Baldrick Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 I love how your explanations are always so off lol. That's a great way to speak to someone whose help you are seeking. You could say "Failing the exam is dangerous for the students", though that has the same problem of ambiguity as your examples. A less ambiguous phrasing would be something like "Korosensei's ultimatum is dangerous for the students, if we (Karasuma and Bitch-sensei) fail the exam" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowy_One Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Question. Are the people in 5 students? Or is either not a student? If one of them is not then it is a certain no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted May 9, 2015 Author Share Posted May 9, 2015 That's a great way to speak to someone whose help you are seeking. You could say "Failing the exam is dangerous for the students", though that has the same problem of ambiguity as your examples. A less ambiguous phrasing would be something like "Korosensei's ultimatum is dangerous for the students, if we (Karasuma and Bitch-sensei) fail the exam" It wasn't meant to be a jerkish remark, relax. I want the sentences to be ambiguous. Otherwise the experiment would be a failure. Question. Are the people in 5 students? Or is either not a student? If one of them is not then it is a certain no. They are not students. And most people actually agree that 5 is true even though they aren't, which means it's not certain at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowy_One Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Then it is false as the students are not the ones taking the test. The students can pass the test with flying colors and develop mathematical theorems to prove warp travel in the process and still die because their teachers (?) are dunces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted May 10, 2015 Author Share Posted May 10, 2015 Then it is false as the students are not the ones taking the test. The students can pass the test with flying colors and develop mathematical theorems to prove warp travel in the process and still die because their teachers (?) are dunces. But there's a reading of the sentence where "for the students" only modifies "dangerous" and does not specify "to take the exam." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Banzai Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 (edited) there is absolutely nothing wrong with "It is dangerous for the students to fail the exam." like legit how are you guys even debating this, your debating is only making things infinitely more complicated than they need to be But there's a reading of the sentence where "for the students" only modifies "dangerous" and does not specify "to take the exam." Wrong, a subjunctive clause always modifies the entire subject-verb arrangement Edited May 10, 2015 by General Banzai Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted May 10, 2015 Author Share Posted May 10, 2015 there is absolutely nothing wrong with "It is dangerous for the students to fail the exam." like legit how are you guys even debating this, your debating is only making things infinitely more complicated than they need to be No, no one denies it's a good sentence. The problem is this: is it a good sentence with this context: Context: Students of Class 3E have been taken hostage and Korosensei gives an exam for Bitch-sensei and Karasuma to do. If they fail the exam, the students die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 True False False True True (marked as False) 5 really had me thinking and you're all wrong about it on a language level. Teacher isn't necessarily talking about the whole class. Just "the students". Therefore, it is possible that he's talking to just those two. I understand why it can be false and why the answer is probably false but it's like the analogy section on my psychometry. Whoever wrote this question is following a specific thought process. Not practicality due to modern day speech. Hence my answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Banzai Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 No, no one denies it's a good sentence. The problem is this: is it a good sentence with this context: Context: Students of Class 3E have been taken hostage and Korosensei gives an exam for Bitch-sensei and Karasuma to do. If they fail the exam, the students die. Yes it's absolutely fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted May 10, 2015 Author Share Posted May 10, 2015 (edited) True False False True True (marked as False) 5 really had me thinking and you're all wrong about it on a language level. Teacher isn't necessarily talking about the whole class. Just "the students". Therefore, it is possible that he's talking to just those two. I understand why it can be false and why the answer is probably false but it's like the analogy section on my psychometry. Whoever wrote this question is following a specific thought process. Not practicality due to modern day speech. Hence my answer. You might want to look at 5 again, and compare it to 3. Those two are identical. Yes it's absolutely fine. Ok, how about this. Context: Students of Class 3E have been taken hostage and will be forced