1 3 4 5  7 8 9 13
Hello! I would like to know Garden Path Sentence ! What does this term mean? 1. The horse raced past the barn fell.

Sally: No, Jim fell first and then I shot Twice once. Frank: Who fired twice?
Sally: Once!
Ed: He is the owner of the tire company, Frank.
Frank: Okay, now, Once is the owner of the tire company and he fired twice. Then Twice shot the teller once.
Sally: Twice.
Frank: And Jim Fell and then you fired Twice.
Sally: Once.
Frank: Okay, all right, that will be all for now, Ms Decker.

(http://www.xs4all.nl/~mrrob/policesquad/ps2.htm )
2. The man who hunts ducks out on weekends. 3. ... JR. Is there anyone who explains me this English grammar?

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

Not in the mainstream it ain't, but the world's full of hobbyists.

DC
You're right, of course, and I started trying to make ... "garden path sentence" and all became as clear as mud.

For the curious, here's a snip from a Web page dealing with "garden path sentences":

begin quoted text

... crashed."

end quoted text

I think the OP may be asking us to do his homework for him.

Ah, now things become clearer. However, I still don't get number 3 - or should it be "The cotton clothing is usually made of **** in Mississippi"? At the end of the day, they're all examples of crap sentences, but then that's what this garden path theory is trying to show - that you have to start again to find meaning.

DC
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
What does the CMS mean by "courteously disguised as a question"? I think it must mean a sentence that when ... not really arequest, more of a plea that can be replaced by "Is(n't) anyone going to answer to my question?"

The Oxford Style Manual , Section 5.8.1, copyright 2003, is ... your flat-out assertion that omitting the question mark is "wrong".

This is how I do it. I use my judgement or my judgment (whichever comes first) to decide whether it ... a matter of substance, rather like commaplacement after "Hi" and before "Liz", which is always a matter of form forme.

Nope. If it's formed as a question, it's a question, and takes a question mark. It doesn't matter why it takes the form of a question. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by omitting the question mark, except in the very rare case in which (damn, I said this last week!) in dialogue the writer wants to indicate that the speaker used an interrogative structure but not an interrogative tone of voice. But you won't even be able to do that if you've already conditioned your readers to attaching no significance to the punctuation: kill off a subtlety if you want to, but I won't.

The CMS is just being silly. Not for the first time.

Bob C's aside about Gowers being forty years old and therefore "not modern" doesn't bear close scrutiny: it's applying a special sense of "modern" which doesn't fit the facts. I'm sixty-two years old, and anything which happened in my lifetime is in modern times, so anything I say which isn't positively an archaism is "modern English". Nearly everything the Fowlers advise is current, and that was getting on for a century ago.

Mike.
And I've posted all this before,

That you've posted it before doesn't make it any more appropriate.

Repetition makes right.
so please don't race your high horse past the barn.

The tone of your posting suggests that your horse is the high one.

I feed it hashish on a regular basis.
The whole thing was intended to be a serious point buried in mock hostility. But the point *is* serious, and it goes much deeper than the issue of whether any sentence that is interrogative in form should end in a question mark as indeed it should. Quite simply, many of the simple, straightforward conventions of English syntax, punctuation, and spelling are becoming optional. Examples: The comma preceding a coordinating conjunction that joins two independent clauses; the "subjunctive" form following verbs like "ask, "request," and "demand": the serial (Oxford, Harvard) comma; the question mark following the interrogative sentence; the "might" used to indicate a prior event in a dependent clause; the space in "a lot" and "no one." What do these words mean: nauseous, disinterested, decimate?

Yes, usage is as usage does. But there ought to be some reason other than laziness for abandoning useful uniform rules. Oughtn't there?

Bob Lieblich
Traditionalist (where still possible)
Yes, usage is as usage does. But there ought to be some reason other than laziness for abandoning useful uniform rules. Oughtn't there?

There is. Most of the time it's ignorance.

Skitt (in SF Bay Area)
... and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. Sir Bedevere
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
You keep forgetting the "JR"

I noticed it eventually. Anyway, it's not right to say I keep forgetting it. I never did really forget it. ... the "JR" isn't necessary. Intransitive "kill" is sufficient, probably even better if it makes the puzzle a little more puzzling.

I still go with what I posted earlier in the thread:

"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." "

John Dean
Oxford
Yes, usage is as usage does. But there ought to be some reason other than laziness for abandoning useful uniform rules. Oughtn't there?

There is. Most of the time it's ignorance.

I wouldn't know about that.

The Liebs
Duh!
}>

}>
}> > Yes, usage is as usage does. But there ought to be some reason other }> > than laziness for abandoning useful uniform rules. Oughtn't there? }>
}> There is. Most of the time it's ignorance.
}
} I wouldn't know about that.
I would. I'm a traditionalist at heart, but I've become persuaded by the Tone-contour School of Question-markification. The rest of it stands as it did in the early fifties (okay, except for inserting spurious quotation into quoted material, whereabout Bob Cunningham is generally correct).

R. J. Valentine
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Yes, usage is as usage does. But there ought to be some reason other than laziness for abandoning useful uniform rules. Oughtn't there?

There is. Most of the time it's ignorance.

Anal-retentiveness as often. It is a good thing to know the rules of English so we know when we're breaking them, but no writer should fear the breaking of them. In two words, 'rules suck', especially when they stifle creativity and thought.

Charles Riggs
Show more