visit a garden in the north, and you could be ...

[raymondaliasapollyon]

The sentence uses "could," not "will." It is speaking of a FREE decision that one MIGHT choose to make after riding the train north.



To try to interpret the second sentence as if the first wasn't there and bore no relation to the sentence that follows it is absurd.



Any intelligent reader will grasp that "Visit a garden . . ." in the second sentence means "by utilizing the country's RPTN to get there."



Again, the sentence uses "could," not "will," and it is speaking of a free decision that one might choose to make after doing something else. I disagree wholeheartedly with the Australian's sense that something is wrong with the example as written.

The example of the OP is open to interpretation, even if we consider the preceding context: There might be a train station entrance in the garden. Also, the sentence as it is bears no relevance to the scenario where one is close enough to the garden, in which case the person would not need to take the train to the garden.

The revised sentence avoids the above problems.

 

[Phaedrus]

The example of the OP is open to interpretation, even if we consider the preceding context: There might be a train station entrance in the garden. Also, the sentence as it is bears no relevance to the scenario where one is close enough to the garden, in which case the person would not need to take the train to the garden.

Right, some sensitivity to meaning and genre is required to grasp the sentence. If your students have none, don't use the example.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

The sentence uses "could," not "will." It is speaking of a FREE decision that one MIGHT choose to make after riding the train north.

I mean, although a person can decide whether or not to climb a mountain in the south on the same day, the possibility of visiting the two places far away from each other in a short timespan comes into being because of the rapid public transportation network (RPTN). That is, the possibility is a consequence of the RPTN.

 

[Phaedrus]

I mean, although a person can decide whether or not to climb a mountain in the south on the same day, the possibility of visiting the two places far away from each other in a short timespan comes into being because of the rapid public transportation network (RPTN). That is, the possibility is a consequence of the RPTN.

Exactly. That's why the example works. Deterministic causality applied to human decisions is utterly alien to the meaning.

 

[Phaedrus]

When children say,

Open your mouth and close your eyes and you will get a big surprise.

what strict scientific connection of deterministic causality do they have in mind between the addressee's opening his or her mouth and closing his or her eyes and the addressee's getting a big surprise?

 

[Rover_KE]

Please let us know if you subsequently get any better answers from WordReference.com.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

Please let us know if you subsequently get any better answers from WordReference.com.

Yes, two Americans don't like the example of the OP. One offered the following comparison, which I find very persuasive:

[FONT=&quot]

"Ireland is famous for its sweepstakes. Buy a ticket, and you could win.
I can climb the mountain without visiting the garden. Can I win the Irish sweepstakes without entering?

The original sentence means
IF you visit the garden in the morning, you CAN climb the mountain in the afternoon.
It's ambiguous at best."


​

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"... the point is: the context doesn't make any difference. You're forcing the sentence to fit the context, not informing the sentence from the context. How is the context "The country is famous for its transportation network." change the sentence when "The country is famous for its sweepstakes." doesn't?"
[/FONT]

 

[Phaedrus]

The original sentence means
IF you visit the garden in the morning, you CAN climb the mountain in the afternoon.
It's ambiguous at best."​

No, the sentence means:

If you take the RAPID whatever-it-is, for which the country is FAMOUS, to one side of the country to do Activity A in morning, you may decide to take it to the other side of the country to do Activity B in the afternoon.


​

"... the point is: the context doesn't make any difference.

Quite to the contrary, the context makes ALL the difference here.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

No, the sentence means:

If you take the RAPID whatever-it-is, for which the country is FAMOUS, to one side of the country to do Activity A in morning, you may decide to take it to the other side of the country to do Activity B in the afternoon.


​

Quite to the contrary, the context makes ALL the difference here.

That is certainly a possible interpretation.

Consider another contextually relevant interpretation. Suppose a tourist was staying at a hotel near the said garden. He would not need to take any public transportation to get there, and the garden is connected to the transportation network via a tunnel or something. Would he still interpret the example of the OP as "If you take the rapid whatever-it-is to the garden, you could climb a mountain in the south in the afternoon"? That interpretation would simply be irrelevant to him. Instead, he would probably interpret it to mean "If you visit a northern garden (because it's close to the transportation network) in the morning, you could climb a southern mountain in the afternoon.

That's probably why the American participant on Wordreference says the example of the OP is "ambiguous at best."

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Whew! This is like the dynamo that generates more heat than light. Let's take a step back:

Hi,

I was told that an imperative followed by "and" and a sentence could mean "if ... then ...."
For example, "Give John 10 dollars, and he will ask for 100 dollars" means "If you give John 10 dollars, he will ask for 100 dollars."

