0
Joey_five Posted 21 years ago
Grammar

ambiguous sentences

I am wondering if the following sentences can have three different meanings:

A) John said Martha sang the aria with gusto.

i) John said "Martha sang the aria" with gusto (i.e. John said with gusto)

ii) Martha sang with gusto;

iii) John sang Martha sang "the aria with gusto" (ie. gusto is attached to the aria)

B) Sandy said Peter sang the aria from La Boheme.

i) Sandy said "Peter sang the aria from La Boheme" (ie. Peter sang from La Boheme)

ii) Sandy said Peter sang "the aria from La Boheme" (ie. the aria is from La Boheme)

iii) Sany said "Peter sang the aria" from La Boheme. (ie. Sandy said it from La Boheme)

Are all these meanings possible??

Thank you in advance.
  

Top answer

Not with that punctuation; they have only one meaning. There is a reason for all the funny little marks that are not letters: John said, 'Martha sang the aria,' with gusto. John said (that) Martha sang the aria with gusto.

— Mister Micawber

  • Not with that punctuation; they have only one meaning.
  • There is a reason for all the funny little marks that are not letters: John said, 'Martha sang the aria,' with gusto.
  • John said (that) Martha sang the aria with gusto.
  • John said (that) Martha sang 'The Aria With Gusto' .
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.

19 Answers
0
Not with that punctuation; they have only one meaning. There is a reason for all the funny little marks that are not letters:

John said, 'Martha sang the aria,' with gusto.
John said (that) Martha sang the aria with gusto.
John said (that) Martha sang 'The Aria With Gusto'.
0
0
Even as punctuated, the first rendering (where with gusto is too remotely distanced from said) is awkward grammatically, and the third rendering is only possible in the most specialized of circumstances where there exists a piece of music with the unlikely title, 'The AriaWith Gusto'.
0
0
so ... the most reasonable meaning for A) is ii) , right? "with gusto" modifiys sang.

How about sentence B? Is ii) the more reasonable interpretation for B??
0
0
Joey_five
so ... the most reasonable meaning for A) is ii) , right? "with gusto" modifiys sang.

How about sentence B? Is ii) the more reasonable interpretation for B??

A is ii, (direct speech): John said, "Martha sang the aria with gusto."
(indirect speech): John said that Martha sang the aria with gusto.

B is
0
0
Yup. Those are your only choices.
0
0
Etymology: Italian, from Latin gustus, past participle

To fit American English and probably all English in general, I would change the word gusto to "enthusiasm". Gusto doesn't really fit here.
0
0
Lucy ate the hotdog with relish.
0
0
CalifJimLucy ate the hotdog with relish.
0
0
CalifJimLucy ate the hotdog with relish.
so "with relish" can modify both hotdog and Lucy???
0
0
No. "with relish" can modify both "ate" and "hotdog". Compare:

-- Lucy ate the hotdog with relish.
-- No she didn't. Lucy ate the hotdog with mustard.

-- Lucy ate the hotdog with relish.
-- No she didn't. Lucy ate the hotdog with enthusiasm.

CJ

PS.

-- She left in a rush.
-- No. She left in a car.
0

Related Questions