The number of goals scored by both sides was three.

[navi tasan]

1) The number of goals scored by both sides was three.
Does that mean that each side scored three goals? Two teams, three goals each.

2) The number of points gained by all teams was fifty.
Does that mean that each of the teams gained fifty points? More than two teams fifty goals each/

 

[jutfrank]

Both sentences are very poor.

What's your goal here? Why not just ask us how to say clearly what you mean?

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you very much, Jutfrank,

I just want to see how 'both' and 'all' can be used in such contexts.

I will try two other sentences, which unfortunately might sound more realistic.

a. The number of casualties on both sides of the conflict was around one hundred thousand. (Two sides were involved.)
b. The number of casualties on all sides of the conflict was around one hundred thousand. (More than two sides were involved.)

Do these mean that each side lost one hundred thousand people. or that the total number of casualties was one hundred thousand?

I think it is the former, but I always use 'each' in such cases, just to be clear. I don't think everyone does that.

 

[SoothingDave]

I would read that to mean the total number on all sides was 100,000. As you say, the word "each" is used if it is meant that each side lost 100,000.

 

[jutfrank]

Do these mean that each side lost one hundred thousand people.

I think logically that's what it means, yes, but it's not at all clear.

or that the total number of casualties was one hundred thousand?

No.

(I think SoothingDave is saying the opposite to me.)

I think it is the former, but I always use 'each' in such cases, just to be clear. I don't think everyone does that.

Yes, exactly. Use 'each', not 'both/all'. That seems to be what you mean.

Can I ask?: What was your point in asking us what the meaning of a sentence that you deliberately made up to be unclear is? I really don't know why you do this.

 

[SoothingDave]

Yes, I am saying the opposite. The number on both sides is the total when adding side A and side B's totals.

 

[jutfrank]

Both sides suffered 100,000 casualties.

Could this be taken to mean that the combined total was 100,000?

 

[emsr2d2]

Both sides suffered 100,000 casualties.

Could this be taken to mean that the combined total was 100,000?

Definitely not for me. The total number of casualties was 200,000.

 

[jutfrank]

Definitely not for me. The total number of casualties was 200,000.

Yes, that's clear for me too.

How about sentence a), @emsr2d2?:

a) The number of casualties on both sides of the conflict was around one hundred thousand.

Do you think this could be read that were 200,000? Or can it only be read as there being 100,000 total?

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you all very much,

I am interested in ambiguity. Obsessively. I used to be a translator. Believe it or not, you do come across sentences similar to the ones I make up 'in the wild'. People aren't always careful about what they write, even less about what they say.

As you can see here, there is disagreement among native speakers as to the meanings of my sentences, which are, at the end of the day, grammatical. I'd say that that in itself would be sufficient to justify my questions from a linguistic point of view. The sentences are problematic.

In any case, I am obsessed with ambiguity. It is a cause of anxiety, if you will (I am exaggerating a bit). And every time I come across a sentence that seems ambiguous to me, I have the urge to find out whether it is ambiguous or not.

I read a sentence very much like my (a) and (b), in the Britannica. I didnt want to quote the sentence because of the political nature of the article.

 

[Tarheel]

Something that might seem to be ambiguous all by itself is rarely so in context.

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you very much, Tarheel,

I agree. But sometimes there is ambiguity even when there is a context. I just want to recognize ambiguity.
Sometimes, the ambiguity is deliberate. You have that in artistic writing and also in jokes. One of the funniest examples is Groucho Marx's: "I shot an elephant in my pajamas. What it was doing in my pajamas, I don't know!"

 

[tedmc]

navi
Excuse me for saying this - I think you've been dwelling on ambiguities too much for too long in this forum

 

[Tarheel]

@navi tasan What you said is true. Puns, for example, have more than one meaning on purpose. However, recognizing ambiguity shouldn't be hard. Something has two possible meanings, and you can't be sure which one it is. In speech, you can ask the other person to explain. In writing, 99% of the time context will make things clear.

 

[emsr2d2]

a) The number of casualties on both sides of the conflict was around one hundred thousand.

Do you think this could be read that were 200,000? Or can it only be read as there being 100,000 total?

The total would be 200,000 for me.

 

[Tarheel]

Yes, that's clear for me too.

How about sentence a), @emsr2d2?:

a) The number of casualties on both sides of the conflict was around one hundred thousand.

Do you think this could be read that were 200,000? Or can it only be read as there being 100,000 total?

I think if you change that to "The total number of casualties on both sides" it would be read in a different way.