0
Debpriya De Posted 15 years ago
Grammar
Treat like
1. "I treated him like a king."
2. "I defeated him like a soldier."
3. "I could see the tennis ball like a football."
It appears to me that the above sentences can be interpreted in more than one way.
Sentence #1 can mean either that I treated him like a king would treat him or that I treated him like I would treat a king.
Similarly #2 can mean either that I defeated him like a soldier would defeat him or that I defeated him like I would defeat a soldier.
My queston is, do we have to disambiguate such sentences in formal speech or are such sentences acceptable ?
2. "I defeated him like a soldier."
3. "I could see the tennis ball like a football."
It appears to me that the above sentences can be interpreted in more than one way.
Sentence #1 can mean either that I treated him like a king would treat him or that I treated him like I would treat a king.
Similarly #2 can mean either that I defeated him like a soldier would defeat him or that I defeated him like I would defeat a soldier.
My queston is, do we have to disambiguate such sentences in formal speech or are such sentences acceptable ?
Top answer
It is always a good idea to disambiguate when it is necessary, but you need to take each instance on its own merits. For #1 it is unnecessary to clarify, since this is an idiom. #2 is not idiomatic and is confusing; it should be recast.
- It is always a good idea to disambiguate when it is necessary, but you need to take each instance on its own merits.
- For #1 it is unnecessary to clarify, since this is an idiom.
- #2 is not idiomatic and is confusing; it should be recast.
- #3 is unambiguous on the grounds of commonsense, since footballs have no eyes to see.
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
It is always a good idea to disambiguate when it is necessary, but you need to take each instance on its own merits. For #1 it is unnecessary to clarify, since this is an idiom. #2 is not idiomatic and is confusing; it should be recast. #3 is unambiguous on the grounds of commonsense, since footballs have no eyes to see.
00
Debpriya DeSentence #1 can mean either that I treated him like a king would treat him or that I treated him like I would treat a king.The expected interpretation here is "like I would treat a king".
Debpriya De2. "I defeated him like a soldier."This is too ambiguous to be useful. Besides, it's a bit anomalous under either
0
Related Questions