given money to help fund coaching

[GoldfishLord]

Double Wimbledon champion Sir Andy Murray, 33, was given money to help fund coaching.

Source: https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/ne...62/sean-connery-charity-scotland-andy-murray/

---

I think that technically, it is ambiguous who helped fund coaching.
It could have been "Sir Andu Murry" or "someone who gave moneny to Sir Andu Murry".
I think that "in order for ( )" should be inserted just before "to help fund coaching".
What do you think about that?

 

[5jj]

I think that "in order for ( )" should be inserted just before "to help fund coaching".

That doesn't work.

In the context of that article, the original is clear enough.

 

[Barque]

I think that technically, it is ambiguous who helped fund coaching.

It isn't ambiguous. It means Andy Murray (not Andu Murry) received money that was used to pay for his coaching. If Murray was the one who was helping to fund someone else's coaching, the writer would have worded it differently.

I think that "in order for ( )" should be inserted just before "to help fund coaching".

It's unnecessary and it'd make the sentence odd and ungrammatical. And it doesn't do anything for the "ambiguity" that you think exists.

 

[emsr2d2]

There's nothing wrong with the original. It's just another way of saying that he was given money to help him pay his coach.

 

[Barque]

I think that technically, it is ambiguous who helped fund coaching.

Technically, many sentences can be considered ambiguous.

I went for a walk wearing my new shoes. This means "I went for a walk [while I was] wearing my new shoes".

By the same logic, if a schoolboy says "I saw a soldier holding a gun", you could argue that it can be read as "I saw a soldier [while I was] holding a gun". But we know that he meant "I saw a soldier [who was] holding a gun", because we use common sense and logic and that tells us a soldier is more likely to have a gun than a schoolboy.

Similarly, when we hear that a charity gave money to a tennis player to help fund coaching, common sense tells us that that the money was used to pay for the coaching he received, and not so that he could help someone else coach someone else.

 

[GoldfishLord]

• Double Wimbledon champion Sir Andy Murray, 33, was given money to help fund coaching.
• But in 2025, that funding option will be phased out, meaning parents will no longer be given money to pay for services they choose.

---

"To help fund coaching" doesn't mean "in order for Sir Andy Murray to help fund coaching" but "to pay for services they choose" means "in order for parents to pay for services they choose".
That is the ambiguity, which I think exists.

 

[Barque]

You think there's an ambiguity because you're looking for a pattern or a rule. English isn't like that. Two different sentences can have the same structure but may be interpreted in different ways.

I wouldn't call it ambiguity. It's a feature of the language. That's how it is.

 

[GoldfishLord]

• But in 2025, that funding option will be phased out, meaning parents will no longer be given money to pay for services they choose.

Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/autism-support-kids-british-columbia-1.6356252

---

It seems to me that "to" means "with which parents".

 

[emsr2d2]

"to" could be replaced by "with which parents can", but not just "with which parents". The repetition of "parents" would be irritating. You could use "with which they can".