1. ## Re: question

Originally Posted by Taka
What do you mean "Not to be difficult"?
Not to be difficult means, I am not trying to evade your question/I'm not trying to be difficult. :D You see, you answered your question to me by providing my answer for me. That is, you quoted my answer (i.e., Note, 'reached' does not mean, enter), so I was confused as to what exactly you wanted me to say.

Originally Posted by Taka
And where did you answer the question?
Right there, where you quoted me: 'reached' does not mean, enter'. :wink:

Originally Posted by Taka
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.
Taka, I, too, teach Japanese students; they have dictionaries! 8) Have them look up the meaning of the word 'reach'. It means, attain, get to. Given the sentence, The leading runner reached the stadium and ran a full lap, 'reach' is used incorrectly. The leading runner would have had to have entered the stadium before s/he could have ran a full lap around the track. Moreover, She reached home and took a bath? Is her bathtub outside the house? 'reach' does not mean, enter. Added context is needed to reach that meaning: She reached home, went in, and took a bath.

Originally Posted by Taka
My answer for the original question comes later.
If you can explain to your students how you came to the answer 'a hoaxster', not only will they be more likely to understand/get it (i.e., it sure beats memorizing rules), they will more than likely adopt the method in figuring out other problems.

Look into why/how you 'knew' the correct answer. Trust your instincts. 8)

2. Senior Member
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
1,074

## Re: question

Originally Posted by Casiopea
It means, attain, get to. Given the sentence, The leading runner reached the stadium and ran a full lap, 'reach' is used incorrectly. The leading runner would have had to have entered the stadium before s/he could have ran a full lap around the track. Moreover, She reached home and took a bath? Is her bathtub outside the house? 'reach' does not mean, enter. Added context is needed to reach that meaning: She reached home, went in, and took a bath.
If it is the same as "get to", do you think when I say "I got to Canada" it definitely means that I'm not in Canada yet? Am I still outside Canada? Well, I don't think so.

As I said, I think it depends on how you see the point of arrival.

Originally Posted by Casiopea
If you can explain to your students how you came to the answer 'a hoaxster', not only will they be more likely to understand/get it (i.e., it sure beats memorizing rules), they will more than likely adopt the method in figuring out other problems.

Look into why/how you 'knew' the correct answer. Trust your instincts. 8)

Don't worry. The hoaxster has nothing to with my students--it just caught my attention when I was reading an article on the internet. Leaving the hoaxster problem aside for the moment, now I'm curious about the definition of "reach" itself, because not only my students but also I use "reach" quite often.

3. Editor, UsingEnglish.com
Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
40,113
'I got to Canada' means that you are there, IMO.

4. Senior Member
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
1,074
Originally Posted by tdol
'I got to Canada' means that you are there, IMO.
Yes! :D So "the runner reached the stadium" doesn't necessarily mean he/she was still outside the stadium; it is possible that he/she was inside the stadium then, right?

5. bigjohn Guest
The grammar of the sentence in question is ambiguous and the ambiguity can only be resolved by extralinguistic/contextual factors or by clarification in subsequent discourse. I would be surprised if a reading of the rest of the news article didn't resolve the ambiguity.

Both interpretations that have been presented on this topic are valid; either the hoaxter or the runner may be the subject of ran.

The question of reach not meaning enter does not prohibit the runner from being the subject. Here, the notion of narrative progression will be useful in understanding why. The temporal progression of a discourse is advanced by the sequential introduction of new events/actions. Therefore, it is normal to assume that the running of the lap occurred after the reaching the stadium (thereby allowing time for the runner to enter the stadium). It's not that the semantics of reach allows an interpretation of reach and enter, but rather because of this notion of narrative/temporal progression.

Despite the possibility of runner being the subject of ran, our first inclination is for hoaxter because we make the cognitive connection that the action of running the lap is the manner in which the hoaxter was pretending to be an actual participant in the marathon.

6. Senior Member
Join Date
Jun 2004
Posts
1,370
Originally Posted by Taka
Originally Posted by Francois

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.
For me this is enough to make the meaning clear. If I have a choice between a) a "natural" intepretation and b) a contrived one depending on "ifs", I choose the first.
You can make *lots* of sentences, or interpretations, work by injecting the proper context.

FRC

7. Senior Member
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
1,074
Thank you very much for the amazing answer. You explained everything perfectly, including the semantics of reach (so, depending on the context, taking the sequence into account, "he/she reached the building" can mean "he/she got to the building, and he/she was in there", right?).

I really appreciate your help. Thank you!

----------
p.s.

Originally Posted by bigjohn
The grammar of the sentence in question is ambiguous and the ambiguity can only be resolved by extralinguistic/contextual factors or by clarification in subsequent discourse. I would be surprised if a reading of the rest of the news article didn't resolve the ambiguity.
I don't think the rest of the news article really resolves the ambiguity. Here is the original: http://sports.yahoo.com/oly/news?slu...&amp;type=lgns

Page 3 of 3 First 123

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1