Your arguments are too easy to cut down.

[sitifan]

Your arguments are too easy to cut down. (Longman Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs, page 119)
What does the above sentence mean?

 

[jutfrank]

Your arguments are weak. They're not strong enough to stand up to attack.

When talking about arguments, we use the metaphorical language of warfare and battle. Think of a warrior being attacked and felled with a sword.

 

[sitifan]

1. Your arguments are too easy to cut down. = Your arguments are so easy that people can cut them down.
2. The water is too salty to drink. = The water is so salty that people cannot drink it.
#2 is negative. Why is #1 positive? Don't they have the same grammatical structure?

 

[emsr2d2]

#1 isn't positive. You're basically insulting that person's arguments.

 

[sitifan]

#1 isn't positive. You're basically insulting that person's arguments.

Is the paraphrase below correct?
1. Your arguments are too easy to cut down. = Your arguments are so easy that people can cut them down.

 

[emsr2d2]

No. It's not the arguments that are easy. The ability to cut them down is easy.

 

[jutfrank]

The logic is this:

Your arguments are weak. Therefore it is easy for an attacker to cut them down.

 

[sitifan]

https://www.macmillandictionary.com...t-is-all-too-easy-for-someone-to-do-something

Your arguments are too easy to cut down. = Your arguments are all too easy to cut down.
all too = very
Is the above paraphrase correct?

 

[Tarheel]

Yes, you could say that.

 

[Phaedrus]

1. Your arguments are too easy to cut down. = Your arguments are so easy that people can cut them down.
2. The water is too salty to drink. = The water is so salty that people cannot drink it.
#2 is negative. Why is #1 positive? Don't they have the same grammatical structure?

Good question. They do not have the same grammatical structure.

In (1), the degree word ("too") doesn't have anything to do with the infinitival clause ("to cut down"). The construction is not a resultative one; the meaning is not equivalent to "Your arguments are so easy that people can cut them down." "Too" simply intensifies the adjective ("easy") and can even be omitted. The adjective "easy" does not apply solely to "your arguments" but to the situation of "cutting down your arguments":

1a) Your arguments are easy to cut down.
1b) It is easy to cut down your arguments.
1c) To cut down your arguments is easy.
1d) Cutting down your arguments is easy.

In (2), the degree word ("too") is complemented by the infinitival clause ("to drink"). Unlike in (1), if "too" is omitted in (2), the infinitival clause will make no sense whatsoever, and the sentence will be ungrammatical. Here the construction is resultative; the meaning is equivalent to "The water is so salty that it cannot be drunk." Furthermore, none of the paraphrase types that work with (1) works with (2).

2a) *The water is salty to drink.
2b) *It is salty to drink the water.
2c) *To drink the water is salty.
2d) *Drinking the water is salty.

 

[PaulMatthews]

The water is [too salty to drink].

I'd interpret this as "The water is so salty that it should not be drunk".

The infinitival clause "to drink" is licensed by "too", but it is not a complement of "too". It is a complement of the word "salty".

The reason is that there may be multiple occurrences of "too" followed by a single infinitival clause:

The water is too salty, too polluted, to drink.

Consequently, it is preferable to analyse the infinitival clause as a complement in clause structure rather than as a complement of "too" itself.

 

[Tarheel]

It's a way of emphatically making a point. For example, when we say something is "too funny" we don't mean it's overly funny. We mean it's very funny.

 

[Phaedrus]

The water is [too salty to drink].

I'd interpret this as "The water is so salty that it should not be drunk".

I agree. Although I used "cannot" instead of "should not" in my paraphrase, I regard them as equivalent here, "cannot" being hyperbolic for "should not."

The infinitival clause "to drink" is licensed by "too", but it is not a complement of "too". It is a complement of the word "salty".

The reason is that there may be multiple occurrences of "too" followed by a single infinitival clause:

The water is too salty, too polluted, to drink.

Consequently, it is preferable to analyse the infinitival clause as a complement in clause structure rather than as a complement of "too" itself.

That's an interesting alternative analysis. My parsing of the infinitival clause as the complement of the degree word (Deg) too was inspired by my memory of Hankamer and Mikkelsen (2012), "CP Complements to D," an extremely advanced syntax paper (some of it over my head) that deals with this "too"-construction, and other constructions related to it, on pages 17-20. I especially recommend checking out tree (64) on page 18, where "too" originates with the infinitival CP in complement position and then "raises" to the higher position in the degP, leaving the string "too heavy for there to be . . ." in surface structure.

I believe that your example with too salty, too polluted, to drink could be dealt with as a case of Right Node Raising, each instance of too taking the same complement (to drink) in underlying structure. Thus, the possibility of such sentences need not be interpreted as evidence against the complement analysis.

 

[emsr2d2]

For me:
The water is so salty that it cannot be drunk = It is so salty that it is physically impossible for anyone to actually swallow it.
The water is so salty that it should not be drunk = It's possible to drink it but it would be a very bad idea (possibly harmful to health)

The water is too salty to drink = Ambiguous. It could mean either of the above.

 

[Phaedrus]

Yes, but I would add a pragmatic condition to the first:

It is so salty that it is physically impossible for anyone to actually swallow it without causing severe damage to his or her physical health.

If damage to one's health could not be avoided following something's consumption, then any reasonable nonsuicidal person would say it should not be consumed.