to clean the entire school and become really exhausted, if Bitch-sensei and Karasuma fail an exam that Korosensei forces them to take. Sentence: It would be hard for the students to fail the exam. This sentence is judged to be ungrammatical by native speakers for some reason, and I'm trying to investigate why. What's the difference between hard and dangerous? Edited May 10, 2015 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Banzai Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Ok, how about this. Context: Students of Class 3E have been taken hostage and will be forced to clean the entire school and become really exhausted, if Bitch-sensei and Karasuma fail an exam that Korosensei forces them to take. Sentence: It would be hard for the students to fail the exam. This sentence is judged to be ungrammatical by native speakers for some reason, and I'm trying to investigate why. What's the difference between hard and dangerous? "Hard" means difficult. "Dangerous" means there is a risk, i.e. failure will be punished extensively. The game Contra is hard, but there is no danger because if you fail nothing happens, you just lost a video game. Running while holding scissors is easy, but if you fail you might impale yourself on the scissors, making it dangerous. Basically, "It would be hard for the students to fail the exam" means that the exam is so easy, that it would be actually difficult for a student to fail it. It has no relationship to the threat of failure, which is what the context is about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted May 10, 2015 Author Share Posted May 10, 2015 (edited) "Hard" means difficult. "Dangerous" means there is a risk, i.e. failure will be punished extensively. The game Contra is hard, but there is no danger because if you fail nothing happens, you just lost a video game. Running while holding scissors is easy, but if you fail you might impale yourself on the scissors, making it dangerous. Basically, "It would be hard for the students to fail the exam" means that the exam is so easy, that it would be actually difficult for a student to fail it. It has no relationship to the threat of failure, which is what the context is about. That's not the difference I'm aiming for. That's obvious. There is a class of adjectives like easy/difficult/hard and another class of adjectives like dangerous/embarrassing/hilarious/fun which have this strange difference. Why do adjectives on the easiness scale differ from all other kinds of adjectives? Also, bolded part: you obviously don't understand the experiment. You pointed out one reading. Now I'm trying to consider the second reading, which is why I told you to look at the context. Please don't post unless you have intuitions to contribute. Edited May 10, 2015 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Banzai Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 That's not the difference I'm aiming for. That's obvious. There is a class of adjectives like easy/difficult/hard and another class of adjectives like dangerous/embarrassing/hilarious/fun which have this strange difference. Why do adjectives on the easiness scale differ from all other kinds of adjectives? They don't differ grammatically. "It is hard for the students to fail the test" isn't grammatically wrong, it just doesn't make sense considering the context. They only differ in terms of what the words themselves actually mean. "It is a hard test" and "It is a dangerous test" are both grammatical, they just mean different things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Banzai Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Also, bolded part: you obviously don't understand the experiment. You pointed out one reading. Now I'm trying to consider the second reading, which is why I told you to look at the context. Please don't post unless you have intuitions to contribute. I do understand the experiment. I pointed out the only viable reading. The word "hard" does NOT make sense in the context. Hard can mean two things. 1. Difficulty, 2. Physical toughness. It does not mean the same thing as "dangerous", which is the word you would want in the context. Also, it would be "intentions to contribute", not "intuitions to contribute". Like the hard/dangerous distinction, intentions and intuitions are two different words that mean two different things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted May 10, 2015 Author Share Posted May 10, 2015 (edited) I do understand the experiment. I pointed out the only viable reading. The word "hard" does NOT make sense in the context. Hard can mean two things. 