Re: Branching typologies [was: Re: "easiest" languages, SE Asian word-order typologies]

I read `John met the man in the hall that had been hading out fliers about the
upcoming came' to mean that the man is in the hall at the time of meeting, or
that the man is almost always in the hall and has perhaps removed himself for
one special occasion. Whether John was or not is unmentioned (he may be just
outside it).


Tristan

David Peterson wrote:

> In a message dated 9/27/01 3:18:22 PM, laokou@MSN.COM writes:
>
> << > (2) John met the man in the hall that had been handing out fliers
>
>
>>    about the upcoming game.
>>
>
>
> It's ambiguous in English what took place in the hall. If the meeting of the
>
> man happened in the hall, it's this: >>
>
>     I would argue that this sentence is not ambiguous in English--that, in
> fact, it can only be read as John met the man who had been in the
> hall--whether or not they were still in the hall is not mentioned.  This is
> because of where the relative clause kicks in.  If John were to have met him
> in the hall, the sentence would have to be:
>
>     John met the man who had been handing out fliers in the hall.
>
> However, THIS phrase is ambiguous, in that John could have met him in the
> hall or the man could have been handing out fliers in the hall.  However, in
> the first sentence, I don't think it can be read as "John met the man in the
> hall"--"This man had been handing out fliers".  It doesn't seem correct...
>
> -David
>
>

Reply