Group1-Ex2-b-Solutions: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''We need more intelligent administrators.'' <br/> | |||
Here we have a case of structural ambiguity, i.e. the ambiguity arises on the sentence level. <br/> | |||
There are two different ways how this sentence can be read:<br/> | |||
Possibility 1: <br/> | Possibility 1: <br/> | ||
We have enough administrators, but they are not bright enough and need to become more intelligent.<br/> | We have enough administrators, but they are not bright enough and need to become more intelligent.<br/> | ||
Here, ''more'' is used as a comparative particle. So, ''more intelligent'' forms one constituent.<br/> | |||
Possibility 2:<br/> | Possibility 2:<br/> | ||
We do not have enough administrators and need more administrators who are intelligent.<br/> | We do not have enough administrators and need more administrators who are intelligent.<br/> | ||
[[NMTS-Group1|Back to the | In this case, ''more'' is used as a determiner. Thus, it combines with the phrase ''intelligent administrators''.<br/> | ||
[[NMTS-Group1#Exercise II|Back to the exercise]] | |||
Latest revision as of 15:29, 14 February 2013
We need more intelligent administrators.
Here we have a case of structural ambiguity, i.e. the ambiguity arises on the sentence level.
There are two different ways how this sentence can be read:
Possibility 1:
We have enough administrators, but they are not bright enough and need to become more intelligent.
Here, more is used as a comparative particle. So, more intelligent forms one constituent.
Possibility 2:
We do not have enough administrators and need more administrators who are intelligent.
In this case, more is used as a determiner. Thus, it combines with the phrase intelligent administrators.