I am wondering if the following sentences can have three different meanings:
A) John said Martha sang the aria with gusto.
i) John said "Martha sang the aria" with gusto (i.e. John said with gusto)
ii) Martha sang with gusto;
iii) John sang Martha sang "the aria with gusto" (ie. gusto is attached to the aria)
B) Sandy said Peter sang the aria from La Boheme.
i) Sandy said "Peter sang the aria from La Boheme" (ie. Peter sang from La Boheme)
ii) Sandy said Peter sang "the aria from La Boheme" (ie. the aria is from La Boheme)
iii) Sany said "Peter sang the aria" from La Boheme. (ie. Sandy said it from La Boheme)
Are all these meanings possible??
Thank you in advance.
A) John said Martha sang the aria with gusto.
i) John said "Martha sang the aria" with gusto (i.e. John said with gusto)
ii) Martha sang with gusto;
iii) John sang Martha sang "the aria with gusto" (ie. gusto is attached to the aria)
B) Sandy said Peter sang the aria from La Boheme.
i) Sandy said "Peter sang the aria from La Boheme" (ie. Peter sang from La Boheme)
ii) Sandy said Peter sang "the aria from La Boheme" (ie. the aria is from La Boheme)
iii) Sany said "Peter sang the aria" from La Boheme. (ie. Sandy said it from La Boheme)
Are all these meanings possible??
Thank you in advance.
Comments
John said, 'Martha sang the aria,' with gusto.
John said (that) Martha sang the aria with gusto.
John said (that) Martha sang 'The Aria With Gusto'.
How about sentence B? Is ii) the more reasonable interpretation for B??
(indirect speech): John said that Martha sang the aria with gusto.
B is i, (direct speech): Sandy said, "Peter sang the aria from La Boheme."
(indirect speech): Sandy said that Peter sang the aria from La Boheme.
To fit American English and probably all English in general, I would change the word gusto to "enthusiasm". Gusto doesn't really fit here.