0
Moon7296 Posted 12 years ago
Grammar
interpretation / structure
In 1774, English chemist Joseph Priestley identified a strange gas that made mice active and caused him to feel light and easy when he breathed it. While experimenting with heated red mercuric oxide, Priestley discovered that it gave off a colorless gas that was later called oxygen. He noticed smoldering wood burst into flames when it came in contact with the gas.
Q) Is the underlined part ambiguous when it comes to its structure considering this?
1. He noticed smoldering wood which was burst into flames when it came in contact with the gas.
2. He noticed that smoldering wood burst into flames when it came in contact with the gas.
Q) Is the underlined part ambiguous when it comes to its structure considering this?
1. He noticed smoldering wood which was burst into flames when it came in contact with the gas.
2. He noticed that smoldering wood burst into flames when it came in contact with the gas.
Top answer
moon7296 Q) Is the underlined part ambiguous when it comes to its structure No. It's the second interpretation. Otherwise, it makes no sense to add that when -clause.
- moon7296 Q) Is the underlined part ambiguous when it comes to its structure No.
- It's the second interpretation.
- Otherwise, it makes no sense to add that when -clause.
- The "it" in the when -clause can't be "smoldering wood which had (already) burst into flames" (which is I think what you intend to say in your Interpretation 1).
- That would make the sentence He noticed (some) smoldering wood which had (already) burst into flames when the smoldering wood which had (already) burst into flames came in contact with the gas.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
2 Answers
0
moon7296Q) Is the underlined part ambiguous when it comes to its structureNo. It's the second interpretation. Otherwise, it makes no sense to add that when-clause. The "it" in the when-clause can't be "smoldering wood which had (already) burst into flames" (which is I think what you intend to say in your Interpretation 1). That would make th
00
(1) is not possible since "burst into flames" is intransitive only. (2) is the correct interpretation.
0
Related Questions