Where are the grammarians?

Let's have your thoughts.

@lala

Let's have this on the front page,pls

The statement is just for fun. The statement is grammatically incorrect, and requires a correction before the question can be answerable.

When two subjects or objects used in a sentence share the same pronoun and one or both of them are to be repeated in the sentence, one of them must maintain its proper noun in the repetition part of the sentence.

Examples
"A mother beats up her daughter because the mother is drunk."

"A mother beats up her daughter because the daughter was or is drunk."

Otherwise, the sentence will be ambiguous, which means the sentence can take many different interpretations. For an ambiguous sentence like the one in this post, whoever gives "mother" as an answer is correct, and whoever gives "daughter" as an answer is also correct.

immortalcrown:
The statement is just for fun. The statement is grammatically incorrect; and requires correction before it can serve as an answerable question.

When two subjects or objects used in a sentence share the same pronoun and one or both of them are to be repeated in the sentence, one of them must maintain its proper noun in the repetition part of the sentence.

Examples
"A mother beats up her daughter because the mother was drunk."

"A mother beats up her daughter because the daughter was drunk."

I like your post, but I just need to point out that what you described is not a grammar rule. It's just a convention that has disambiguation as its sole purpose. Therefore, the sentence is not wrong but just ambiguous.

@OP: Such a sentence is called an ambiguous sentence. There's no right or wrong answer here. The drunk person could be the mother or the daughter. Only the writer/speaker or one who understands the context can tell. To avoid such problems, you either repeat the proper noun (please, see the examples above) or use the words "former" or "latter" to give clarity.

Example:
"A mother beats up her daughter because the former was drunk."

WoundedLamb:


I like your post, but I just need to point out that what you described is not a grammatical rule. It's just a convention that has disambiguation as its sole purpose. Therefore, the sentence is not wrong but just ambiguous.

@OP: Such a sentence is called an ambiguous sentence. There's no right or wrong answer here. The drunk person could be the mother or the daughter. Only the writer/speaker or one who understands the context can tell. To avoid such problems, you either repeat the proper noun (please, see the examples above) or use the words "former" or "latter" to give clarity.

Example:
"A mother beats up her daughter because the former was drunk."

Ambiguity is an error. Ambiguity causes confusion. Ambiguity occurs as either a mistake or a deliberate attempt to cause confusion. So, making an ambiguous statement is wrong. Politicians and crafty journalists intentionally do it a lot.

immortalcrown:


Ambiguity is an error. Ambiguity causes confusion. Ambiguity occurs as either a mistake or a deliberate attempt to cause confusion. So, making an ambiguous statement is wrong. Politicians and crafty journalists intentionally do it a lot.

It could be wrong morally, but the sentence is grammatical. That's what I'm saying. As far as grammar goes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that sentence. I'm not talking about the intent of the speaker. I'm only interested in the rules of the language and going by that, being ambiguous is not tantamount to being ungrammatical. That sentence is correct. There's no usage error here.

WoundedLamb:


It could be wrong morally but the sentence is grammatical. That's what I'm saying. As far as grammar goes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that sentence. I'm not talking about the intent of the speaker. I'm only interested in the rules of the language and going by that, being ambiguous is not tantamount to being ungrammatical. That sentence is a correct sentence. There's no usage error here.

Once a part of a sentence is improper, that part is wrong. Once that part is wrong, that part is grammatically incorrect. Any form of phrasing that makes comprehension of a sentence difficult is grammatically wrong. Any sentence that disobeys any grammatical rule is incorrect. Rules of concord are many. Singular nouns for singular verbs and plural nouns for plural verbs are not the only grammatical rules.

immortalcrown:


Once a part of a sentence is improper, that part is wrong. Once that part is wrong, that part is grammatically incorrect. Any sentence that disobeys any grammatical rule is incorrect. Rules of concord are many. Singular nouns for singular verbs and plural nouns for plural verbs are not the only grammatical rules. Any form of phrasing that prevents coherence and conciseness in a sentence is grammatically wrong.

This sentence does not disobey any grammar rule. What you described is not a grammar rule. It is a convention. More like "do it this way to avoid confusion". That doesn't mean the sentence itself is ungrammatical.

In English grammar, syntactic ambiguity is the presence of two or more possible meanings within a single sentence. Multiple meanings don't make a sentence wrong. A sentence has to be correct to have a meaning, let alone multiple. Therefore, a sentence has to be correct before we even begin to consider the possibility of syntactic ambiguity. Saying syntactically ambiguous sentences are ungrammatical is like saying lexically ambiguous words (words with multiple meanings) are wrong.

Maybe Quora users explained it better. Please, read:

Is an ambiguous sentence described as being incorrect grammatically?

