I see this as very straight forward sentence, "BECAUSE" as it was used in that sentence signified "the Reason" she was beaten by her mother.

So the daughter was drunk.

her daughter naw...

RadicallyBlunt:
It depends on the context of usage...the event from the beginning of the article.


But regardless of the preceding event, I'll say its d daughter. If it was d mother it would be:

A drunken mother beats up her daughter.

Nice one


Or a mother beat up her drunk daughter

This is a complex sentence with the subordinate clause linker "because" which introduce the adverbials clause of reason. According to main clause-subordinate clause proximity Concord which requires that the subordinate clause qualifying the word or group of word with nominal dimension in the main clause must be as close as possible to it. So in our case here the daughter is closer to the subordinates clause hence the daughter is the drunk one.

Chai I sabi book that year for uni days
e no easy to be a play boy and at the same time sabi bookee
I ate my cake and have it

Ur mother

donstan18:
A mother beats up her daughter because she was drunk.


Please all English gurus, who is drunk?

Answer with a profound prove and explanation.

she represents both of them , therefore who was drunk was not stated clearly.hence, the statement is targeted at causing confusion for the receiver .

The mother is the drunkard. She knew her daughter was drunk and you are still beating her. You need to let her sleep and wake up so she can understand what she did was wrong. So mother acts like the drunkard and she is drunk at the same time.

To tackle this as a bright English student, you have to ask yourself these questions:
1. who was beaten?
ans. the daughter

2. why was she beaten?

ans. because she was drunk.


PROBLEM SOLVED!!!!

How will the answer improve the economy of Nigeria?

The Mother is the drunk one.

RadicallyBlunt:
It depends on the context of usage...the event from the beginning of the article.


But regardless of the preceding event, I'll say its d daughter. If it was d mother it would be:

A drunken mother beats up her daughter.

I can also say 'a mother beats up her drunken daughter' na

donstan18:
A mother beats up her daughter because she was drunk.


Please all English gurus, who is drunk?

Answer with a profound prove and explanation.

The mother is the drunk.

If it were the daughter, the construction would be:

A mother beats up her daughter for being drunk.

The Mother is drunk. the noun phrase "the mother" is replaced wit d pronoun "she"

If it is in Africa, I will say the daughter was drunk.
If it is in western countries I will say the mother was drunk.

Olalake:
The Mother is drunk. the noun phrase "the mother" is replaced wit d pronoun "she"

HERE IS THE ANSWER. NO MORE QUESTION.

The statement, "A mother beat up her daughter because she was drunk" is a clear case of ambiguity. In English, ambiguity is a situation where a sentence can be interpreted in more than one way. Ambiguous expressions, either caused by a phrase or a word/lexical item, are always difficult to be given precise meanings.


There are two types of ambiguity:

1. Lexical ambiguity.

2. Structural ambiguity.


In lexical ambiguity, a word, usually a polysemous word, will make a sentence to have more than one meaning. For example, the word, "grace" in the sentence, "Everyone needs grace to make it in life". This sentence is ambiguous, (that is, it can be interpreted in more than one way) because of the presence of the polysemous word, "grace". Is it that everyone needs grace (as a person) to make it in life, or we need the grace (of God) to make it in life? These are two possible questions that will marry the mind of a reader who comes across such sentence, and this will inarguably leave a reader in a state of confusion while trying to ascertain the intended meaning of a writer.
Structural ambiguity occurs when a phrase makes a sentence to have more than one possible meaning. For example, the phrase, "the shooting of the robbers", in the sentence, "The shooting of the robbers came as a shock", makes the sentence ambiguous. Is it that the shooting (operation) which was done by the robbers came as a shock, or the act of shooting the robbers came as a shock? These are two possible ways one can interpret the sentence.
Having said that, let's analyse our sentence of study:


"A Mother beat up her daughter because she was drunk."


The question is, "who was drunk?". The truth of the matter is that no one can precisely state or tell who was drunk between them because the sentence is assigned with more than one interpretation. The ambiguity of this sentence is caused by the lexical item, she, which is a pronoun. The speaker or writer (of the sentence) assigned two antecedents, "a mother" and "her daughter", to the pronoun, "she", without clearly stating which of the antecedents the pronoun is referring to, thereby making it difficult for the listener or reader to give a precise interpretation to the sentence. So, while some would say that it was the mother who was drunk, others would argue that it was the daughter who was drunk. We don't need to blame them for the different interpretations because the sentence does not carry a precise meaning.


