if he can eat anything give him fruits

[navi tasan]

1-If he can eat anything give him fruits.

Can't this sentence mean two things:

a) If he can eat even one thing give him fruits.
b) If he can eat just anything (everything) give him fruits.

I think 1 is ambiguous and the meaning depends on the context.

 

[Skrej]

1-If he can eat anything, give him fruits.

Is this your own sentence?

I don't think any native speaker would interpret it as option b without some very specific and unlikely context. I wouldn't really consider it ambiguous for that reason.

Without further context, most native speakers would take it to mean that if he feels like eating (i.e. he's hungry or his stomach can handle food), then give him some fruit. It sounds like advice for someone who's sick or recovering from illness.

What is your fascination with ambiguity? Most of your posts seem to be centered around ambiguous sentences and interpretation of them.

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you very much, Skrej,

I don't know why I am obsessed with ambiguity. I think deep down inside I am afraid I might misunderstand something important. I know that ambiguity exists in every language, but I want to be able to detect it. Every time I suspect there might be ambiguity, it makes me anxious.

It is not really a fascination. It is nice of you to use that term. But it is an obsession. It gives me anxiety.

I used to translate certain things. I think this might have started back then. I can't say for sure. I don't remember when it started.

Respectfully,
Navi

 

[Tarheel]

@navi tasan Context always matters. A sentence all by itself may be said to be ambiguous. However, things don't work that way. There is rarely a problem understanding what something means. That's because we see that sentence in whatever context in which it appears. That's why there is rarely a mystery about what something means.

 

[emsr2d2]

1- space here If he can eat anything, give him fruits.

Can't this sentence mean two things?

a) If he can eat even one thing, give him fruits.
b) If he can eat just anything (everything), give him fruits.

I think 1 is ambiguous and the meaning depends on the context.

Note my corrections above. Context always helps with meaning, as we've said probably thousands of times before. In this case, your meaning (b) would probably be expressed as "Even if/though he can eat anything/everything, give him only fruit".
Without context, the most likely interpretation is "If at some point he has the ability to eat anything at all, even just a tiny morsel, make sure what you give him is fruit-based".

 

[Tdol]

I'd use fruit.

 

[jutfrank]

I don't know why I am obsessed with ambiguity. I think deep down inside I am afraid I might misunderstand something important. I know that ambiguity exists in every language, but I want to be able to detect it. Every time I suspect there might be ambiguity, it makes me anxious.

It is not really a fascination. It is nice of you to use that term. But it is an obsession. It gives me anxiety.

I used to translate certain things. I think this might have started back then. I can't say for sure. I don't remember when it started.

I don't really understand much of this, to be honest. I've been trying to answer your posts for years without really knowing what you're trying to do. Since I'm deeply interested in meaning too, I'd very much like to help you where I can.

Your questions have always given me the impression that you're deliberately trying to create ambiguity where there is none, in order to understand the mechanics of meaning. Is this not the case?

To help us provide with more useful future answers, can you say more about where your questions arise from? Is it that you come across sentences that you consider ambiguous, and which you want to explore? Or is that you wish to express something in a way that could not possibly be misinterpreted? What's the source of this anxiety exactly?

It's very important to remember that ambiguity comes only through a lack of context. It's very rare that an utterance is misinterpreted in natural everyday use. Linguists use call a sentence 'ambiguous' where the syntax can be parsed in alternative ways. It's really an academic term, of interest only to linguists. In everyday life, there's almost always an obvious interpretation. In context, none of the sentences below is likely to be misunderstood:


The book is on the table next to the lamp.
I saw the man with the binoculars.
The chicken is ready to eat.
They saw her duck.

 

[Tarheel]

**They saw her duck.

Her duck's name is Betsy.

**The chicken Is ready to eat.

The chicken is the one that's going to be doing the eating. (Unlikely.)

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you all very much,

I come across these sentences or sentences that have a similar structure. I might hear them read them or even write or say them.

Then I am assailed with doubt. In most cases, or maybe even in all, the context clarifies things, but somehow my mind notices the ambiguity. I think most of the time, there is something like an alarm that goes off in my mind. I have not yet detected the ambiguity, but I have this feeling that something is 'wrong'. In very rare cases, the alarm might go off and I might realize that actually there is no ambiguity.

I think somewhere in my brain the English sentence is compared to its Persian equivalent. Ane what is ambiguous is one language in not necessarily ambiguous in the other. I somehow notice that the English sentence has two Persian translations, one of which would not work in the context we have at hand.

I used to be a translator.

I agree with all you say. I will also add that sometimes a sentence seems ambiguous when it is written, but when it is spoken it is not. But I do have this problem. I just want to know whether a written sentence is ambiguous or not.

However, sometimes I might think there is ambiguity where there is none.

I play the piano like you.
I play the piano, like you.

I think they mean different things. But if in the second one the 'like you' has been added as an afterthought, then it means the same as the first.

Translating sentences like that could be tricky.

Respectfully,
Navi

 

[Barque]

I play the piano like you.
I play the piano, like you.

The first has two possible meanings.
1. I play the piano, and you play it too.
2. I play the piano in a way similar to the way you play it.

The second has a single meaning.
1. I play the piano, and you play it too.

But if in the second one the 'like you' has been added as an afterthought, then it means the same as the first.

No, the "like you" in the second isn't necessarily an afterthought. It could have been added along with a comma to make it clear that the speaker means he and the listener both play the piano.

However the first's ambiguous only without context. In real life there'll almost always be context that'll tell the listener what's meant.

Translating sentences like that could be tricky.

I disagree. If you're translating from a properly written passage, you should normally be able to figure out the meaning using context, logic, common sense and your general knowledge of how humans lead their lives.