The girl can't sing and dance.

[diamondcutter]

The girl can't sing and dance.I wonder if this sentence means that the girl can sing but can’t dance.

 

[jutfrank]

Did you make this sentence up?

If that is what you mean, then the sentence does not work. You'd say: The girl can sing but she can't dance.

 

[diamondcutter]

I read it in a book. Do you mean that the sentence doesn't make sense?

 

[emsr2d2]

"The girl can't sing and dance" means she can't do the two things at the same time.
"The girl can't sing or dance" means that she can't sing and she can't dance.

Neither of them means "She can sing but she can't dance".

 

[diamondcutter]

What about this sentence?

Bob didn’t break the window and refuse to apologize for it.

I wonder if it means that Bob broke the window and he apologized for it or Bob didn’t break the break the window and he didn’t apologize for it, either.

 

[tedmc]

What about this sentence?

Bob didn’t break the window and refuse to apologize for it.

I wonder if it means that Bob broke the window and he apologized for it or Bob didn’t break the break the window and he didn’t apologize for it, either.

Yes, the sentence is ambiguous. It could mean:

Bob didn’t break the window and he refused to apologize for it.

or

Bob didn’t break the window and he didn't refuse to apologize for it.

To avoid the ambiguity, just state the pronoun (he) in the second part of the sentence.

 

[diamondcutter]

Bob didn’t break the window and he didn't refuse to apologize for it.

But I don't think this sentence makes sense.

 

[tedmc]

But I don't think this sentence makes sense.

Okay, that is not a good example.
But your question was strange. The sentence says clearly that "Bob didn't break the window" and you were asking whether Bob broke the window.

 

[diamondcutter]

My reference book says that the sentence in #5 means Bob broke the window and apologized for it. But I’m doubtful about it.

 

[Tdol]

But I don't think this sentence makes sense.

The starting point is dodgy.

 

[Tarheel]

Diamondcutter, if Bob didn't break the window there would be no need for him to apologize.

 

[diamondcutter]

Dear teachers, would you please tell me what on earth this sentence means?

Bob didn’t break the window and refuse to apologize for it.

 

[jutfrank]

Which book are you taking these sentences from?

I assume that they have been written to be deliberately ambiguous. If that is the case, I'm sure the writer of that book goes on to explain what the point of all this is.

 

[diamondcutter]

The book is called A Dictionary of Answers to Common Questions in English by a Chinese Professor, Zhao Zhencai, who has passed away.

 

[jutfrank]

So what's the common question relevant here? And what's the answer?

Remember to always give us context, please.

 

[diamondcutter]

Which book are you taking these sentences from?

I assume that they have been written to be deliberately ambiguous. If that is the case, I'm sure the writer of that book goes on to explain what the point of all this is.

I wonder if you mean that native speakers don’t say that Bob-sentence. Could I tell my students just to ignore this kind of sentences?

 

[diamondcutter]

So what's the common question relevant here? And what's the answer?

Remember to always give us context, please.

There's no context. There's only the sentence and the writer's explanation.

 

[jutfrank]

So what's the explanation?

Are you an English teacher?

 

[diamondcutter]

So what's the explanation?
Are you an English teacher?

The writer says that Bob didn’t break the window and refuse to apologize for it means Bob broke the window and he didn’t refuse to apologize for it.
I’d like to know if this explanation is correct.

Yes, I teach children English, but Chinese is my native language.

 

[jutfrank]

First of all, that sentence is completely unnatural and would be totally senseless to any normal person.

Even as an attempt to analyse the sentence logically (which I wouldn't recommend), I don't think the 'explanation' offered is right. The default logical interpretation would be that the negating operator (not) applies singly to the combination of both verb phrases (i.e., as a single 'compound predicate') and not to each verb phrase individually.

I'll try to explain as best I can:

1) Bob broke the window and refused to apologize.

Here, Bob did 2 out of 2 things. The two things form one compound predicate. The connector and is conjunctive.

2) Bob did not break the window or refuse to apologize.

Here, the standard logical interpretation is that he did 0 out of 2 things. The connector or is disjunctive, which effectively means the negator can apply to both verb phrases.

3) Bob did not break the window and refuse to apologise.

Here, all we know, strictly speaking, is that he didn't do 2 things. That means he did either 0 or 1 things. The connector is conjunctive, which effectively means the negator applies to the two verb phrases as a whole, not to each individually.

I have no idea how the writer of that book can conclude that sentence 3 means Bob did break the window. Logically speaking, he either did or didn't. We can't know.

Anyway, the sentence is a disaster, so don't waste your students' time with it.