question

[Casiopea]

[quote="Taka"]

This,

The leading runner reached the stadium and ran a full lap

does not mean this,

That is, the leading runner came back from outside the stadium and ran a full lap to finish the race.

Reaching the stadium and running a full lap are not connected. "Reach" does not mean enter. It means, get to the entrance. Accordingly, the unnderlined portion means, the lead runner ran laps outside the stadium:

a hoaxster snuck on to the track a couple of minutes before (the leading runner reached the stadium and ran a full lap)

In short, 'reach' does not mean enter (i.e., came back from outside).

In other words, it was a couple of minutes before the leading runner came back from outside the stadium the stadium and ran a full lap to finish the marathons that the hoaxster snuck on to the track.

Well, as I said first, that is not the interpretation of my choice, but pragmatically, I thought it was possible.

It's possible in a world were the track in question is located outside the stadium. Note, 'reach' does not mean enter.

[Taka]

Note, 'reach' does not mean enter.

IMO, it depends on how you see the point of arrival. If you see the entrance as the point to reach, then you are still outside when you get there. However, when you think of the entire stadium as the point to reach, then you could be inside the stadium when you get there.

Consider:

I reached home and sat down with the paper.
Sarah reached home and took a bath.

You never take a bath outside home, at the entrance, do you?

[Francois]

Don't you think the sentence can be also interpreted as "a hoaxster snuck on to the track (pretending to be a competitor) before being dragged away by security guards"?

Even without running a full lap, sneaking on to the track pretending to be a competitor should be a legitimate reason to be dragged away.

It might work grammatically, but what is the interest of saying that the leading runner ran a full lap before the hoaxster snuck on the track? This adds nothing to the story, as the fact that he ran one, two, or three hundred laps before doesn't impact the hoaxster. This does not work semantically.

FRC

[Taka]

It might work grammatically, but what is the interest of saying that the leading runner ran a full lap before the hoaxster snuck on the track? This adds nothing to the story, as the fact that he ran one, two, or three hundred laps before doesn't impact the hoaxster. This does not work semantically.

FRC

Right. But if the readers of the paper didn't know the rule of marathon that runners have to run a full lap after arriving at the stadium, I think such information would be helpful.

[Casiopea]

At the Munich Olympics in 1972 a hoaxster snuck on to the track a couple of minutes before the leading runner reached the stadium and ran a full lap, pretending to be a competitor, before being dragged away by security guards.

Which is the subject of "ran a full lap", a hoaxster or the leading runner? I think it's a hoaxster, but I'm not sure on this one.

With regards to 'reached', what led you to 'think' the subject of 'ran a full lap' is 'a hoaxster'? That was your choice, wasn't it? :wink: Moreover, how would you convince someone--using the paragraph above, the context in question--that 'the leading runner' is the subject of 'ran a full lap'? :D

Pragmatics: The reason the hoaxster snuck on to the track and ran a lap was to convince the spectators that s/he was the leading runner (i.e., the winner). That's the hoax and the reason s/he is called 'a hoaxster'.

[Taka]

With regards to 'reached', what led you to 'think' the subject of 'ran a full lap' is 'a hoaxster'? That was your choice, wasn't it? :wink: Moreover, how would you convince someone--using the paragraph above, the context in question--that 'the leading runner' is the subject of 'ran a full lap'? :D

Pragmatics: The reason the hoaxster snuck on to the track and ran a lap was to convince the spectators that s/he was the leading runner (i.e., the winner). That's the hoax and the reason s/he is called 'a hoaxster'.

Before I answer your question, I'd like to know if you agree now that "reached" doesn't necessarily mean "still not inside the place".

[Casiopea]

With regards to 'reached', what led you to 'think' the subject of 'ran a full lap' is 'a hoaxster'? That was your choice, wasn't it? :wink: Moreover, how would you convince someone--using the paragraph above, the context in question--that 'the leading runner' is the subject of 'ran a full lap'? :D

Pragmatics: The reason the hoaxster snuck on to the track and ran a lap was to convince the spectators that s/he was the leading runner (i.e., the winner). That's the hoax and the reason s/he is called 'a hoaxster'.

Before I answer your question, I'd like to know if you agree now that "reached" doesn't necessarily mean "still not inside the place".

Why was 'a hoaxster' your initial choice? :D Within your response, or the thought processes leading up to your response, you'll hopefully see what I have seen: that 'reached' is nothing more than a red herring. :wink:

[Taka]

Why was 'a hoaxster' your initial choice? :D Within your response, or the thought processes leading up to your response, you'll hopefully see what I have seen: that 'reached' is nothing more than a red herring. :wink:

A red herring? I don't think so, because you said:

"Reach" does not mean enter. It means, get to the entrance. Accordingly, the unnderlined portion means, the lead runner ran laps outside the stadium

It's possible in a world were the track in question is located outside the stadium. Note, 'reach' does not mean enter.

so the definition of "reached" really seems to be crucial for such a strong denial.
----------
Anyway, a red herring or whatever it may be, I want to know if you agree now that "reached" doesn't necessarily mean "still not inside the place", because you said, seemingly with some confidence, "Note, 'reach' does not mean enter".

[Casiopea]

..., I want to know if you agree now that "reached" doesn't necessarily mean "still not inside the place", because you said, seemingly with some confidence, "Note, 'reach' does not mean enter".

Not to be difficult, but I have already answered that question--as you have noted. :wink: Getting back to your original question, I'd like to know why you chose 'a hoaxster' over 'the leading runner' as the subject of 'ran a full lap'? You're right, but, you see, the answer to that question (i.e., Why 'a hoaxster'?) sheds light on why arguing the semantics of 'reached' leads us nowhere. 8)

[Taka]

Not to be difficult, but I have already answered that question--as you have noted.

What do you mean "not to be difficult"?

And where did you answer the question?

Cas, this problem is very important, not to be ignored, because when students of mine use "reached" in their writings, I have to know the definition of it.

My answer for the original question comes later.