Whoa. That's not an imperative. In an imperative, the words You must are understood. Here, the words If you are understood. That's a statement, not a command.

What about the following example? Does it sound natural?

The country is famous for its rapid public transportation network.

That sentence sounds natural.

Visit a garden in the north in the morning, and you could be climbing a mountain in the south in the afternoon.

That one doesn't. It's a non sequitur. Visiting garden doesn't cause you to climb a mountain. To make sense, You could needs to move to the front. For instance: You could be visiting a garden in the morning and climbing a mountain in the afternoon.

Note also that parallelism helps make it more natural and coherent.

Keep it simple!

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

As Phaedrus explained in post #10,

What the second sentence means in context of the first is this:

Use the country's rapid public transportation network (RPTN) to go to the north for a garden visit in the morning and you will enjoy the efficiency of the RPTN so much that you may take it to the south afterwards and be climbing a mountain there in the afternoon.

Yup. That's clear to the writer, and it's an attractive possibility for the reader.

 

[Phaedrus]

That is certainly a possible interpretation.

Is the light of understanding beginning to dawn?

Consider another contextually relevant interpretation. Suppose a tourist was staying at a hotel near the said garden.

What "said garden"? No specific garden is under discussion. "Visit a garden in the north in the morning" is not talking about a particular garden. It is talking about an activity -- one of many possible activities -- that one could do in the north in the morning after taking the RPTN.

Likewise, "and you could be climbing a mountain in the south in the afternoon" is talking about an activity -- one of many possible activities -- that one could do in the south in the afternoon after having taken the RPTN from the north. No specific mountain is under discussion.

Surely if someone said, "Smoke a cigarette in the morning and you might have bad breath in the afternoon," you wouldn't think that he was talking about smoking one specific cigarette ("the said cigarette"???) out of the millions of unsmoked cigarettes that exist. Think about it.

He would not need to take any public transportation to get there, and the garden is connected to the transportation network via a tunnel or something. Would he still interpret the example of the OP as "If you take the rapid whatever-it-is to the garden, you could climb a mountain in the south in the afternoon"? That interpretation would simply be irrelevant to him. Instead, he would probably interpret it to mean "If you visit a northern garden (because it's close to the transportation network) in the morning, you could climb a southern mountain in the afternoon.

Since "the garden" you have in mind is not one that the sentence could possibly be talking about -- again, it is not talking about a visit to a particular garden but about the activity of garden visiting (cf. the activity of climbing mountains or of smoking cigarettes) -- your objection needs to be revised.

We must suppose that your reader or hearer is simply someone who dwells in the north and has easy access to gardens. Such a person would realize that the sentence was not written with him in mind as its ideal audience, just as I, now a nonsmoker, know that signs that say "Please refrain from smoking" are not written with me and other nonsmokers in mind as their ideal audience.

That's probably why the American participant on Wordreference says the example of the OP is "ambiguous at best."

It is a mystery to me why some native speakers whom you have asked about this sentence are failing to grasp its obvious meaning.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

What if "the said garden" is replaced with "just any garden" in the interpretation?
It is not uncommon to see a tourist attraction connected to a bus stop or other part of the public transportation network.
On this interpretation, "Visit a garden in the north in the morning, and you could climb a mountain in the south in the afternoon" would be relevant to the tourist who was in the north of the country.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

But that does not mean that the sign was written with that person in mind. A 'No Smoking' sign is not relevant to a non-smoker. It is relevant to a smoker. The meaning of the sign does not depend on who reads it.

If the RATP marketing people tailored their ads to specific locations, then htey might produce an ad for a garden in the north near a bus stop or railway station saying "Visit this garden in the in the morning, and you could be climbing a mountain in the south in the afternoon". This does not change the idea behind the message, though of course it restricts the audience.

I am not sure if I understand your message, but I'm saying that the example of the OP could be relevant to a tourist who does not need to take any public transportation to a garden, if it is interpreted to mean "Visit any garden in the north (because it is connected to the public transportation network) in the morning, and you could climb a mountain in the south in the afternoon."

The example in the OP would be irrelevant to that kind of tourist only if it assumes the interpretation you have in mind, i.e., "Use the country's rapid public transportation network (RPTN) to go to the north for a garden visit in the morning and you will enjoy the efficiency of the RPTN so much that you may take it to the south afterwards and be climbing a mountain there in the afternoon."