for my son to get married

[navi tasan]

1) I am excited for my son to get married.

Is that sentence correct?

Does it mean
a. he is getting married now and I am excited about that
b. he is going to get married in the future and I am excited about that
or
c. I want him to get married (maybe there are no plans for now)
?

 

[emsr2d2]

1) "I am excited for my son to get married."

Is that sentence correct?

Does it mean any of the following?
a. He is getting married now and I am excited about that.
b. He is going to get married in the future and I am excited about that.
or
c. I want him to get married (maybe there are no plans for now).
?

Note my changes above. There was no need to number the main sentence with "1)" because there was no number 2 etc!
Please avoid leaving those silly dangling question marks by splitting up a question with a list of options!
Start every sentence with a capital letter and end every sentence with a closing punctuation mark. (I'm really surprised to be pointing this out to you!)

It could mean a or b. With c, you've lost the idea of excitement. It could, however, mean that whilst he has no plans to get married yet, you're still excited at the prospect of his doing so.

Note that this "I'm excited for + to-infinitive" is a particularly AmE phrasing. BrE speakers would say "I'm excited about [the prospect of] my son getting married".

 

[jutfrank]

Is it correct? I'd say no and ask you to say what you mean in a much better way, one example of which emsr2d2 has suggested above.

After all these years, you're still doing things backwards—making up artificial, often badly worded sentences and then asking us what they mean. Why next time don't you ask us about the meaning of a real sentence? You'll learn more from studying the semantics of real language.

 

[5jj]

After all these years, you're still doing things backwards—making up artificial, often badly worded sentences and then asking us what they mean.

Navi is interested in (potential) ambiguity.

Why next time don't you ask us about the meaning of a real sentence? You'll learn more from studying the semantics of real language.

That, apparently is not what navi wants. Each to their own.

 

[Tarheel]

If it was something that was fairly certain, I might say:

I'm excited that my son is getting married.

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you all very much, especially 5jj,

Jutfrank, with all due respect, 5jj is correct about my approach to language. It is almost like that of a linguist who is researching ambiguity. I am not trying to learn English in the usual sense of the word.

However, the structure I was asking about seems very common.

Google Search

I found the one in 'The Sassy Girl's Guide to Loving God...' particularly interesting.

I think Emsr2d2's reply gives us the key as to why my sentence seems unnatural to you. This construct is American and not British.

Of course that doesn't mean that all my sentences are natural.

Thank you all again.

Respectfully,
Navi

 

[jutfrank]

Jutfrank, with all due respect, 5jj is correct about my approach to language. It is almost like that of a linguist who is researching ambiguity. I am not trying to learn English in the usual sense of the word.

Yes, I'm quite aware of your approach to language. This is why I'm keen to advise you on how to do it properly. Like you, I also have a great interest in semantics, and I do have some idea of how to do it.

However, the structure I was asking about seems very common.

Yes, it's common. But it's not the structure that's the problem with your sentence.

Google Search

Good! There are lots of good examples out there that you can study, or ask us about. This is my main point. Why would a non-native speaker prefer to study his own forced, unnatural sentences when there are so many better and real ones out there?

I found the one in 'The Sassy Girl's Guide to Loving God...' particularly interesting.

That's a good example, yes, but what makes it particularly interesting to you?

I think Emsr2d2's reply gives us the key as to why my sentence seems unnatural to you.

No, I don't think so. I think there's another reason.

This construct is American and not British.

I'm not convinced of that. Why do you think so?

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you very much, Jutfrank,

Well, Emsr2d2 wrote:

"Note that this "I'm excited for + to-infinitive" is a particularly AmE phrasing. BrE speakers would say "I'm excited about [the prospect of] my son getting married"."

So I concluded that maybe that was why the sentences seemed strange to you. I wasn't sure. That's why I wrote: "I think...."

If the grammatical structure of my sentence isn't strange, then what is strange about it? You seem to consider it outright incorrect.

The example I found interesting was from this page:

A Sassy Girl's Guide to Loving God

"Ultimately our love for God affects every area of our lives," bestselling author Michelle McKinney Hammond writes, "from our prayer life to how we look at the world at large." Encouraging readers to return to the joy and passion of their early walk, A Sassy Girl's Guide to Loving God shows...

www.google.com

He was excited for them to see Heaven, the magnificent place He had prepared for them.

"Them" refers to his disciples. I suppose that not all of them are to see heaven soon. So, He is excited, although the event He is excited about is going to take place some time in the future. And it has not been really planned. 'Excited' seems to mean 'anxious' here.

But why is that example any different from mine grammatically? The syntactic structure is the same. What makes my sentence incorrect?

I think Emsr2d2 had already replied to my question. The reply was very clear. Emsr2d2 didn't seem to find the sentence incorrect or even strange. Emsr2d2 just said that the 'phrasing' was particularly American and would not be used in British English.

5jj doesn't seem to have a problem with my questions either.

I think my approach to linguistics and to grammar is fundamentally different from yours, although our interests seem to overlap to some extent. Maybe you are more into semantics, while what interests me more is syntax.

If I present a sentence within a context, the context will obviate the ambiguity. That might influence the reader. The ambiguity might go unnoticed, because the context has eliminated it completely.

That is the basis for my methodology.

I understand that you think I am barking up the wrong tree, and you are trying to help. I truly appreciate that. But take my word for it: I know what I'm doing. As I've said before: It's madness but there's method in it.

Respectfully, and gratefully,
Navi

 

[5jj]

As I've said before: It's madness but there's method in it.

Let's hear it for madness.