[Grammar] I bought a knife to cut bread (with)

[NAL123]

1) I bought a knife to cut bread with.

My interpretations:

a) I bought a knife with which I/you/one can cut bread. (This implies that not all knives are appropriate for cutting bread; I bought one with which it's possible to cut bread)

b) I bought a knife with which I intend to cut bread. (This is talking more about my intentions than the type of knife)

2) I bought a knife to cut bread. (This means I bought the knife in order to cut bread; purpose, intentions)

Q: Does sentence (1) have meaning (a)? If yes, then fine. But if it has meaning (b), then what would be the difference between sentence (1) and sentence (2), which both only suggest my intention to cut bread?

 

[jutfrank]

Be careful when trying to infer meaning from uncontextualised sentences. And be careful to separate semantic from pragmatic analyses.

Both a) and b) are possible interpretations of 1).

 

[NAL123]

Be careful when trying to infer meaning from uncontextualised sentences. And be careful to separate semantic from pragmatic analyses.

Both a) and b) are possible interpretations of 1).

OK. With the definite article "the" before "knife", can sentence (1) be a reply to the following question:

Friend: Why did you buy the knife?

Me: I bought it to cut bread with. (meaning I bought the knife with which I intend to cut bread; interpretation (b) in the OP)

I know that, with the definite article "the" before "knife", sentence (2) would be possible as a response.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

1) I bought a knife to cut bread with.

My interpretations:

a) I bought a knife with which I/you/one can cut bread. (This implies that not all knives are appropriate for cutting bread; I bought one with which it's possible to cut bread.)

No. It's clear that cutting bread is the reason you bought the knife. You bought it to cut bread.

If you just want to state the type of knife you bought, say "I bought a bread knife."

b) I bought a knife with which I intend to cut bread. (This is talking more about my intentions than the type of knife.)

2) I bought a knife to cut bread. (This means I bought the knife in order to cut bread; purpose, intentions.)

Yes. It means the same thing as your original sentence, "I bought a knife to cut bread with.

Q: Does sentence (1) have meaning (a)?

No. Sentence (a) tells us why you bought it: to cut bread. It doesn't tell us what kind you bought.

If yes, then fine. But if it has meaning (b), then what would be the difference between sentence (1) and sentence (2) . . . .

It's one word longer. Other than that, there's no difference. The with is optional. It doesn't change the meaning.

I bought a bread knife: That's the kind of knife you bought.

I bought a knife to cut bread (with): That's why you bought a knife.

 

[NAL123]

I bought a bread knife: That's the kind of knife you bought.

I bought a knife to cut bread (with): That's why you bought a knife.

Thank you very much! Since you say there is no difference, I have a couple of questions for you.

Q1) I think we could reverse the word order of sentence (2) as shown below, and still have the same meaning:

(2a) To cut bread, I bought a knife.

Can we do the same with sentence (1):

(1a) To cut bread with, I bought a knife.

Q2) Sentence (2) can be written as:

I bought the knife in order to cut bread. Or I bought the knife so that I could cut bread. (Please see post #3)

Can sentence (1) be written like this:

I bought the knife in order to cut bread with. Or I bought the knife so that I could cut bread with.

Note: Here I'm assuming that sentence (1) in the OP is NOT the same as the following:

I bought a knife to cut bread with it.

Are you assuming the same?

 

[Rover_KE]

Has anybody told you most of us would say 'I bought a bread knife?'

 

[emsr2d2]

Has anybody told you most of us would say 'I bought a bread knife?'

I was about to say exactly that! The whole point of "bread knife" is that it tells you what it is and what it's for.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Has anybody told you most of us would say 'I bought a bread knife?'

Yes. I did in post 4. Twice.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Thank you very much! Since you say there is no difference, I have some questions for you.

Q1) I think we could reverse the word order of sentence (2) as shown below, and still have the same meaning:

(2a) To cut bread, I bought a knife.

Yes.

Can we do the same with sentence (1)?:

(1a) To cut bread with, I bought a knife.

No.

Q2) Sentence (2) can be written as:

I bought the knife in order to cut bread.

Yes.
Or I bought the knife so that I could cut bread. (Please see post #3.)

Yes.

Punctiate the ends of all sentences, even if they're in parentheses.

Can sentence (1) be written like this?:

I bought the knife in order to cut bread with.

No.


Or I bought the knife so that I could cut bread with.

No.

Note: Here I'm assuming that sentence (1) in the OP is NOT the same as the following:

I bought a knife to cut bread with it.

It might be grammatical, but it sounds awful.

Are you assuming the same?

I'd buy a bread knife.

Just buy the darn knife.

 

[NAL123]

Just buy the darn knife.

I think I'm still a bit confused. Consider the following sentences, please:

3) I bought a chair to sit on. (meaning I bought a chair on which I intend to sit.)

4) I bought a chair to sit. (meaning I bought it in order to sit.)

You say sentences (1) and (2) in the OP mean the same thing. Do (3) and (4) mean the same thing, too? If yes, then fine. If no, then what would be the difference? And why do we fail to see the same difference between sentences (1) and (2) in the OP?

 

[Rover_KE]

Has anybody told you most of us would say 'I bought a bread knife?'

Yes. I did in post 4. Twice.

Fair enough ... you did. I missed that.

***

NAL123, has anybody told you that bread knives are serrated?

