because he thought he was a thief

[navi tasan]

1) Harry found out that Jake wasn't a thief. And yet, for some reason he hated Jake more than he did because he thought he was a thief.

2) Tom on the other hand, hated Jake less than he did because he knew he wasn't a thief.

Are both of the above correct and meaningful?

Gratefully,
Navi

 

[jutfrank]

They're not good, no. Who is he in each case?

I don't understand why you don't just ask us how to say what you mean in the clearest way. Can you tell us why you only seem to ask questions about sentences that could be misinterpreted? Is this purely an exercise in deliberately playing with the limits of ambiguity?

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you very much, Jutfrank,

It is an exercise in finding ambiguous syntactic structures. I want to be able to spot ambiguity. It is kind of an obsession with me.

The last 'he' in those sentences is 'Jake' In '1' the other 'he's refer to Harry and in '2' they refer to Tom.

1) Harry found out that Jake wasn't a thief. And yet, for some reason he hated Jake more than he did because he thought Jake was a thief.
(Now all the he's refer to Harry.)

2) Tom on the other hand, hated Jake less than he did because he knew Jake wasn't a thief.
(Now all the he's refer to Tom.)

I didn't mean the pronouns to introduce any ambiguity. That happened because things were clear in my head and I thought they would also be clear for the reader. My apologies.

Pronouns are of course always a bit problematic and that is true of any language.

Gratefully,
Navi

 

[emsr2d2]

Thank you very much, Jutfrank.

It is an exercise in finding ambiguous syntactic structures. I want to be able to spot ambiguity. It is kind of an obsession with me.

The last 'he' in those sentences [STRIKE]is 'Jake'[/STRIKE] refers to Jake. In [STRIKE]'1'[/STRIKE] sentence #1, the other 'he's' refer to Harry and in [STRIKE]'2'[/STRIKE] sentence #2 they refer to Tom.

1) Harry found out that Jake wasn't a thief. And yet, for some reason, he hated Jake more than he did because he thought Jake was a thief.
(Now all the "he's" refer to Harry.)

2) Tom on the other hand, hated Jake less than he did because he knew Jake wasn't a thief.
(Now all the "he's" refer to Tom.)

I didn't mean the pronouns to introduce any ambiguity. That happened because things were clear in my head and I thought they would also be clear for the reader. My apologies.

Pronouns are, of course, always a bit problematic and that is true of any language.

[STRIKE]Gratefully,
Navi[/STRIKE]

Sentence 1 doesn't make any sense if all instances of "he" refer to Harry. Effectively, you've written:

Harry found out that Jake wasn't a thief. And yet, for some reason Harry hated Jake more than Harry did because he thought Jake was a thief.

How can Harry hate Jake more than Harry hates Jake?! I think what you're trying to say is "... for some reason, Harry hated Jake more than he had when he thought Jake was a thief".

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you very much, emsr2d2,

Yes, your version with the past perfect and the 'when clause' solves the problem. That's the way to express the idea!

Respectfully,
Navi

 

[jutfrank]

With sentence 1, another way to express the idea clearly is to add some extra words to the linking section:

And yet, for some reason, he hated Jake (even) more than he did (before) he knew he wasn't a thief.

Notice that I've removed because, which was very problematic and distracting, and rephrased using before.

Thank you for explaining the purpose behind asking the kind of questions you do. I would respectfully ask you to supply this context briefly in future posts. This will reassure us that we are giving answers that are as useful as possible. Thank you.

 

[Tarheel]

1) Harry suspected Jake of being a thief, but he realized he was wrong. And yet, for some reason he hated Jake more than he did before because of thinking Jake was a thief.

2) Tom, on the other hand, hated Jake less than he did before because he knew Jake wasn't a thief.

Are both of the above correct and meaningful?

Gratefully,
Navi

The English is better now. Logic is a different problem.