I saw a black man and (a black) woman.

[99bottles]

Can I say 'I saw a black man and woman' instead? Is this kind of simplification allowed?

 

[99bottles]

Is there any particular reason for giving the colour of the skin of the people you saw?

Yes. Because I had to give you a random sentence to get my answer. Please, don't turn this into an anti racist thread. Stay on topic.

 

[99bottles]

Perhaps somebody else will be more tolerant of your attitude. I just can't be bothered any more.

Are you mad because I asked you to stay on topic or because I used the term 'black person'? I don't think that stating something that is true is racism. If a person is black, what's the problem with calling them black?

 

[Phaedrus]

Is this kind of simplification allowed?

Great question. I believe it is. Compare:

(a) I went for a long run and swim.
(b) I ate a spicy taco and enchilada.
(c) I met a British man and woman.

l believe that each sentence admits of two interpretations. In neither interpretation is there any ellipsis. To illustrate:

(a1) I went for [a [[long run] and [swim]]].
(a2) I went for [a [long [run and swim]]].

In interpretation (a1), the complement of the determiner is the coordinate NP structure "long run" and "swim." The run was long and the swim was of unmentioned length. In interpretation (a2), the complement of the determiner is the coordinate NP structure "run and swim," which as a whole is modified by the adjective "long."

I try to avoid using the technical term DP (Determiner Phrase) in ESL discussions, but here I find it unavoidable. In the example (a), the DP is "a long run and swim." The two NPs (Noun Phrases) are "run" and "swim." They're coordinated, and the coordinate structure they form is itself a phrase. (I'm describing a syntax tree in words.)

The difference between the two interpretations is that in (a1) the AP (Adjective Phrase) "long" is an adjunct (i.e., a modifier) of the NP "run" alone, whereas in (a2) it is an adjunct (modifier) of the higher NP comprising the coordinated NPs "run" and "swim." I'm sorry if this is confusing. I suppose it's a convoluted way of saying "Yes."

 

[Phaedrus]

Can I say 'I saw a black man and woman' instead?

In case the obvious needs to be stated, my explanation above applies to that sentence too, which I do not find offensive at all.

(d1) I met [a [[black man] and [woman]]].
(d2) I met [a [black [man and woman]]].

 

[Phaedrus]

I saw a man and woman who were black.

 

[Phaedrus]

The fact that a relative clause with a plural verb can modify a coordinate structure consisting of singular NPs is evidence that the coordinate structure itself (the higher NP comprising the coordination of the two NPs "man" and "woman") can take an adjunct. If it can take a right adjunct, why couldn't it take a left (attributive) adjunct?

That said, I think the following are awkward at best:

(i) I saw a man and woman who was black.
(ii) I saw a man and black woman.

And the color issue arises for me there. Why go out of one's way to state the skin color of one without stating the skin color of the other? 99bottles, however, wants to state the skin color of both. I could make up contexts all day long in which that would make sense.

I wonder if (i) and (ii) are grammatical. Do they absolutely need to be "I saw a man and a woman who was black" and "I saw a man and a black woman" instead? I tend to think that, although (i) and (ii) are extremely awkward, they are grammatical. How about you? Feel free to replace it with the taco-and-enchilada example.

 

[Phaedrus]

And all I'm interested in is the syntax.

 

[Phaedrus]

Yes, I dispensed with adverbials, leaving the "anchoring" of the simple past to sentences that might surround my examples -- e.g.:

I got up early this morning. I went for a long run and swim. Then I took a shower. I grew hungry. I ate a spicy taco and enchilada.

Though they stood alone, they weren't intended as stand-alone sentences. They stood alone to reduce the syntax to simplest terms.

 

[Tdol]

I tend to think that, although (i) and (ii) are extremely awkward, they are grammatical.

They strike me as grammatical, but very weird.