OK, check out this link to see what I'm talking about:Â http://mentalfloss.com/article/49238/7-sentences-sound-crazy-are-still-grammatical
The first example (a classic joke by Groucho Marx) makes perfect sense. Easy to parse however you understand it. The other examples get a bit more difficult to parse. I'm still struggling with #7. But according to Okrent, they all make grammatical sense. I'll take her word on #7. And of course, she included the "buffalo" example that has been discussed on this forum previously.
Here's the question this raised for me. Outside of pure examples of complex but grammatical sentence structure, why would any writer choose to use such a structure? Is it simply an attempt to demonstrate a mastery of grammar? If you build it ... they will read it? I mean, the examples Okrent cites are from published works. But in every case (except for the Groucho joke which is an obvious play on grammar) it just looks like sloppy writing to me. I would rewrite every one of them. Including "buffalo," in the unlikely case I had to convey that info.
So are those examples just grammar elitism, or poor writing?
Heimhenge said
So are those examples just grammar elitism, or poor writing?
I would say both. Clarity trumps all else, and for acquiring that virtue, George Gopen is the best teacher I've ever found.
These are extreme examples of sentences that appear to have been deliberately constructed to confuse or mislead or illustrate a point ad absurdum. In the case of number 1, brilliantly so. In the case of number 7, questionably so. In all cases except 1, horrifyingly so.
In number 7, I specifically question the construction "... being exhibiting ... ". It is a very weird use of the progressive verb and, if one should choose to do so, one should convert the subject of the progressive gerund into a possessive to be perfectly grammatical in formal English. Of course, the exception to this formal rule is to omit the possessive if it makes the sentence awkward, but in this case, the sentence could scarcely be more awkward. It is actually, and intentionally, more awkward without the possessive.
1a: The student's being absent made it impossible for him to keep up with the lessons. (As opposed to 1b: The student being absent made it ... ; or as opposed to 1c: The student, being absent, was unable to keep up with the lessons.)
2a: The student's being daydreaming made it impossible for him to hear the teacher call his name. (As opposed to 2b: the student being daydreaming made it ... ; or as opposed to 2c: The student, being daydreaming, was unable to hear the teacher call his name.)
3a: The teaching's being boring made it impossible for the class to stay awake. (As opposed to 3b: the teaching being boring made it ... ; or as opposed to 3c: The teaching, being boring, made it impossible for the class to stay awake.)
In example 3a the phrase "being boring" is the subject of the main verb made and the teaching (in possessive form) is the subject of the gerund phrase being boring. In 3c the teaching is the subject of the main verb made. Example 3b is a reflection that the possessive is often not used as the subject of the gerund in informal English.
Grammatical or not, the sentence is still repulsive.
Can a will be willed from father to son? Â And is this construction valid : Â ' I will that he will do something' Â ? Â If both answers are yes, then there is no limit to what this series can mean : Â Â will will will will will ... Â ( And no telling what length it can take and still make some sense )
One possible permutation:
Will Will will Will will will Will will Will will will Will ? Â
= Will father Will command that son Will will give to grandson the will that father will give to him ?
Appreciate all the comments, thanks. On further investigation (following a link in my original link) I find there's a sub-category of this type of sentence called a "garden path sentence" that actually has a purpose, almost always humorous. That was a new term for me, but it makes perfect sense. It uses internal structure to "lead one down the garden path," so to speak, intentionally setting up a parsing error. Classic examples include:
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. (Groucho again)
The old man the boat. (not so humorous, but same idea)
And, of course, there's the "buffalo" example I mentioned in my initial post. Who'da thunk this structure was actually useful in psycholinguistics? Or that it has an "official" name: paraprosdokian. There's your new word for the day. 