get eight interpretations depending on tense and which word is emphasised:
1. Birds only read poetry, not dogs.
2. Birds only read poetry, they do nothing else.
3. Birds only read poetry, they don't write it.
4. Birds only read poetry, not prose.
(x2 for past tense)
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: GRAMMAR DISTINCTIONS
« Reply #13 on: Mar 7th, 2008, 7:13am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 7th, 2008, 6:43am, Pyotr wrote:Can't you get eight interpretations depending on tense and which word is emphasised:
1. Birds only read poetry, not dogs.
2. Birds only read poetry, they do nothing else.
3. Birds only read poetry, they don't write it.
4. Birds only read poetry, not prose.
(x2 for past tense) |
|
The first one doesn't really work imo; "birds only" =/= "only birds". Except perhaps on a sign for a birdfeeder ("birds only; no cats allowed")
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Pyotr
Newbie
Posts: 13
|
|
Re: GRAMMAR DISTINCTIONS
« Reply #14 on: May 15th, 2008, 11:32am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 7th, 2008, 7:13am, towr wrote:
The first one doesn't really work imo; "birds only" =/= "only birds". Except perhaps on a sign for a birdfeeder ("birds only; no cats allowed")
|
|
You're probably right. My version would only work in a particular dramatic context.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
RIDDLES SITE
WRITE MATH!
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print