I can see you've edited/updated your first post. I don't know why you're still arguing.

WoundedLamb:


This sentence does not disobey any grammar rule. What you described is not a grammar rule. It is a convention. More like "do it this way to avoid confusion". That doesn't mean the sentence itself is ungrammatical.

In English grammar, syntactic ambiguity is the presence of two or more possible meanings within a single sentence. Multiple meanings don't make a sentence wrong. A sentence has to be correct to have a meaning, let alone multiple. Therefore, a sentence has to be correct before we even begin to consider the possibility of syntactic ambiguity. Saying syntactically ambiguous sentences are ungrammatical is like saying lexically ambiguous words (words with multiple meanings) are wrong.

Maybe Quora users explained it better. Please, read:

Is an ambiguous sentence described as being incorrect grammatically?

I can see you've edited/updated your first post. I don't know why you're still arguing.

Stop arguing like a kid. I edited my first comment before I noticed your first quote of the comment. It was after sending the edited part that I got a notification of your first response to me. What I added to my first post does not contradict whatever I have said here. What I added is that an ambiguous sentence can take many DIFFERENT (contradicting) interpretations. Is it right for one sentence to have different (contradicting) meanings? Another thing I did is that I corrected my grammatical expression in the first part of the comment. And the error I corrected does not affect your own argument. Compare the unedited one, which you quoted, and the edited one. Stop trying to use the editing to justify your point.

immortalcrown:

Stop arguing like a kid. I edited my first comment before I noticed your first quote of the comment. It was after sending the edited part that I got a notification of your first response to me. What I added to my first post does not contradict whatever I have said here. What I added is that an ambiguous sentence can take many DIFFERENT (contradicting) interpretations. Is it right for one sentence to have different (contradicting) meanings? Another thing I did is that I corrected my grammatical expression in the first part of the comment. And the error I corrected does not affect your own argument. Compare the unedited one, which you quoted, and the edited one. Stop trying to use the editing to justify your point.

I am the one arguing like a kid? Lol.... Well, I'm not going to allow this degenerate into name calling cause it's not worth it. You see how you carefully avoided the points I raised and the link I shared? That is the approach of someone who's grasping at straws. Fine, you edited your post before you saw my response. However, that is not the bone of contention here and, like I said, any attempt to make it the core of the discussion would result to a strawman's argument.

The sentence shared by the OP is correct. It is grammatical but ambiguous. That is the point. I have explained that to you. I have also shared a link with you where the subject is discussed by people of other nationalities including native speakers and scholars. Did you even open the link I shared with you? You believe the users there are also wrong? Why not point me to any source that supports your position on the subject?

You edited your post to add that both answers could be right. Actually, none of the answers would be right if the sentence itself was wrong. The sentence first needs to be correct for any of the answers to be right. So if you're saying the sentence is wrong but both answers could be correct, then your answer is more or less meaningless. Multiple meanings don't make a sentence wrong.

immortalcrown:


Once a part of a sentence is improper, that part is wrong. Once that part is wrong, that part is grammatically incorrect. Any form of phrasing that makes comprehension of a sentence difficult is grammatically wrong. Any sentence that disobeys any grammatical rule is incorrect. Rules of concord are many. Singular nouns for singular verbs and plural nouns for plural verbs are not the only grammatical rules.

Bro, calm down a learn, okay? An ambiguous sentence is not grammatically wrong. It can be and should be avoided cause it leads to confusion if there's no enough context to decipher the right meaning (in most cases, the right meaning could easily be deciphered by considering the surrounding sentences). But it is not grammatically incorrect. The sentence in question is correct. I'm (was) a language teacher myself. Though it's French I teach, the concept remains the same. This is an open-and-close discussion, bro. No need to prolong it any further.

Peace!

etrange:


Dude, calm down a learn, okay? An ambiguous sentence is not grammatically wrong. It can be and should be avoided cause it leads to confusion if there's no enough context to decipher the right meaning (in most cases, the right meaning could easily be deciphered by considering the surrounding sentences). But it is not grammatically incorrect. The sentence in question is correct. I'm (was) a language teacher myself. Though it's French I teach, the concept remains the same. This is an open-and-close discussion, bro. No need to prolong it any further.

Peace!

I'm tired.

The mother because it's obvious she acted ( beat the child) under the influence of alcohol which is the only thing that can make one violent.

If we are to apply the stress rule, if the emphasis is on because then the daughter is the answer but if the emphasis is on she then the mother is the answer. Eg
1). The mother beats up her daughter BECAUSE she was drunk. Here the daughter is the answer.
1). The mother beats up her daughter because SHE was drunk. Here the mother is the answer.

Both of them are drunk wetin concern me