1 2 3  5 6 7 8 13
I never heard this term before; I suspect that it ... but they all turn unto nonsense before the full stop.

Read them again. With a bit of thought (and the odd bit of repunctuation), all are both grammatical and meaningful (except for No. 5 anyone?

(The) fat (that) people eat (is something that)
accumulates (on their thighs).

Rich Ulrich, (Email Removed)
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
I am afraid that I'm being widely misunderstood: in my parsing, "sold" is not a personal verb in the past ... phrase at the beginning: Sold the offshore oil tracts for a lot of money, the tycoon wanted to kill JR.

That calls for "Having sold ...". As you wrote it, it appears Latin to me. It's "who was sold", only in the passive, that could be omitted.
WinErr 008: Erroneous error. Nothing is wrong.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
I would like to know Garden Path Sentence ! What does this term mean?

I never heard this term before; I suspect that it is used in English Foreign Language teaching.

And in linguistics.
All these "sentences" are meaningless. They start out well but they all turn unto nonsense before the full stop.

The sentences are typical example sentences from linguistics. That is, they are exploring the limits of grammar, without claiming to be idiomatic or even likely to be uttered. To that kind of linguist, the likelihood of a sentence to be uttered is meaningless - it is essentially zero for all or nearly all sentences anyway, because there are infinitely many possible sentences.
It is at least an interesting fact that Garden Path Sentences are relatively easy to construct in English, but much harder in languages where you can normally recognize a noun from a verb from an adjective by its form. I run into the problem regularly when reading English, but, I admit, most of them are milder forms than the cited examples.

Here is a real example I noted down from aue:
On a mailing list I belong to the australians always profess amusement when an American writes of rooting for a baseball or football team.

By Martin Watts, <

I got stuck when I expected a "who" after "Australians", but somehow felt that that wasn't the intended meaning.

Microsoft designed a user-friendly car:
instead of the oil, alternator, gas and engine
warning lights it has just one: "General Car Fault"
Beats me.

Use pauses (commas) and consider "sold" as a past participle: 6. The tycoon, sold the offshore oil tracts for a lot of money, wanted to kill

Yes. Good. Thank you.
Example 4, "The prime number few", makes sense if "The prime" is referring to the best (prime) of some sort of thing, person or animal.

I have no problem with "the prime" as described above - it's not a common usage but perfectly clear. However, ... or one hundred and five, but the verb "to number" implies that we are going to be told the number.

Compact Oxford English Dictionary says
http://www.askoxford.com/concise oed/number?view=uk number
• verb

1 amount to.
2 mark with a number or give a number to.
3 count or estimate.
4 include as a member of a group.

In "The prime number few" I understand "number" to have a meaning in the general area of "amount to". "The prime amount to few"
I have, however, strayed off the garden path.

That is the nature of a Garden Path Sentence. You happily trot along the path until you realise with a sense of disorientation that you are heading in the wrong direction.

Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.u.e)
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
I never heard this term before; I suspect that it ... but they all turn unto nonsense before the full stop.

Read them again. With a bit of thought (and the odd bit of repunctuation), all are both grammatical and meaningful ... a verb whose subject is "the horse", rather than what it really is: the first part of the horse's name)

Which works on the same lines as "When did Christmas Day fall on Boxing Day?" and its variations which we have done here before. But assuming it is part of the "garden path sentence" style then the version put up by others seems to be what is intended. A little punctuation makes "The horse, raced past the barn, fell.
2. The man who hunts ducks out on weekends ("hunts ducks" is misleading. The sentence means "men who hunt at weekends shirk their other responsibilities.")

Or just "leaves the house quickly and surreptitiously" - "Where's your old man?" "He must have just ducked out".
3. The cotton clothing is usually made of grow(s) in Mississippi. (A typo needs to be fixed there, I think. Anyway, "the cotton clothing" isn't what it appears; it's an elided relative clause: the cotton that clothing is made of )

Yep. Can't make sense of it without assuming a typo.
4. The prime number few (no prime numbers involved there are few of the prime, the number of the prime is a low one)

Yes. In relation to steaks, Government Ministers and criminal suspects ...
No. 6 is not strictly grammatical, but it is quite common in colloquial registers ("who" is elided after "tycoon", making "the tycoon who sold the offshore oil tracts for a lot of money" the subject and "wanted" the verb).

Actually, it works fine when you think of "Dallas". JR was always pushing through dodgy deals and if we assume this was one then "The tycoon, sold the offshore oil tracts for a lot of money (and which proved to be valueless), wanted to kill JR."
And 5 is OK too.
"Fat accumulates (when eaten by people)"

John Dean
Oxford
In response to:
That changes the clause from restrictive to non-restrictive, and therefore ... tracts is to tell us the sequence of events ...

I am afraid that I'm being widely misunderstood: in my parsing, "sold" is not a personal verb in the past tense, but a past participle;

Correct. It's implicitly part of a form of the passive "to be sold". But in the original version this in turn is implicitly part of "who was sold"; in the version with the commas, it's implicitly part of "having been sold".
maybe the more idiomatic version is with the participle phrase at the beginning: Sold the offshore oil tracts for a lot of money, the tycoon wanted to kill JR.(version 3)

Versions 2 and 3 mean the same thing. In simple sentences:

We've been talking about a tycoon. Someone sold the oil tracts to him. After that, he wanted to kill JR.
Whereas version 1 is more like this:
There was a tycoon who wanted to kill JR. Which tycoon? Well, someone sold the oil tracts to a tycoon this is the same one.

That is the difference between a restrictive and a non-restrictive clause.

Side comment: has anyone ever heard of a woman being called a tycoon?
Mark Brader, Toronto > "GUALITY IS FIRST"
(Email Removed) > slogan of "Dongda electron CO.,LTD"

My text in this article is in the public domain.
.
Is there anyone who explains me this English grammar?

Would someone please explain to me the grammar of those sentences. (No question mark because it's not really a question; it's a request.)

Objection, yeronner. Both are questions in form. Both should be followed by question marks.
I know many of you disagree. You're wrong.
And I've posted all this before, so please don't race your high horse past the barn.

Bob Lieblich
Jes' askin'
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
I wonder whether "the prime" here can be meaning 4 in the entry "prime" in M-W: 4 : the chief or best individual or part : PICK

The meat market sells cuts of beef marked "good," "choice," and "prime." The prime number few.
It may be my legal training, or maybe just my warped mind, but I caught on to the gimmick even before I finished reading the original post. It's a variant of Fowler's "false scent."
Here's one I've offered before, where not even the part of speech is deceptive, just the function in the sentence: "Eduard Hanslick was very hostile to Richard Wagner and Cosima Wagner was very resentful of his attitude." Put a comma before "and" and the problem goes away.

Bob Lieblich
Show more