However, only the speaker or writer of such sentence can state/give its actual meaning although that doesn't disambiguate the sentence. But what happens in a case like this where the speaker is unknown or can't be found to give the actual interpretation of the sentence? In a case like this, one will only resort to disambiguating the sentence in order to get a precise meaning. To disambiguate means to give a precise or one interpretation to a sentence or construction which can be interpreted in more than one way. The question now is, "how can one disambiguate or give a precise interpretation to our sentence of study?"


HOW TO DISAMBIGUATE THE SENTENCE, "A MOTHER BEAT UP HER DAUGHTER BECAUSE SHE WAS DRUNK."


We can disambiguate the sentence by either of the following ways:


1. Inserting a more definite noun phrase "the daughter" and deleting the pronoun "she". So, the sentence should read:


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


2. By inserting the appositive phrase "the mother" after "she". So, the sentence should read:


"A mother beat up her daughter because she, the mother, was drunk".


3. Inserting the adjectives (that are nominalised),"former" and "latter", to refer to "mother" and "daughter" respectively:


"A mother beat up her daughter because the former was drunk." (In this case, the mother is the one who was drunk)


or


"A mother beat up her daughter because the latter was drunk. (In this case, it is her daughter who was drunk).


In sum, ambiguous sentences make it difficult for a reader or listener to understand a speaker's intent. Therefore, for easy comprehension of a statement, a speaker should avoid using ambiguous sentences.

tautology

but all the same, using common sense 101, you will agree with me that you normally beat people when they _fuck up.

so that means it was the daughter who _fucked up by getting drunk and she was subsequently beaten by her mom.

MissWrite:
The mother, I would say .

A mother beat her daughter because she was drunk.

"A mother" is the subject of the sentence. She's the one doing, and whose action is qualified. Without the conjunction: A mother beat her daughter. She was drunk.
"A mother" is the subject in the first sentence, while "daughter" is the object. In the second sentence, if the daughter is to become the subject, it would be stated. But the pronoun "She" is used because it's taken for granted that "A mother" remains the subject.

I guess you're correct

NaughtyDiamond:
I guess you're correct

Actually, no. It's an ambiguous statement.

This is my analysis:

From the statement, "A mother beats up her daughter because she was drunk."
The daughter is the one who was drunk.

But if the statement was "A mother beats up her daughter because she herself was drunk. "
Then, the mother would have been the one who was drunk.

Thank you

Sanchez01:

The statement does not make sense. Why? It is ambiguous and ambiguity leads to vagueness.

Example;

1. Why did the mother beat up her child? Because she was drunk. (Who was??)
Implied: A. The mother beat up her child because she (her child) was drunk.
B. The mother beat up her child because she (herself) was drunk.

A statement that can be interpreted either ways in English language is vague (owing to ambiguity) as there are no specifics. This one is useless.

Linguist spotted

UNIQUEISRAEL:
The statement, "A mother beat up her daughter because she was drunk" is a clear case of ambiguity. In English, ambiguity is a situation where a sentence can be interpreted in more than one way. Ambiguous expressions, either caused by a phrase or a word/lexical item, are always difficult to be given precise meanings.


There are two types of ambiguity:

1. Lexical ambiguity.

2. Structural ambiguity.


In lexical ambiguity, a word, usually a polysemous word, will make a sentence to have more than one meaning. For example, the word, "grace" in the sentence, "Everyone needs grace to make it in life". This sentence is ambiguous, (that is, it can be interpreted in more than one way) because of the presence of the polysemous word, "grace". Is it that everyone needs grace (as a person) to make it in life, or we need the grace (of God) to make it in life? These are two possible questions that will marry the mind of a reader who comes across such sentence, and this will inarguably leave a reader in a state of confusion while trying to ascertain the intended meaning of a writer.
Structural ambiguity occurs when a phrase makes a sentence to have more than one possible meaning. For example, the phrase, "the shooting of the robbers", in the sentence, "The shooting of the robbers came as a shock", makes the sentence ambiguous. Is it that the shooting (operation) which was done by the robbers came as a shock, or the act of shooting the robbers came as a shock? These are two possible ways one can interpret the sentence.
Having said that, let's analyse our sentence of study:


"A Mother beat up her daughter because she was drunk."


