Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
OK, check out this link to see what I'm talking about: 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? And is this construction valid : ' I will that he will do something' ? If both answers are yes, then there is no limit to what this series can mean : will will will will will ... ( 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 ?
= 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. 
I can remember a big argument on another forum a few years back over the sentence He must have been being interviewed.
I was in one group, the group that found it the most natural way to express the desired thought.
A second group insisted that it was awkward and should be re-written as He must have been interviewed. (My group could not get through to this second group that this said something else altogether.)
Yet a third group claimed that it was ungrammatical gibberish and had no meaning at all. Part of their argument was that you couldn't have two adjacent forms of the word "be".
The argument was never resolved. It continued until we found some other topic over which to call each other nasty names.
Obviously. you were correct. Later, one could say he had been interviewed, but aty the time being referenced, je was in the process of being interviewed.
Physics now denies the concept of simultaneity at great distance - and obviously one would want to greatly distance oneself from such Jehus. I suppose one could say He must have been partially interviewed.
SaeKyung said
If you are doubt in your grammar, then use NounPlus. It is a free online grammar checker tool. It is very easy to use. You can check your every grammar and sentence mistake through this tool. I am always using it.
SaeKyung, I remembered that when I came across this nice sentence- but it seems to get NounPlus nonplussed :
Word on the Arab Street is that Barack Obama signed a nuclear deal with Iran so that he can extract concessions over Syria in return for Iran being allowed to control Iraq and for which it has to rein in the Houthis in Yemen to pacify the Saudis and simultaneously restrain Kurdish ambitions thus easing Turkey’s anxiety about Kurdish independence as an incentive for it to cooperate regionally allowing both Saudi Arabia and Turkey to come on board with Obama’s plan for Israel/Palestine which will also appease Egypt allowing it to play a bigger role in Libya to control the southern shores of the Mediterranean reducing migrant flows into Europe to ease the pressure on Greece and Italy for which Europe agrees to soften its stance against Russia allowing for a solution in Ukraine that allows NATO to maintain a presence in the East without threatening Russia which will be rewarded by removing the international sanctions against it allowing it to increase its trade with Europe.
Something about this thread brings back half a memory, and I'm thinking it was from an old movie, perhaps with Jimmy Stewart, in the era of the PEnnsylvania 6-5000 movie or The Glenn Miller Story. Anyhow, thre is a group of male singers, not a soloist, singing befdore a big band, with lyrics like "Who do you hoodoo? You do!"
Google fails me entirely on this one. Allison Moyet, a name I don't think I've run across before and will have forgotten tomorrow, in all probability (not a jibe, more my shortcoming than hers), recorded an album by that naqme in 1991, with a cut also named Hoodoo, with very similar lyrics to the chorus. I don't know if it's the same lyric all the way through (as I said, half a memory) and the melody is quite different (if Moyet's song can be said to even have a melody (not a jibe; it's OK, but not a "melodic" song in the old sense.)
This thread also bring back an old joke about unionization at the weather bureau, and one of the weathermen was really unhappy about job descriptions, because he no longer got to "do dew", and he was really uncomfortable from constipation.
Glenn said
And then there is "Do do that voodoo that you do so well" at 0:33 and again at 2:04; Sinatra performing You Do Something To Me
Not the song I was thinking of, but I've heard this one before. I surely shouldn't have forgotten the chairman of the board.
Of all the things I've ever lost, I miss my mind the most.
I recall some movie from that same era with the following dialog between the main actor and actress (no idea who) that went something like this ...
You remind me of a man.
What man?
The man with the power.What power?
The power of vodoo.
Voodoo?
You do.
Do what?
Reminds me of a man.
The exchange then ends with both characters laughing. I believe they were on a tarmac walking away from a plane. Could it have been that same Sinatra movie?
Here is that clip, but he says "hoodoo" and not "voodoo" and that makes more sense in the transition from "Hoodoo?" to "You do."
Cary Grant, The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer
The screenplay was masterfully written. Sidney Sheldon, later known for Hart to Hart, Rage of Angels, I Dream of Jeannie, Patty Duke Show Billy Rose's Jumbo, Annie Get Your Gun, Three Guys Named Mike. B&TBS was one of his eaerllier works; he won an Oscar for it.
Susan Turner: What man?
Richard Nugent: Man with the power.
Susan Turner: What power?
Richard Nugent: Power of hoodoo.
Susan Turner: Hoodoo?
Richard Nugent: You do.
Susan Turner: Do what?
Richard Nugent: Remind me of a man...
Matt Beemish: Well, the door was closed, so I opened it and came right in.
Matt Beemish: I couldn't help overhearing. I had my ear to the door.
Agnes Prescott: Now there's a guy who never goes out of a girl's mind. He just stays there... like a heavy meal.
Richard Nugent: For instance?
Richard Nugent: Ready boot, let's scoot!
Not only a dellicious script, but when Ian Fleming created the James Bond character a decade later, Cary Grant was the model in his mind for 007.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
2 Guest(s)