0
Cho7712 Posted 14 years ago
Grammar
Meaning
It looks odd and I also know it to be odd enough to use this sentence in real context.
e.g. What the rock did was roll down the hill.
Actually it is suggested for proving the dynamicity in a following sentence ; The rock rolled down the hill.
And I'm wondering if the example sentence is all-right from the point of 'meaning'.
Since I think 'did' is marked as the agent-oriented verb in the above structure, even though the rock seems to move itself into the direction, it obviously is from the power of some kinds of nature, not rock itself.
So I don't get it why the example sentence is correct. What part of my thinking is on the wrong track?
e.g. What the rock did was roll down the hill.
Actually it is suggested for proving the dynamicity in a following sentence ; The rock rolled down the hill.
And I'm wondering if the example sentence is all-right from the point of 'meaning'.
Since I think 'did' is marked as the agent-oriented verb in the above structure, even though the rock seems to move itself into the direction, it obviously is from the power of some kinds of nature, not rock itself.
So I don't get it why the example sentence is correct. What part of my thinking is on the wrong track?
Top answer
", are both okay from a purely grammatical point of view, and mean approximately the same thing. However, the first sentence is very awkward, in my opinion. " - rocks do not do things, they are inanimate.
- ", are both okay from a purely grammatical point of view, and mean approximately the same thing.
- However, the first sentence is very awkward, in my opinion.
- " - rocks do not do things, they are inanimate.
- Unless the rock has previously been solidly personified - for example, if this were some kind of fairy tale for children in which inanimate things speak and do things - this is bad English.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
3 Answers
0
The sentences, "What the rock did was roll down the hill." and "The rock rolled down the hill.", are both okay from a purely grammatical point of view, and mean approximately the same thing. However, the first sentence is very awkward, in my opinion. The problem is that this personifies the rock: "What the rock did..." - rocks do not do things, they are inanimate. Unless the rock has previousl
00
cho7712And I'm wondering if the example sentence is all-right from the point of 'meaning'.Yes. It's all right grammatically. You are right to mention that 'did' seems to beg for an agentive subject, but I think we overlook this in ordinary conversation - and in examples in grammar books when the author is trying to illustrate some point.
00
Thanks for both of you,
Yes, I surely admit it that the example sentence is problematic-looking and is sort of bad use in English. Though I'm not a native speaker of English, I can feel this sentence to be awkward. I can say it is what we call a universal grammar. It might be possible to assume that this kind of sentence could hardly come to use in real situations in almost all languages gener
Yes, I surely admit it that the example sentence is problematic-looking and is sort of bad use in English. Though I'm not a native speaker of English, I can feel this sentence to be awkward. I can say it is what we call a universal grammar. It might be possible to assume that this kind of sentence could hardly come to use in real situations in almost all languages gener
0
Related Questions