What I am wondering is which is on the tree? Is it a bird or a worm?
From my little knowledge of english, this sentence may be understood in two different ways. First, a worm was on the tree and a bird swooped down to the tree, caught and ate it. This implies that a bird doesn't have to be on that tree while eating the worm.
On the other hand, the sentence might be interpretted as describing a situation where a bird sat on the tree and ate a worm it caught from somewhere. In this case, putting the phrase"on the tree" right after "a bird" would be clearer in meaning, I guess.
What do you guys think?
Top answer
Hi, I agree with you. ( I don't usually see worms on trees. ) Clive
— Clive
Hi, I agree with you.
( I don't usually see worms on trees.
) Clive
Free · every Monday
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
In this particular sentence, asking where exactly the bird and worm are in relation to each other and the tree is irrelevant. Birds are always hanging around trees, on which there are often found worms, so from the context it is understood that the bird and worm are on the tree.