1. Difficulty, 2. Physical toughness. It does not mean the same thing as "dangerous", which is the word you would want in the context. Also, it would be "intentions to contribute", not "intuitions to contribute". Like the hard/dangerous distinction, intentions and intuitions are two different words that mean two different things. Ok, this is the obvious difference, but you're not telling me the fundamental difference between the adjectives on the easiness scale and every other adjective. Edited May 10, 2015 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Banzai Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Ok, this is the obvious difference, but you're not telling me the fundamental difference between the adjectives on the easiness scale and every other adjective. Grammatically, there is no difference. Semantically, there is a difference. I just told you the semantic difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted May 10, 2015 Author Share Posted May 10, 2015 (edited) Grammatically, there is no difference. Semantically, there is a difference. I just told you the semantic difference. >_> You still don't understand the experiment. I just pointed out the grammatical difference to you. "It is hard for the students to fail the exam" => 1 reading, because the second reading is ungrammatical "It is dangerous for the students to fail the exam" => 2 readings, because both readings are grammatical Hard can mean two things. 1. Difficulty, You can still get the difficulty reading to work if you try really hard. Context: John, Jeremy and Mary are working at an office. John considers going to a bar with Jeremy, and let Mary do the rest of the work at the office, which will take the entire night. Jeremy says: It would be hard for Mary to leave. It would be difficult for Mary to stay up all night and work at the office if John and Jeremy selfishly left. So we do have the desired context with the difficulty reading in place. But for some reason, speakers prefer "dangerous" a lot more. Edited May 10, 2015 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Banzai Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 >_> You still don't understand the experiment. I just pointed out the grammatical difference to you. "It is hard for the students to fail the exam" => 1 reading, because the second reading is ungrammatical "It is dangerous for the students to fail the exam" => 2 readings, because both readings are grammatical You can still get the difficulty reading to work if you try really hard. Context: John, Jeremy and Mary are working at an office. John considers going to a bar with Jeremy, and let Mary do the rest of the work at the office, which will take the entire night. Jeremy says: It would be hard for Mary to leave. It would be difficult for Mary to stay up all night and work at the office if John and Jeremy selfishly left. So we do have the desired context with the difficulty reading in place. But for some reason, speakers prefer "dangerous" a lot more. "It is dangerous for the students to fail the exam" only has one grammatical reading. "It is hard for the students to fail the exam" only has one grammatical reading, but that reading does not make sense in the context. Bitch-sensei threatening her students if they fail has no correlation to how difficult the test is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted May 10, 2015 Author Share Posted May 10, 2015 (edited) "It is dangerous for the students to fail the exam" only has one grammatical reading. "It is hard for the students to fail the exam" only has one grammatical reading, but that reading does not make sense in the context. Bitch-sensei threatening her students if they fail has no correlation to how difficult the test is. *sigh* why does there have to be an arrogant person in every thread I make? I have actually proven that there are two readings. Take the sentence "it is dangerous for the students to fail the exam." In minimalist grammar this sentence has two readings. There is one where "for the students" is a prepositional phrase modifying the adjective "dangerous." Intuitively, this is the reading for the context where the students are in a dangerous situation, but the specifier of the TP "to fail the exam" can potentially refer to something else other than the students. Most readers on SF accepted this context-sentence pair. There is a second one where [for the students to fail the exam] is a CP, and "the students" is the specifier of the TP "to fail the exam" and "for" heads the CP. This is the reading where the students are the ones taking the exam, and experiencer of "dangerous" may or may not be the students. Most readers on SF also accepted this context-sentence pair. The problem with hard is that the first structure, where the PP modifies the adjective, is not available. Most readers don't accept the first reading for hard, but they do for dangerous. So I've already proven it. You're just derailing this thread, so I'll have to ignore you. Edited May 10, 2015 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Banzai Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 I'm not derailing this thread. [it is hard for the students] [to fail the exam] is just as viable a reading as [it is dangerous for the students] [to fail the exam]. If we were to read it that way, we would be saying that some unspecified subject's hypothetical failure of the exam would be "hard" for the students, i.e. causing difficulties. Which is actually the only reading of the "hard" sentence that makes sense in context. The problem is, while both of those readings of the sentence are technically grammatically incorrect, they are both grammatically implausible. If a subject and verb appear adjacent to each other, as they do in these sentences, an English reader will be compelled to connect the subject to the verb. As such, even though both readings are "correct" the reading