Serrated knives, with their scalloped, toothlike edge, are ideal for cutting through foods with a hard exterior and softer interior, such as a loaf of crusty bread. The principle behind a serrated knife is similar to that of a saw: The teeth of the blade catch and then rip as the knife smoothly slides through the food.

(goodfoodlight.com)

 

[Tarheel]

I think I'm still a bit confused. Consider the following sentences, please:

3) I bought a chair to sit on. (meaning I bought a chair on which I intend to sit.)

OK, but I can't imagine needing to say that.

4) I bought a chair to sit. (meaning I bought it in order to sit.)

No.

You say sentences (1) and (2) in the OP mean the same thing. Do (3) and (4) mean the same thing, too? If yes, then fine. If no, then what would be the difference? And why do we fail to see the same difference between sentences (1) and (2) in the OP?

I don't know what the reason for your confusion is, but it does seem that you are making things too complicated.

 

[jutfrank]

OK. With the definite article "the" before "knife", can sentence (1) be a reply to the following question:

Friend: Why did you buy the knife?

Yes.

Q: Why did you buy the knife?
A: I bought the knife to cut bread with.

The bolded part is an infinitive of purpose, as it states the purpose of the action of buying the knife.

I know that, with the definite article "the" before "knife", sentence (2) would be possible as a response.

Do you mean a response to Why did you buy the knife? I think that the inclusion of with is a much better response to that question.

 

[jutfrank]

I think I'm still a bit confused. Consider the following sentences, please:

3) I bought a chair to sit on. (meaning I bought a chair on which I intend to sit.)

4) I bought a chair to sit. (meaning I bought it in order to sit.)

You say sentences (1) and (2) in the OP mean the same thing. Do (3) and (4) mean the same thing, too? If yes, then fine. If no, then what would be the difference? And why do we fail to see the same difference between sentences (1) and (2) in the OP?

I think this thread is getting a bit confused as there are a few different lines of analysis going on simultaneously.

I think you've noticed that the choice of definite/indefinite articles make an important difference to meaning, and how we parse the sentence constituents. Look at this phrase:

a knife to cut bread with

You could interpret this NP as definitional. That means that this is the kind of knife designed for cutting bread. You can parse the sentence like this:

I bought a knife to cut bread with.

A different analysis would be interpreted like this:

I bought a knife to cut bread with.

Here, the NP is just a knife and the following infinitive part relates to the action of buying, not the kind of knife.

However, we don't normally use definite articles to be definitional (*the knife to cut bread with), which means that the sentence:

I bought the knife to cut bread with.

would be interpreted like this:

I bought the knife to cut bread with.

and not like this:

*I bought the knife to cut bread with.

Anyway, I think your main question concerns the effect of the inclusion of with on the meaning, right?

 

[NAL123]

I think this thread is getting a bit confused as there are a few different lines of analysis going on simultaneously.

I think you've noticed that the choice of definite/indefinite articles make an important difference to meaning, and how we parse the sentence constituents. Look at this phrase:

a knife to cut bread with

You could interpret this NP as definitional. That means that this is the kind of knife designed for cutting bread. You can parse the sentence like this:

I bought a knife to cut bread with.

A different analysis would be interpreted like this:

I bought a knife to cut bread with.

Here, the NP is just a knife and the following infinitive part relates to the action of buying, not the kind of knife.

However, we don't normally use definite articles to be definitional (*the knife to cut bread with), which means that the sentence:

I bought the knife to cut bread with.

would be interpreted like this:

I bought the knife to cut bread with.

and not like this:

*I bought the knife to cut bread with.

That makes perfect sense! My doubts are clear now. Thank you all!

Anyway, I think your main question concerns the effect of the inclusion of with on the meaning, right?

Actually, yes.

OK. Just one last question: suppose I'm talking about a particular type of bread, for example, a baguette. (A baguette is a long, narrow French loaf.)

Now consider the following sentence, please:

you can buy any knife to cut that bread with.

Can I leave out the "with" and still have the same meaning?

you can buy any knife to cut that bread.

 

[jutfrank]

I'm not sure that your last question is a particularly good way of getting at the meaning of with. The word with essentially expresses the manner of cutting bread.

Q: How did you cut the bread?
A: With a knife.

The PP with a knife is adverbial, expressing how the bread is cut. Even if you rearrange the words to create a sentence with different syntax, the meaning of with remains the same—the knife is the means by which the cutting of the bread is done:

I used a knife to cut the bread with.

The idea here is essentially the same—that the knife was a tool, through which the action of cutting bread was realised. Without with, a listener might still have the same interpretation but it might not be so clear.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I'd still probably say, "I bought the knife to cut bread." With is natural and grammatical, but it's optional and unnecessary and doesn't change the meaning.

We know what a baguette is. The type of bread doesn't matter.

 

[jutfrank]

With is natural and grammatical, but it's optional and unnecessary and doesn't change the meaning.

It's better to say it adds meaning.

 

[emsr2d2]

I'd still probably say, "I bought the knife to cut bread." With is natural and grammatical, but it's optional and unnecessary and doesn't change the meaning.

I would probably say the same, but if I had to explain it, I'd say it was a shortened form of "I bought the knife in order to cut bread", not "I bought the knife to cut bread with".

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

It's better to say it adds meaning.

Hm. What meaning does it add? We wouldn't buy a knife to cut bread without.