I didn't sing because Pat was there

[milan2003_07]

I'm currently expanding and revising my knowledge of grammar using the book "Oxford Grammar Course Advanced" by Michael Swan and Catherine Walter. This grammar edition is often recommended for studying and revising the English grammar at high levels.

The sentence is as follows: "I didn't sing because Pat was there". (= 'I didnt sing' or 'I sang, but for another reason')

The book says that the original sentence can have two meanings (they are provided in the brackets above), which I don't understand. I'm used to interpreting such sentences in one meaning that "I didn't sing because of Pat's presence" which coincides with #1 in the brackets. However, I don't understand how this sentence can also mean that "I sang, but for another reason" (there is a clear negation that I didn't sing).

Could you please confirm that both meanings are possible and explain meaning #2?

By the way, the book suggests reorganizing the sentence(s) the following way:

"Because Pat was there, I didn't sing" (meaning #1). or "I sang, but not because Pat was there" (meaning #2).

 

[jutfrank]

Yes, both meanings are possible. I'm not sure what you need explaining about meaning #2. If you could hear the very different ways these two sentences would be pronounced, I think you'd understand well enough.

Think about other less ambiguous examples with similar negation of a verb that did happen. Think of a context for the following utterance, for example:

I didn't come all this way just to talk, Helen.

 

[SoothingDave]

I didn't sing because Pat was there. I sang for some other reason.

 

[milan2003_07]

Yes, both meanings are possible. I'm not sure what you need explaining about meaning #2. If you could hear the very different ways these two sentences would be pronounced, I think you'd understand well enough.

Think about other less ambiguous examples with similar negation of a verb that did happen. Think of a context for the following utterance, for example:

I didn't come all this way just to talk, Helen.

I think I'm now starting to understand the differences between these two meanings.

Regarding the sentence "I didn't come all this way just to talk, Helen." the first meaning that occurrs to me is that I've made such a long way in order not just to talk, but to do some other, maybe more serious, things as well. In this meaning we convey that I've actually come to the destination. The other meaning of the original sentence is that I've not come to the destination because I knew in advance that the goal of the meeting would be just to talk, which was not what I had been expecting. The sentence also contains an application to Helen because the phrase addresses her.

Am I right in my reasoning?

 

[Tarheel]

"I didn't come all this way just to talk, Helen."

Meaning: I came to talk but also for other reasons.

I would work on using fewer words if I were you.

 

[milan2003_07]

I will try to avoid using too many words, but sometimes it's necessary to help others understand better what I mean or what I'd like to say.

 

[jutfrank]

Regarding the sentence "I didn't come all this way just to talk, Helen." the first meaning that occurrs to me is that I've made such a long way in order not just to talk, but to do some other, maybe more serious, things as well. In this meaning we convey that I've actually come to the destination.

Yes, that's what it means.

The other meaning of the original sentence is that I've not come to the destination because I knew in advance that the goal of the meeting would be just to talk, which was not what I had been expecting.

No, that's not a reasonable interpretation.

My sentence was an attempt to show you a context that is not ambiguous, and where we know for sure that I did come 'all this way' to the destination.