[Grammar] He spent time lying down [and] doing very little.

[NAL123]

Consider these sentences, please:

1) He spent time lying down doing very little.

2) Tim spends his weekends messing around in the garage repairing things.


Q1: Do they respectively mean:

a) He spent time [lying down] and [doing very little]. (=He spent time doing two things)

b) Tim spends his weekends [messing around in the garage] and [repairing things]. (=Tim spends his weekends doing two things)

Or

Do they mean (Two sentences with different main verbs combined together):

c) He spent time [lying down doing very little]. (= He spent time lying down. He lay down doing very little)

d) Tim spends his weekends [messing around in the garage repairing things]. (= Tim spends his weekends messing around in the garage. He messes around in the garage repairing things)

Note: I've already asked this question here: (https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/he-spent-time-lying-down-and-doing-very-little.3782851/), and the teachers seem to have different opinions about these sentences. One seems to prefer (a) and (b), while the other, (c) and (d). I would just like to know your view.


Q2: In the same link given above, one of the teachers (in post #6) wrote this sentence:

To me, yes: the "repairing things" amplifies what the "messing around" consists of: they're not two separate things which is what using "and" would imply.

Clearly, the underlined portion is a relative clause with the relative pronoun "which". What does this pronoun refer to in the previous clause? Does it mean "using "and" would imply they are two separate things", or does it mean "using "and" would imply they are not two separate things"?

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Consider these sentences, please:

1) He spent time lying down doing very little.

More likely and natural: lying around.

2) Tim spends his weekends messing around in the garage repairing things.

Q1: Do they respectively mean:

a) He spent time [lying down] and [doing very little]. (=He spent time doing two things)

It means doing two things at the same time.

b) Tim spends his weekends [messing around in the garage] and [repairing things]. (=Tim spends his weekends doing two things)

Again, he's doing two things at the same time: messing around repairing things.

Or

Do they mean (Two sentences with different main verbs combined together):

c) He spent time [lying down doing very little]. (= He spent time lying down. He lay down doing very little)

d) Tim spends his weekends [messing around in the garage repairing things]. (= Tim spends his weekends messing around in the garage. He messes around in the garage repairing things)

Note: I've already asked this question here: (https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/he-spent-time-lying-down-and-doing-very-little.3782851/), and the teachers seem to have different opinions about these sentences.

We probably will, too.

One seems to prefer (a) and (b), while the other, (c) and (d). I would just like to know your view.

Q2: In the same link given above, one of the teachers (in post #6) wrote this sentence:

To me, yes: the "repairing things" amplifies what the "messing around" consists of: they're not two separate things, which is what using "and" would imply.

That's a good explanation. It amplifies, builds on, clarifies.

Clearly, the underlined portion is a relative clause with the relative pronoun "which". What does this pronoun refer to in the previous clause? Does it mean "using "and" would imply they are two separate things", or does it mean "using "and" would imply they are not two separate things"?

There should be a comma before which. That would be clearer.

Interesting question!

 

[jutfrank]

Let's go in reverse order:

2) is clearly one thing. As post #6 in the other forum points out, repairing things is identical with messing around. This identification is exactly what the sentence means.

1) is probably best interpreted as two things. You don't necessarily have to do very little when you're lying down. However, it could be that the speaker means them to be identical, as in 1. It isn't a great example to analyse.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

. . . 1) is probably best interpreted as two things. You don't necessarily have to do very little when you're lying down. However, it could be that the speaker means them to be identical, as in 1. It isn't a great example to analyse.

Maybe. I'm assuming (maybe wrongly, making an ass of me, not u) that NAL means lying around, not lying down: a couch potato, a layabout, a goldbricker, a slug, a good-for-nothng. If that's right, our unmotivated friend is laying around (hanging around, loitering, growing moss, gathering cobwebs) doing not much.

So I put them together into a single activity. I read "doing nothing" as a modifier that amplifies (I liked that word) lying around.

 

[emsr2d2]

As far as "lying down" vs "lying around" goes, it depends on the context. Someone at home, idling on the sofa etc would be "lying around". Someone on a beach holiday, sunbathing all day and having a lovely relaxing time, would be "lying down" on a beach towel or a sunbed.

 

[jutfrank]

Maybe. I'm assuming (maybe wrongly, making an ass of me, not u) that NAL means lying around, not lying down: a couch potato, a layabout, a goldbricker, a slug, a good-for-nothng. If that's right, our unmotivated friend is laying around (hanging around, loitering, growing moss, gathering cobwebs) doing not much.

So I put them together into a single activity. I read "doing nothing" as a modifier that amplifies (I liked that word) lying around.

Right, that all makes sense and I agree that 'lying around' would be best interpreted as another way of basically saying 'doing nothing', so yes, in that case it would be one thing, not two. You might well be right that that's what NAL123 really means.

Like I said before, unlike sentence 2, I don't think sentence 1 is a great example to work with as it stands. With 'lying around', it's much better.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Right, that all makes sense and I agree that 'lying around' would be best interpreted as another way of basically saying 'doing nothing', so yes, in that case it would be one thing, not two. You might well be right that that's what NAL123 really means.

Like I said before, unlike sentence 2, I don't think sentence 1 is a great example to work with as it stands.

No, indeed. But at least it's easier than the thread about the sliding beer cooler!