An interesting syntactic snarl I came across

Natural languages and linguistics
Post Reply
User avatar
Ketsuban
Posts: 169
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2018 6:10 pm

An interesting syntactic snarl I came across

Post by Ketsuban »

Party A wrote:No I would call it the intended balance of the game. ER [Elden Ring] was always meant to be more accessible and get a bigger audience, the game is clearly balanced around spirit ashes imo [in my opinion]. Not using them is effectively a self imposed challenge and not the intended difficulty of the game
Party B wrote:how do you "not use effectively" something that is just an item you use as you enter the boss room?
Party B apparently transposed two words in the last sentence of what Party A said (reading not using them is effectively as *not using them effectively is) and therefore constructed an incorrect tree.
Image Image
Zju
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 4:05 pm

Re: An interesting syntactic snarl I came across

Post by Zju »

How is not using them effectively is ungrammatical? I don't get it.
/j/ <j>

Ɂaləɂahina asəkipaɂə ileku omkiroro salka.
Loɂ ɂerleku asəɂulŋusikraɂə seləɂahina əɂətlahɂun əiŋɂiɂŋa.
Hərlaɂ. Hərlaɂ. Hərlaɂ. Hərlaɂ. Hərlaɂ. Hərlaɂ. Hərlaɂ.
User avatar
Man in Space
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2018 1:05 am

Re: An interesting syntactic snarl I came across

Post by Man in Space »

Zju wrote: Wed Jul 24, 2024 11:29 am How is not using them effectively is ungrammatical? I don't get it.
I don’t think he’s trying to say it’s ungrammatical, rather that it’s the way the statement was misinterpreted.
kodé
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 3:17 pm

Re: An interesting syntactic snarl I came across

Post by kodé »

Ketsuban wrote: Wed Jul 24, 2024 8:33 am
Party A wrote:No I would call it the intended balance of the game. ER [Elden Ring] was always meant to be more accessible and get a bigger audience, the game is clearly balanced around spirit ashes imo [in my opinion]. Not using them is effectively a self imposed challenge and not the intended difficulty of the game
Party B wrote:how do you "not use effectively" something that is just an item you use as you enter the boss room?
Party B apparently transposed two words in the last sentence of what Party A said (reading not using them is effectively as *not using them effectively is) and therefore constructed an incorrect tree.
Image Image
Whoa, what kind of trees are these? They’re wild! I understand the constituency, though since I have different theoretical leanings, I’d have a different constituency.

I’m wondering if it’s a phonological (acoustic or visual) errors (hearing/reading the clitic “is” in the wrong place, or if the “effectively” was indeed heard/read in the right spot but interpreted in a different position semantically.
User avatar
Ketsuban
Posts: 169
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2018 6:10 pm

Re: An interesting syntactic snarl I came across

Post by Ketsuban »

kodé wrote: Wed Jul 24, 2024 10:12 pm Whoa, what kind of trees are these? They’re wild! I understand the constituency, though since I have different theoretical leanings, I’d have a different constituency.
I took the excuse to use this since a friend who is working with it mentioned it that day.
Post Reply