a cat decided to exact revenge on a dog that had chased it up a tree.

[GoldfishLord]

Cats can climb trees. Mine one held onto a trunk of a tree in an effort to ambush a squirrel. (He missed.) As for dogs, no. Dogs don't climb trees.

I have other questions.
1. I wonder about the reason "a trunk" was used instead of "the trunk".
2. I wonder about the reason "mine one" was used instead of just "mine".

 

[SoothingDave]

1. He could just as easily have written "the trunk." Nothing wrong either way.

2. He meant "mine once."

 

[GoldfishLord]

"The trunk of a tree" indicates that the tree has one trunk.
Does "a trunk of a tree" indicate that the tree has more than one trunk.

 

[jutfrank]

I wonder what it's like to live in a world where dogs climb multi-trunked trees!

 

[Tarheel]

Two things. One, I wish people would stop quoting my typos. Two, I've seen cats in trees several times. I've never seen a dog in a tree.

I wonder why I've never seen a dog in a tree. Could it be because dogs don't climb trees? Hm.

 

[Tarheel]

@GoldfishLord Two things. One, the important thing was what the cat did. Two, the tree only had one trunk.

 

[GoldfishLord]

Firefighters rescue dog that chased cat up a tree and got stuck​

Source: FOX 10 Phoenix

Firefighters rescue dog that chased cat up a tree and got stuck

We've all heard about cats needing to be rescued from trees -- but what about dogs? That's what happened to one German shepherd that got stuck at the top of a tree in northern California.

www.google.co.kr

 

[Tarheel]

@GoldfishLord You seem determined to prove me wrong.

The dog in the picture is in trouble because it can't get down from the tree. Cats are different. I told my wife once when our cat (a different one) got stuck in a tree, "She'll come down when she gets hungry enough." (She did.)

A cat can climb straight up a tree trunk.

 

[SoothingDave]

You never see any cat skeletons up in trees.

 

[Piscean]

You never see any cat skeletons up in trees.

That's because tree-climbing chew them up.

 

[Tarheel]

That's because tree-climbing chew them up.

Two things. One, that doesn't make sense. Two, cats can go up trees, and they can go down trees. (I've seen them do both.)

Cats are the acrobats of the animal world. They are agile and incredibly flexible.

 

[SoothingDave]

I think he meant "Tree climbing dogs chew them up."

And cats do anatomically have more difficulty climbing down because of the curvature of their claws.

 

[Tarheel]

@SoothingDave Once they figure it out they have no trouble at all.

 

[GoldfishLord]

When working out the meaning of utterances, our knowledge of the world, and our common sense, are important.

a. That cat chased the squirrel up a tree.
b, The dog chased the squirrel up a tree.

Our knowledge of cats, dogs and squirrels tells us that in both (a) and (b) the cat went up the tree: that in (a) the cat almost certainly went up the tree; and that in (b) the dog did not go up the tree.

It seems to me that "chased" means "run after" and that "chased" means "forced it to go away".
Are "chased" and "chased" different in meaning?

 

[Piscean]

In both sentences 'chase' probably means follow someone or something quickly in order to catch them, though it could also mean follow someone or something quickly in order to make them go away. (link)

The fact that the resist of the chasing is different in each sentence does not change the meaning of 'chase'. As with so many of your questions, you are trying to read too much into a single word. It is the whole sentence that conveys the meaning,

 

[jutfrank]

I wouldn't say that 'chase' has a different meaning in those cases, either. The verb follows this pattern:

chase something/somebody somewhere

What you're wondering is whether both the chaser and the person or thing being chased must at some point be in the place denoted in the pattern by 'somewhere'. You can conclude from this thread that the answer is no—only the person being chased. Whether or not you draw the conclusion that it applies to both is determined by the implication of the context, not the grammar relation.

 

[GoldfishLord]

a. That cat chased the squirrel up a tree.
b, The dog chased the squirrel up a tree.

---

Dog chased rabbit into hole, got stuck for two days​

It took New Jersey firefighters two days to rescue a dog that got stuck in a hole while chasing a rabbit.
Source: https://www.wral.com/video/lifestyles/pets/video/18005684/

---

OK. Now I understand it.
What confused me was whether "into hole" is about the behavior of the rabbit or whether it is about the behavior of the dog.
It applies only to the rabbit. Whether or not it applies to both is determined by the context.

 

[Tarheel]

@GoldfishLord I don't know why you keep doing the same thing over and over.

The dog chased a rabbit. Where did he chase the rabbit? Into a hole. Why did he chase the rabbit into a hole? That's where the rabbit went. Where did the rabbit go? Into a hole. Where did the dog go? Into the hole where he saw the rabbit go. Why did the dog chase the rabbit? I don't know.

 

[GoldfishLord]

I'll not ask about this any more. Thank you all.

 

[kadioguy]

When working out the meaning of utterances, our knowledge of the world, and our common sense, are important.

a. That cat chased the squirrel up a tree.
b. The dog chased the squirrel up a tree.

Our knowledge of cats, dogs and squirrels tells us that in both (a) and (b) the cat went up the tree: that in (a) the cat almost certainly went up the tree; and that in (b) the dog did not go up the tree.

Did I miss something? But I don't see anything about a cat in (b).