to run errands

[navi tasan]

1) We have a man in the office to run errands.
2) In the office we have a man to run errands.
3) We have a man to run errands in the office.

Are all correct?

I'd imagine that one might argue that in '3' 'in the office' modifies 'run errands'. I think '3' could be read either way, but it doesn't make much sense to run errands within the office, so I think the sentence would mean the same as the other two.

Gratefully,
Navi

 

[emsr2d2]

For clarity, I'd use #2, with a comma after "In the office".

 

[5jj]

I'd use # 2 with no comma.

 

[emsr2d2]

You could open with "Our office/company employs a man ...".

 

[jutfrank]

Are all correct?

What do you mean by 'correct'? They're all grammatical, yes.

I'd imagine that one might argue that in '3' 'in the office' modifies 'run errands'. I think '3' could be read either way

That's right, yes. So given that, do you consider it be 'correct'?

but it doesn't make much sense to run errands within the office, so I think the sentence would mean the same as the other two.

You mean it makes better sense to understand that the errands are run outside of the office. That doesn't mean it doesn't make sense that the man is running errands inside the office.

Remember to distinguish between speaker meaning and sentence meaning.

You also might want to ask some interesting follow-up questions: Which of the three sentences better expresses the thought and why? Is there a way to disambiguate the two possible readings of sentence 3.

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you all very much, especially Jutfrank,

By 'correct' I mean grammatical and meaningful.

I think '3' is technically ambiguous. I don't think that is necessarily a flaw. Context would clarify the meaning. But one could use '2' to make things clear.

Gratefully,
Navi