 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / May 2009John gave every child a cake
Hi, Please examine the following: 1. John gave every child a cake. Can this mean mean John offered one cake such that the children shared it? In our last episode, <9d619549-73f5-4b7c-8b13-d2cab1c2a554@v1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and talented Ray broadcast on alt.usage.english: > Hi, > Please examine the following: > 1. John gave every child a cake. > Can this mean mean John offered one cake such that the children shared > it? No. That would be: John gave every child cake.  SignatureLars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> usenet@larseighner.com 87 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term. Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't. > In our last episode, > <9d619549-73f5-4b7c-8b13-d2cab1c2a...@v1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > John gave every child cake. At first glance I would agree, but, can't "John gave every child cake" also mean any ole' cake, also possibly varying quantities as in each child got some cake, but maybe different cakes or even portions of different cakes. So to keep it to just the one cake I suggest John had a cake and gave every child some of it. (fixed me spell checker) > -- > Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com > 87 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term. > Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't. >Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Can this mean mean John offered one cake such that the children shared >it? Mathematically, yes, quite. In casual speech, no, to the occasional annoyance of mathemagicians. Well, in casual speech it _can_, but seldom does. It "should" (if English behaved like math!) mean that John gave one cake to the group of children, for them to own jointly. IN PRACTICE, what's usually _intended_ is what could be less ambiguously written, "John gave _each_ child a cake." (Or, if the speaker wants to emphasize 'every', "John gave each and every child a cake.") (In practice, if John did give one cake to all the children as a group, I'd expect to see it written, "John gave all the children a cake," or even more likely, "John gave the children a cake." To be completely unambiguous -- e.g. if a lawyer were writing it -- it might be, "John gave a cake to the group of children," emphasising that the recipient of a single cake was 'the group'. Few people are anywhere near that careful with their wording. But it does matter in laws and contracts. (And in mathematics, where "every" is usually used in constructions where its meaning "each" is clear, and "all" is used where "every" might be ambiguous.)) SignatureD. Glenn Arthur Jr./The Human Vibrator, dglenn@panix.com Due to hand/wrist problems my newsreading time varies so I may miss followups. "Being a _man_ means knowing that one has a choice not to act like a 'man'." http://www.panix.com/~dglenn/ http://dglenn.livejournal.com >>Hi, >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > It "should" (if English behaved like math!) mean that John gave > one cake to the group of children, for them to own jointly. Why is that the "mathematical" reading? The default reading is straightforwardly mathematical: For all x in the set of children, John gave x a cake. > IN PRACTICE, what's usually _intended_ is what could be > less ambiguously written, "John gave _each_ child a cake." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > group, I'd expect to see it written, "John gave all the children > a cake," or even more likely, "John gave the children a cake." Right. That's "For S=the set of children, John gave S a cake", the "all" emphasizing that the equals sign is not a subset operator. The plural (with or without "all") implies a single cake given to the group; "each" and "every" implies one apiece. > To be completely unambiguous -- e.g. if a lawyer were writing it -- > it might be, "John gave a cake to the group of children," emphasising [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > used in constructions where its meaning "each" is clear, and "all" > is used where "every" might be ambiguous.)) SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If a bus station is where a bus 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |stops, and a train station is where Palo Alto, CA 94304 |a train stops, what does that say |about a workstation? kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ "Ray": > 1. John gave every child a cake. > > Can this mean mean John offered one cake such that the children shared > it? No. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "Alas, there is NO SUCH THING as 'NO SUCH THING as msb@vex.net | privileged access.'" -- Alan Silverstein Ray set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum: > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Can this mean mean John offered one cake such that the children shared > it? "One each" is definitely implied in the sentence as written. If a large cake were being shared out then at the minimum it would be a _piece_of_ cake given to each child. (Mention of cakes suggests JH as in Shemoran. Are you he?) Signatureξ:) Proud to be curly Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply > Ray set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > (Mention of cakes suggests JH as in Shemoran. Are you he?) The grammatical issue is that "cake" is both a mass noun, referring to the substance, and a count noun, referring to one or more items. You can see the difference in cases where the two forms are distinct: "John gave every child bread" but NOT *"John gave every child a bread" vs. "John gave every child a loaf" but NOT *"John gave every child loaf" Peter Groves > > Ray set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > - Show quoted text - This may well be quoted from an older English work. Dickens? Back then and there, "a cake" probably meant something like what an American now calls a cupcake, a whole cake that is small, providing one portion. >>> Ray set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time >>> continuum: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > American now calls a cupcake, a whole cake that is small, providing > one portion. In England the word "cake" implies nothing about the size of the cake. An individual cake is still a cake. In parts of the north of England, though, a cake is a bread roll! Chris R >>>> Ray set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time >>>> continuum: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > >In parts of the north of England, though, a cake is a bread roll! That's barmy! SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) >>>>> Ray set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time >>>>> continuum: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >> > That's barmy! The issue is the meaning of the word "every". In this case it