[Grammar] Assessment centre

[GoesStation]

Today I was in a situation like this:

A: For a while I thought Bill and George are the same person. But they are not the same then.
B: No, they aren't. They are two different boys.
I think this example is correct. But can I also shorten the answer of B like this?

A: For a while I thought Bill and George are the same person. But they are not the same then.
B: No, they are. They are two different boys.

No. You have to say "No, they aren't." The other answer would be "Yes, they are." This would contradict A's statement, meaning that Bill and George are the same person.

 

[milka34]

Thank you! But which answer would contradict A's Statement (meaning that Bill and George are the same person.)? "No, they aren't" or "Yes, they are."?

I think it's different to my language.

 

[GoesStation]

The other answer would be "Yes, they are." This would contradict A's statement, meaning that Bill and George are the same person.

But which answer would contradict A's Statement (meaning that Bill and George are the same person.)? "No, they aren't" or "Yes, they are."?

See above.

 

[milka34]

Thank you. One last question:

Is the meaning of both questions the same?
1. But which answer would contradict A's Statement (meaning that Bill and George are the same person.)?
2. But which answer would contradict A's Statement, meaning that Bill and George are the same person?

 

[milka34]

Thank you. Only one question is left for me, then I am really done with this topic. Thank you all so much.

No. You have to say "No, they aren't." The other answer would be "Yes, they are." This would contradict A's statement, meaning that Bill and George are the same person.

Which sentence has the meaning that Bill and George are the same person?

 

[milka34]

I am asking cause you say that A's statement has the meaning that Bill and George are the same person, correct?

Take a look at the part in bold:

No. You have to say "No, they aren't." The other answer would be "Yes, they are." This would contradict A's statement, meaning that Bill and George are the same person.

 

[milka34]

But why wrote GoesStation that A's Statement has the meaning that Bill and George are the same person?
I hope you can see the part in bold?

No. You have to say "No, they aren't." The other answer would be "Yes, they are." This would contradict A's statement, meaning that Bill and George are the same person.

 

[Tarheel]

Say:

But why did GoesStation say...?

 

[milka34]

Thank you.

GS did not write that. GS wrote that the meaning of the contradiction was that Bill and George were the same person. meaning refers back to the whole clause, not just to A's statement.

But it refers a bit (?) back to A's statement? Cause you say it refers not just (!) back to A's statement?

 

[GoesStation]

Thank you.



But it refers a bit (?) back to A's statement? Cause you say it refers not just (!) back to A's statement?

I explained this in post #24. I highlighted "this" and the text that the word "this" referred to.

 

[milka34]

I explained this in post #24. I highlighted "this" and the text that the word "this" referred to.

Yes, i saw that and thank you, but I want to know to what the highlighted part refers to:

No. You have to say "No, they aren't." The other answer would be "Yes, they are." This would contradict A's statement, meaning that Bill and George are the same person.

I first thought it refers to A's statement, but Piscean told me it refers to "Yes they are" (which contradicts A's statement), correct?


And my second question is:

GS did not write that. GS wrote that the meaning of the contradiction was that Bill and George were the same person. meaning refers back to the whole clause, not just to A's statement.

So it refers a bit to A's statement? Cause he wrote "..., not just to A's statement." Otherwise he would have said: "..., not to A's statement."

 

[GoesStation]

This is the last post I'm going to make in this thread. I'll explain what I wrote in post #24 a little differently.

If you answer "Yes, they are," you are saying that Bill and George are the same person.

 

[milka34]

Yes, thank you. This seems clear to me. I only want to know why Piscean said "not just to A's statement" instead of "not to A's statement."
Look at this:
This is what Piscean said (look at the word "just"):

GS did not write that. GS wrote that the meaning of the contradiction was that Bill and George were the same person. meaning refers back to the whole clause, not just to A's statement.

This is what I would expect as the answer (look at the missing "just"):

GS did not write that. GS wrote that the meaning of the contradiction was that Bill and George were the same person. meaning refers back to the whole clause, not to A's statement.

 

[milka34]

Haha.

But I would think if someone says "meaning refers back to the whole clause, not just to A's statement." then "meaning" refers back to the whole clause and to A's statement.

If someone says "meaning refers back to the whole clause, not to A's statement." then "meaning" refers only back to the whole clause and not to A's statement.

And you told me that the whole clause refers back to B's statement "yes, they are", correct?
Now my problem is that you both told me "meaning" refers only to the whole clause (which refers back to B's answer "yes they are") and not to A's statement?

 

[milka34]

Okay, please I need help. Why you answer my question "And you told me that the whole clause refers back to B's statement "yes, they are", correct?" with no?

Let's take it step by step.

The sentence we talk about:
"The other answer would be "Yes, they are." This would contradict A's statement, meaning that Bill and George are the same person."

You told me "meaning" refers to the whole clause. The whole clause would be "This would contradict A's statement".
"This" refers back to the answer "yes they are." (see post '24). And therefore the whole clause would refer to "yes they are".

And even Goesstation told in post #37 "If you answer "Yes, they are," you are saying that Bill and George are the same person." And you also wrote that "meaning" refers to the contradiction of A's statement. And A's statement is contradicted with B's answer "Yes, they are."?

So what did I understand wrong? And I'm sorry if I understand something wrong, but such short answers like "No" don't help me to sort them out.


I would be really thankful if we could sort it out.

 

[milka34]

GS did not write that. GS wrote that the meaning of the contradiction was that Bill and George were the same person. meaning refers back to the whole clause, not just to A's statement.

I think the easiest would be if you could explain me what the whole clause is and why it doesn't refer to B's answer "yes, they are."

Thank you so much in advance.

 

[milka34]

And @ Piscean:

You say yes to the following:
"But I would think if someone says "meaning refers back to the whole clause, not just to A's statement." then "meaning" refers back to the whole clause and to A's statement."


Then you say A's statement has the meaning Bill and George are the same person, correct?

 

[Rover_KE]

Piscean has left the thread before his head explodes.:-(

 

[milka34]

Piscean has left the thread before his head explodes.:-(

But I think this would be very unfriendly if nobody can help me.I think I really explained my problems very good and I think many people don't understand why Piscean says "meaning" refers to the clause but not to B's statement, while Goesstation told me the clause refers to B's statement. So I am confused why you can't say "meaning" refers to B's statement.

 

[milka34]

Come on guys. I know I'm not the easiest person to handle, but as I am a student in my own language I am not stupid.
I just need explanations and it's up to you to be good teachers even to hard learning people or just to give up. I would definitely be thankful for any help and that's the reason such forums exist.