Dec 7, 2006 17:43
17 yrs ago
English term
Accurate service & fast delivery
Native in: Arabic 
Works in: English to Arabic, Arabic to English
the boy the man the girl kissed kissed killed
English
Art/Literary
General / Conversation / Greetings / Letters
syntax
Has somebody come across such sentence structure?
what does the sentence mean.
Who kissed, or was kissed, by the girl?
Would this answer be correct:
The boy, the man, the girl kissed (was) kissed killed?
The boy who was a man was kissed by the girl. He was overwhelmed by the kiss?
or
Was the girl overwhelmed by the kiss?
I'll appreciate any input.
Kind regards,
Sami
what does the sentence mean.
Who kissed, or was kissed, by the girl?
Would this answer be correct:
The boy, the man, the girl kissed (was) kissed killed?
The boy who was a man was kissed by the girl. He was overwhelmed by the kiss?
or
Was the girl overwhelmed by the kiss?
I'll appreciate any input.
Kind regards,
Sami
Responses
+4
12 mins
Selected
embedded sentencees
Yes, I have indeed come across such sentences - although the one you quote doesn't appear to work because "killed" needs an object and the sentence doesn't provide one. But the sentence would work with an intransitive verb, such as:
The boy the man the girl kissed kissed fled
i.e. first the girl kisses the man, so we have "the man the girl kissed".
Then the man kisses the boy, giving "the boy the man the girl kissed kissed"
Then the boy flees, giving "the boy the man the girl kissed kissed fled".
The boy the man the girl kissed kissed fled
i.e. first the girl kisses the man, so we have "the man the girl kissed".
Then the man kisses the boy, giving "the boy the man the girl kissed kissed"
Then the boy flees, giving "the boy the man the girl kissed kissed fled".
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Richard Benham
: Good explanation. I found mine hadn't been posted after attending to something burning in the kitchen, as I had forgotten to put a confidence level. I should think he would fllee, too!
4 mins
|
| agree |
Nesrin
: Crazy!
6 hrs
|
| agree |
Dave Calderhead
7 hrs
|
| agree |
ErichEko ⟹⭐
8 hrs
|
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Selected automatically based on peer agreement."
+1
14 mins
Richard Benham
France
France
Native in English
&
English
France
When quality counts
Native in: English
Works in: German to English, French to English, English
Related KudoZ points
:
20
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
Assuming the above is supposed to be complete, let me explain it this way:
The boy killed. (This is where the sentence looks incomplete, as it is not specified whom or what the boy killed.)
Which boy? The boy the man kissed.
Which man? The man the girl kissed.
There are multiple ways that this utterance could be completed to form a more convincing total sentence; some of them would have to be parsed very differently.
Now try your hand at this one:
"Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo."
It does actually make sense. (See S. Pinker, "The Language Instinct".)
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 24 mins (2006-12-07 18:08:02 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
I would thoroughly recommend against using this construction. Compare the following two sentences:
"This is the priest all shaven and shorn who married the beggar all tattered and torn who kissed the milkmaid all forlorn that milked the cow with a crumpled horn that tossed the dog that worried the cat that killed the rat that lay in the house that Jack built."
This is the last sentence of an incremental sequence, but even on its own it makes perfectly good sense.
Now consider:
1. "This is the house that Jack built."
2. "This is the house the malt lay in that Jack built."
3. "This is the house the malt the rat ate lay in that Jack built."
4. "This is the house the malt the rat the cat killed lay in that Jack built."
5. "This is the house the malt the rat the cat the dog worried killed lay in the Jack built."
6. "This is the house the malt the rat the cat the dog the cow with the crumpled horn tossed worried killed ate lay in that Jack built."
7....
To my ear, sentence 4 just makes sense, but the later ones are gibberish. From computer science, we know that a machine with finite memory can process sentences with unlimited relative clauses of the first type (as in the original poem), but the memory requirement increases rapidly (probably exponentially, but I forget) for the second type, where the clauses are embedded.
So don't do it! (Well not more than about two deep!)
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 38 mins (2006-12-07 18:22:01 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Oops! Sentence 5 should read:
5. "This is the house the malt the rat the cat the dog worried killed ate lay in the Jack built."
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 8 hrs (2006-12-08 02:11:14 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Oops again! "...that Jack built". I should go back to sleep.
The boy killed. (This is where the sentence looks incomplete, as it is not specified whom or what the boy killed.)
Which boy? The boy the man kissed.
Which man? The man the girl kissed.
There are multiple ways that this utterance could be completed to form a more convincing total sentence; some of them would have to be parsed very differently.
Now try your hand at this one:
"Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo."
It does actually make sense. (See S. Pinker, "The Language Instinct".)
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 24 mins (2006-12-07 18:08:02 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
I would thoroughly recommend against using this construction. Compare the following two sentences:
"This is the priest all shaven and shorn who married the beggar all tattered and torn who kissed the milkmaid all forlorn that milked the cow with a crumpled horn that tossed the dog that worried the cat that killed the rat that lay in the house that Jack built."
This is the last sentence of an incremental sequence, but even on its own it makes perfectly good sense.
Now consider:
1. "This is the house that Jack built."
2. "This is the house the malt lay in that Jack built."
3. "This is the house the malt the rat ate lay in that Jack built."
4. "This is the house the malt the rat the cat killed lay in that Jack built."
5. "This is the house the malt the rat the cat the dog worried killed lay in the Jack built."
6. "This is the house the malt the rat the cat the dog the cow with the crumpled horn tossed worried killed ate lay in that Jack built."
7....
To my ear, sentence 4 just makes sense, but the later ones are gibberish. From computer science, we know that a machine with finite memory can process sentences with unlimited relative clauses of the first type (as in the original poem), but the memory requirement increases rapidly (probably exponentially, but I forget) for the second type, where the clauses are embedded.
So don't do it! (Well not more than about two deep!)
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 38 mins (2006-12-07 18:22:01 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Oops! Sentence 5 should read:
5. "This is the house the malt the rat the cat the dog worried killed ate lay in the Jack built."
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 8 hrs (2006-12-08 02:11:14 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Oops again! "...that Jack built". I should go back to sleep.
Discussion
Kind regards