means "each child", but the question is, how is this intuitive understanding of the sentence to be explained. It is arguable that the sentence is sloppily written, and "each and every child" is correct, but then I assume it was not written by a lawyer - maybe "jointly and severally" would be better? >>>>>> Ray set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time >>>>>> continuum: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >"each child", but the question is, how is this intuitive understanding >of the sentence to be explained. I would explain this intuitive understanding as coming from other uses of this construction: John gave every child a/an <something>. John gave every child a penny. John gave every child a toy. John gave every child a cookie. John gave every child an apple. The natural reading of those is that after John's actions each child would have a penny, a toy, a cookie, an apple. In those sentences "every" means "each". If there are only a few children then the cookie or apple might be divided between them. That be be made explicit: John gave every child a piece of cookie. John gave every child a piece of apple. Again, "every" means "each". It might be better to use "each" instead of "every", but that woiuld not change the meaning. Reverse the giving: Every child gave John a penny. Every child gave John a toy. Every child gave John a cookie. Every child gave John an apple. We would understand that to mean the John was given one penny (or whatever) by each child. From 15 children John would receive a total of 15 pennies. Back to the cake. It seems to me that the reason for questioning the meaning of: John gave every child a cake. is that a cake is often cut into portions and the portions are distributed, one portion per person. However, John gave every child a piece of cake. or John gave every child cake. would deal with that situation. Note that neither of those sentences says how many cakes were cut into pieces so that each child could be given a piece. > It is arguable that the sentence is >sloppily written, and "each and every child" is correct, but then I >assume it was not written by a lawyer - maybe "jointly and severally" >would be better? SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) Reading from news:alt.english.usage, Ray <raymondaliasapollyon@yahoo.com.tw> posted: > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Can this mean mean John offered one cake such that the children shared > it? I'd use: John divided the cake amongst the children. Damaeus > Reading from news:alt.english.usage, > Ray <raymondaliasapollyon@yahoo.com.tw> posted: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > John divided the cake amongst the children. That presupposes a cake has been established. Even with "a cake", it implies to me that there was none left over, which isn't there in "John gave [all] the children a cake" or "John gave every child cake". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |You gotta know when to code, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | Know when to log out, Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Know when to single step, | Know when you're through. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |You don't write your program (650)857-7572 | When you're sittin' at the term'nal. |There'll be time enough for writin' http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | When you're in the queue. Reading from news:alt.english.usage, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> posted: > > I'd use: > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > which isn't there in "John gave [all] the children a cake" or "John > gave every child cake". Since the kids are getting cake, then a cake is necessary. I didn't think it mattered whether it had already been baked or not. But if we need more details, we must lengthen the sentence. John portioned the cake amongst the children, then wrapped the remainder for later. IMHO, Damaeus > Reading from news:alt.english.usage, > Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> posted: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Since the kids are getting cake, then a cake is necessary. I didn't > think it mattered whether it had already been baked or not. No, but if you say "the cake", without either a cake having been mentioned or it being an expected part of something that has, the normal response will be "what cake". That's one of the primary differences between "the cake" and "a cake". The former (mainly) implies "I expect you to know which one I'm talking about" and the latter "I expect you to not know which one I'm talking about". > But if we need more details, we must lengthen the sentence. > > John portioned the cake amongst the children, then wrapped the > remainder for later. Ah, so John did the partitioning and wrapping and we know what happened to the part the children ate. Those weren't in the initial notion, in which he merely gave the children a cake. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If I am ever forced to make a 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |choice between learning and using Palo Alto, CA 94304 |win32, or leaving the computer |industry, let me just say it was kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |nice knowing all of you. :-) (650)857-7572 | Randal Schwartz http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Reading from news:alt.english.usage, >> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> posted: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > happened to the part the children ate. Those weren't in the initial > notion, in which he merely gave the children a cake. I thought he gave them cakes. Chris R >> Ah, so John did the partitioning and wrapping and we know what >> happened to the part the children ate. Those weren't in the >> initial notion, in which he merely gave the children a cake. > > I thought he gave them cakes. The reading asked for was Can this mean mean John offered one cake such that the children shared it? SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The look on our faces isn't confusion. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |It's disbelief. Palo Alto, CA 94304 | | Jon Stewart kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> Reading from news:alt.english.usage, >>> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> posted: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > I thought he gave them cakes. I thought he gave them some cake. SignatureRob Bannister > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Can this mean mean John offered one cake such that the children shared > it? 'John gave _each_ child a cake'... ..certainly means that each child had one. I suppose 'every', if it means, 'evereach', ought to mean the same, but with the emphasis on the idea that no children were left cakeless. --Iain |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.