Re: OT: Two language change questions

Eugene Oh wrote:
>It could equally validly be interpreted as that there was a specific cream
>pie, or just one, available for the clown to use, and that was what he hit
>the man with. (Very brief as still rescuing Cl. Arithide information
>forTaliesin.)
>
>Eugene
>
>On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...> wrote:
>
> > --- On Wed, 10/29/08, David McCann <david@...> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > >
> > > I wouldn't say that the indefinite article is *only* a
> > > quantifier: I'm
> > > always suspicious of theorists who insist there is only one
> > > true way to
> > > describe the phenomena! But *primarily* a quantifier, yes.
> >
> > Here's an odd role for the definite vs indefinite article:
> >
> > The clown hit the man with A cream pie.
> > The clown hit the man with THE cream pie.
> >
> > In the first it is clear that the cream pie was the weapon used against
>the
> > man, while in the second case it seems that the clown hit, with some
>unknown
> > weapon, the man who was holding the cream pie.
> >
> > E.G:
> >
> > The clown hit the man with A baseball bat.
> >
Both examples are two-ways ambiguous:

The clown hit the man [who had a/the cream pie/baseball bat]
The clown hit [with a/the c.p./b.b.] the man

> > The clown hit the man with THE red hat.
More clearly here, it's the man who has the red hat, though the other
reading is still possible though less likely.

One of my prof's classic examples of a multiply ambiguous statement:

"The police were ordered to stop drinking on campus after midnight"

Replies