that will be intuitive to an English reader is [it is adjective] [for the students to fail the exam]. This is where the problems with the "hard" sentence arise. Of the hard sentence's two readings, only one makes sense in context of the previous sentence. However, the reading that makes sense is also the reading that is grammatically unintuitive to an English reader. Since you began this thread by asking English readers to give their opinion of the sentence and to "not think too hard about it," the "hard" version of the sentence that makes sense requires English readers to think pretty damn hard about it. To read the "hard" sentence in a way that makes sense contextually, English readers will have to disassociate the typical connection between "exam" and "hard" (meaning difficulty) and instead read "hard" as a stand-in for "hard times". On top of that, they will also have to use an unintuitive grammatical reading of the sentence that requires them to disassociate from the more common subject-verb sentence structure. Although "It is hard for the students to fail the exam" is TECHNICALLY right, in no way would an English reader interpret the sentence in the correct way despite the context of the first sentence. They would be more prone to believing the sentence is an observation completely unrelated to the first sentence than leap through the grammatical and semantic hoops necessary to interpret the sentence in a way that makes sense contextually with the first sentence. Meanwhile, both readings of "It is dangerous for the students to fail the exam" make sense in the context of the first sentence. Especially since contextually, the unknown subject in [it is dangerous for the students] [to fail the exam] would BE the students. As such, the "dangerous" sentence makes more sense and is more easily interpreted than the "hard" sentence. If your goal is to get someone to understand what you are trying to say, use the "dangerous" sentence. If your goal is a grammatical erasure of all ambiguity, use neither sentence, but if you had to use one, still use the "dangerous" sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 #3 is false because the two sentences are unrelated. I smoke a cigarette in a roomful of people when it is not allowed. That doesn't make it dangerous (it would be dangerous for other reasons but not because it isn't allowed). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 #3 is false because the two sentences are unrelated. I smoke a cigarette in a roomful of people when it is not allowed. That doesn't make it dangerous (it would be dangerous for other reasons but not because it isn't allowed). If this was a place where the fire marshal wouldn't throw a hissy fit about starting a fire, I'd be inclined to agree. Unfortunately, schools are one of those places where smoking indoors is really bad. Besides being very much against the law, it's also a fire hazard. Hence why I gave the answer I did on the third question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted May 13, 2015 Author Share Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) The problem is, while both of those readings of the sentence are technically grammatically incorrect, they are both grammatically implausible. No they're not. They are plausible. Sorry, but you have no idea on what you're talking about. Your English major isn't going to do you any good here. What decides whether a sentence is grammatically plausible or not is the judgment of native speakers. I need a scientific explanation here, not the incoherent opinions of an English major. Edited May 13, 2015 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balcerzak Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Native speakers use and understand ungrammatical colloquialisms all the time. I wouldn't set them on a pedestal as the authority on grammatical plausibility, but then again, I've always had a more prescriptionist bent to me anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted May 13, 2015 Author Share Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) Native speakers use and understand ungrammatical colloquialisms all the time. I wouldn't set them on a pedestal as the authority on grammatical plausibility, but then again, I've always had a more prescriptionist bent to me anyway. That's where taking averages comes in. Understanding ungrammatical sentences is not relevant to this debate, but using is. There are indeed cases when people generate ungrammatical sentences. What to make of them? Linguists distinguish between subjective and objective grammaticality. Each person has their own grammar in their head, and a sentence is grammatical overall when it can be generated in the minds of most native speakers. English majors learn superficial grammar rules like "don't end a sentence with a preposition." That is false. Sentences can be grammatical with a preposition in the end. Sentences like "who did you give a ruler to" are considered perfectly acceptable by most native speakers, so why aren't they grammatical? And they also can't tell us why sentence 1 is bad and sentence 2 is good: 1) Who did John see the boy that Bill hit? 2) Who did John say that Bill hit? Edited May 13, 2015 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.