The question is, "who was drunk?". The truth of the matter is that no one can precisely state or tell who was drunk between them because the sentence is assigned with more than one interpretation. The ambiguity of this sentence is caused by the lexical item, she, which is a pronoun. The speaker or writer (of the sentence) assigned two antecedents, "a mother" and "her daughter", to the pronoun, "she", without clearly stating which of the antecedents the pronoun is referring to, thereby making it difficult for the listener or reader to give a precise interpretation to the sentence. So, while some would say that it was the mother who was drunk, others would argue that it was the daughter who was drunk. We don't need to blame them for the different interpretations because the sentence does not carry a precise meaning.


However, only the speaker or writer of such sentence can state/give its actual meaning although that doesn't disambiguate the sentence. But what happens in a case like this where the speaker is unknown or can't be found to give the actual interpretation of the sentence? In a case like this, one will only resort to disambiguating the sentence in order to get a precise meaning. To disambiguate means to give a precise or one interpretation to a sentence or construction which can be interpreted in more than one way. The question now is, "how can one disambiguate or give a precise interpretation to our sentence of study?"


HOW TO DISAMBIGUATE THE SENTENCE, "A MOTHER BEAT UP HER DAUGHTER BECAUSE SHE WAS DRUNK."


We can disambiguate the sentence by either of the following ways:


1. Inserting a more definite noun phrase "the daughter" and deleting the pronoun "she". So, the sentence should read:


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


2. By inserting the appositive phrase "the mother" after "she". So, the sentence should read:


"A mother beat up her daughter because she, the mother, was drunk".


3. Inserting the adjectives (that are nominalised),"former" and "latter", to refer to "mother" and "daughter" respectively:


"A mother beat up her daughter because the former was drunk." (In this case, the mother is the one who was drunk)


or


"A mother beat up her daughter because the latter was drunk. (In this case, it is her daughter who was drunk).


In sum, ambiguous sentences make it difficult for a reader or listener to understand a speaker's intent. Therefore, for easy comprehension of a statement, a speaker should avoid using ambiguous sentences. 

God bless u,Sir.We know linguists when we see their texts

NaughtyDiamond:
I guess you're correct

i concur

donstan18:
A mother beats up her daughter because she was drunk.


Please all English gurus, who is drunk?

Answer with a profound prove and explanation.

It's the daughter that was drunk. The verb 'beats' lets the answer on so easily. 'Beats' suggests that the beating isn't in the past. 'was drunk' implies that whoever took the alcohol isn't drunk anymore.

A sober mother(who isn't drunk anymore) wouldn't beat her daughter now as a result of her(the mother) being drunk in the past. It is however more plausible to say the mother beats the daughter because the daughter WAS drunk(being immoral in the past) , as that would be the only viable reason to beat the daughter, and not because the mother WAS drunk.

Whoever constructed this sentence is merely trying to convolute life. A simple use of parentheses to tell us who was drunk would have sufficed.

RadicallyBlunt:
It depends on the context of usage...the event from the beginning of the article.


But regardless of the preceding event, I'll say its d daughter. If it was d mother it would be:

A drunken mother beats up her daughter.

You enter class wella

A mother beats her child is in a present form, she was drunk signifies a past state. If the object of the proposition was in its present form, then the intention of the verb would have been ambigious but as it is, the daughter was the drunk party and was simply being punished.

I think it's the daughter. A woman beats her daughter because she 'was' drunk. That's past tense, which means both are no longer drunk. It's only logical to deduce that the mother was punishing the daughter for her previous crime of getting drunk.

The mother was drunk.

If it were the daughter, it would be...

"A woman beat up her daughter who was drunk"

Donstan18

Babyforever:
Donstan18

Hey

donstan18:
Hey

Good morning

donstan18:
Hey

Good morning