donkeys and boxers
|
too many examples
|
||
Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
Perhaps a split into "List of notable sentences in linguistics" (note the "notable") and "List of tongue-twisters". -- 01:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)~ |
Perhaps a split into "List of notable sentences in linguistics" (note the "notable") and "List of tongue-twisters". -- 01:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)~ |
||
:I support moving to [[List of notable sentences in linguistics]]. <b class="Unicode">[[User:Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b> <small><sup>[[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|contribs]]</sub></small> 01:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC) |
:I support moving to [[List of notable sentences in linguistics]]. <b class="Unicode">[[User:Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b> <small><sup>[[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|contribs]]</sub></small> 01:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Too many examples? == |
|||
Do we really need 12 examples of say, Lexical Ambiguity? Can't we limit ourselves to the most famous ones or something, or those which illustrate something interesting? -- [[User:Kowey|kowey]] ([[User talk:Kowey|talk]]) 10:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC) |
Linguistics List‑class | |||||||
|
From the page: In a similar vein, Martin Gardner offered the example: Wouldn't the sentence "I want to put a hyphen between the words Fish and And and And and Chips in my Fish-And-Chips sign" have been clearer if quotation marks had been placed before Fish, and between Fish and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and Chips, as well as after Chips?
Surely Martin Gardner is aware that his sentence would be clearer if quotation marks were placed before Fish, and between fish and and, and and and and, and and and and, and and and and, and and and and, and and and and, and and and And, and and and and, and and and And, and and and and, and and and and, and and and and, and and and and, and and and and, and and and And, and and and and, and and and And, and and and and, and and and and, and and and and, and and and and, and and and and, and and and Chips, as well as after Chips. I assume his overlooking of this was deliberate in order to spur the reader to further extrapolate on the absurdity of omitting quotation marks. (This sentence, incidentally, has 86 identical words in a row.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.192.65 (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand what this example is meant to show. The article cited seems to claim that it cannot be expressed satisfactorily in first-order predicate language, but seems to express the intended meaning (with Fx meaning "x is a farmer", Dx meaning "x is a donkey", Oxy meaning "x owns y", and Bxy meaning "x beats y"). It's possible that I've made a foolish error in the translation, or that I misunderstood the reason for including the sentence, but if not, it doesn't seem to be a particularly interesting sentence.69.239.253.34 (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It could mean that every farmer who owns a donkey leaves. --192.235.8.1 (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Change we can believe in" ?
--Mainstreetmark (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, the Lojban published materials list the phrase "pretty little girls school" as an ambiguous one - but would it be an example of lexical or syntactic ambiguity? (I'd thing syntactic, but the article on the topic states outright that syntactic ambiguity is a sentence issue, not a phrasal one.) --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 19:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly syntactically ambiguous. The other article is totally wrong. It's not even clear what "syntactic ambiguity is a sentence issue, not a phrasal one" could even mean. Ailun (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't "we saw her duck" a case of lexical rather than syntactic ambiguity?91.98.205.87 (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or, rearranged:
I'd like to add it to the article, but I don't see an obvious section in which it belongs. — Loadmaster (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The criminal experienced a seizure." is not syntactically ambiguous. It's lexically ambiguous, based on two different sense of "seizure" which are still the same part of speech and still play the same role in the sentence.
"While the man was hunting the deer ran through the forest." is also wrong. This is a garden path sentence. It is not syntactically ambiguous because the alternate parse is ungrammatical.
"We saw her duck." is syntactic ambiguity. The two senses of duck are different parts of speech and require different parses. The first, in which "duck" is a noun, there is only one clause, but if "duck" is a verb then it's two.
"The girl the dog the boy hit bit cried." is an example of center embedding. Ailun (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that this page, as it appears currently, is either encyclopedicornotable. It certainly needs better sourcing. At the very least, editors should review WP:Stand-alone lists and ensure that this page meets criteria for explicitness and lack of ambiguity, and that the topic is appropriate for a list. Since every sentence is, by definition, an illustration of linguistic phenomena, under the current minimal criteria this list is potentially infinite. Cnilep (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this listed under Glaswegian/Southwestern Scots? As a native of Southwest Scotland and frequent visitor to Glasgow, I don't believe I have ever heard the word "fit" used to mean "what" or "which" in these parts of the country. It's a Northern Scotticism one would expect to hear, for example, in Aberdeenshire. In Glasgow or Dumfriesshire we would say "whit" meaning "what" (Whit fit fits whit ski?). Contains Mild Peril (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why did someone remove this item. It is a valid example of this sort of sentence, and much more interesting than the rather silly Buffalo one.BevRowe (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)BevRowe[reply]
If you removed it because you did not understand it, that is a form of vandalism. Unfortunately the explanation has also been removed, for equally poor reasons. Please leave it there for the moment, be assured that it at least as meaningful as the Buffalo nonsense, and let me try to get the explanation reinstated. I assure you this is a grammatically valid sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BevRowe (talk • contribs) 10:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now reinstated the explanation. Please read it. BevRowe (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)BevRowe[reply]
I haven't read the sentence in question. But I can hardly blame an editor for sticking in their own sentence. Just look above: in "Not Syntactically Ambiguous" Ailun appears to make up a sentence to exemplify (and does this well, I think); and immediately below that in All sentences are linguistic examples seems to agree with me that making up example sentences is a standard procedure in linguistics (or anyway that majority of linguistics that isn't rigidly corpus-based).
This "list" is a bizarre mixture of famous examples ("colorless green ideas", "Buffalo"×8), oft-repeated canards ("up with which I will not put"), sentences or non-sentences apparently written of the tops of editors' heads, humdrum sentences unmemorably mentioned by this or that writer on writing, and jolly tongue twisters that either come from around the world as is claimed or were just made up by bored nitwits during school breaks (as only one was sourced the last time I looked, I don't know). And it will remain a mess until rethought and retitled.
Perhaps a split into "List of notable sentences in linguistics" (note the "notable") and "List of tongue-twisters". -- 01:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)~
Do we really need 12 examples of say, Lexical Ambiguity? Can't we limit ourselves to the most famous ones or something, or those which illustrate something interesting? -- kowey (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]