zompist bboard

In the most recent Language Log entry, Geoff Pullum takes aim at this utterance from Stephen Fry:

It so happens that more people in the world are bitten by New Yorkers every year than they are by sharks.

He claims "it is not a sentence and couldn't possibly mean anything," but I'm having trouble understanding why. To me, the meaning is clearly, "There are more people in the world who are bitten by New Yorkers every year than there are people in the world who are bitten by sharks every year." The more usual way to shorten this would be, "There are more people in the world who are bitten by New Yorkers every year than there are people in the world who are bitten by sharks every year." But what's he beef exactly with replacing "people in the world who are bitten" with "they"? Is it that this "they" could be misconstrued as meaning "people in the world who are bitten by New Yorkers"? But "More people who are bitten by New Yorkers are bitten by New Yorkers than are bitten by sharks" is such a fatuous claim that it gets bounced right back out of my head on a trampoline woven of Gricean maxims.

Who are these gnawing New Yorkers to which Fry is alluding?

Jabechasqvi wrote:Who are these gnawing New Yorkers to which Fry is alluding?

Has no one ever told you how rife cannibalism is in big urban centers of this country? It's the only way people making a working-class wage can afford to get any protein in their diet.

I think it might the "they are by sharks"...that certainly throws me off, but by no means impedes me from understanding what he meant. If he had dropped that "they are" then it would be much better, to me.

Also, I think you misspelled "nonsense". Minor nitpick, but just something that jumped out at me.

Chibi wrote:I think it might the "they are by sharks"...that certainly throws me off, but by no means impedes me from understanding what he meant. If he had dropped that "they are" then it would be much better, to me.

/Agree. The complement of "more" is a noun, but that of "than" is a clause. It probably isn't strictly grammatical (whatever that even means), even if it sounds natural and makes sense.

Jabechasqvi wrote:Also, I think you misspelled "nonsense". Minor nitpick, but just something that jumped out at me.

In the entry I bloody linked to, Geoff Pullum wrote:It's so weird: a total non-sentence (perhaps we should call them "nonsences"?)

linguoboy wrote:In the most recent Language Log entry, Geoff Pullum takes aim at this utterance from Stephen Fry:

It so happens that more people in the world are bitten by New Yorkers every year than they are by sharks.

I don't see the "it's not a sentence" bit (it has a clearly defined subject -- albeit it a dummy subject, which is perfectly legal in English -- and verb).

It does mean something, obviously. If anything I'd call it excessively grammatical, since it actually spells out the elliptical at the end (i.e. normally we say "I'm tall than him", but correctly it would be "I'm taller than he [is tall]", per my perscriptivist-type grammars).

The only real issue I can see is that the antecedent for 'they' is a little tricky, as you said. Logically, it does not parse, that's true. Colloquially, it does. Why doesn't it parse?

Well, you could parse it where "they" refers back to New Yorkers. Perfectly valid. Then you get: There are more people in the world who are bitten by New Yorkers, than there are New Yorkers who are bitten by sharks. That's a bit weird.

You could parse it where "they" refers back to the people bitten by New Yorkers. Then you get: There are more people in the world who are bitten by New Yorkers, than there are [people in the world bitten by New Yorkers who are also] bitten by sharks.

You could parse it where "they" refers back to just generic people in the world, which is the standard parsing IMO: There are more people in the world who are bitten by New Yorkers, than there are people in the world who are bitten by sharks.

-------------------------

There's also this possibility: the adverbial "[are bitten] every year." Are you saying that there is a set of people on Earth who, every year, are bitten by a New Yorker? So Candace Johnson was bitten by a New Yorker every year from 1995-2012? Or people who are bitten by sharks every year? Of course we understand it as "every year, there are occurrences of people being bitten...." and not that there is a subset of people who are being bitten every year. But that could also be a complaint against the structure of the sentence.

------------------------

Lastly, you might be able to argue against it on the technicality of "more". We have a structure like this:

Yeah, I think we can all work out what it means (though the temptation to read it as talking about some poor unfortunates who, every single year, are bitten by new yorkers is extremely strong), but it's kind of nonsense grammatically. The 'they' shouldn't be there. "More people" and "they" are incompatible, although I admit it's hard to explain why, exactly. Maybe it's because "more people" is being used to refer to the group of people bitten by new yorkers, but 'they' makes it have to refer to people bitten by sharks as well, and that's a totally different group. And actually, it's hard to make 'they' ever refer to 'more people', when it's in a subordinate clause: "more people are eaten by sharks than they expect" - the 'they' cannot naturally refer to the 'more people'.

Couldn't he have intended "It so happens that more people in the world are bitten by New Yorkers every year than there are by sharks."? Sounds pretty similar, especially in a non-rhotic 'lect, and at least to my first impression it seems to parse better. (N.B. When I first read the quote, I misread it as having "there" instead of "they.")

that's how I originally read it, at least.

TermiteSquidSnowLeopard wrote:Couldn't he have intended "It so happens that more people in the world are bitten by New Yorkers every year than there are by sharks."? Sounds pretty similar, especially in a non-rhotic 'lect, and at least to my first impression it seems to parse better.

Doesn't sound similar to me at all. RP /eə/ starts lower and centralises, and a mid central offglide sounds nothing to me like a high front one,

It certainly sounds weird when rereading it, but when I initially read it I thought nothing of it. But it's very possible I did what Torco and Termite did.

I understand the "logic" argument, but it's obstructively pedantic. Do we say

No one ever learns how to use all the features of their phone.

is nonsense because "their" can't refer to anyone (since the sentence denies any such class of person exists)?

This should be put into the "weird shit quantifiers do" file.

linguoboy wrote:Doesn't sound similar to me at all. RP /eə/ starts lower and centralises, and a mid central offglide sounds nothing to me like a high front one,

Hmm, fair enough. I suppose I'm just used to different distinctions.

Jashan wrote:So Candace Johnson was bitten by a New Yorker every year from 1995-2012?

This, maybe?

zompist wrote:I understand the "logic" argument, but it's obstructively pedantic. Do we say

No one ever learns how to use all the features of their phone.

is nonsense because "their" can't refer to anyone (since the sentence denies any such class of person exists)?

This should be put into the "weird shit quantifiers do" file.

I think there's a big difference here. Firstly because 'their' does refer grammatically, just not metaphysically. More importantly, your sentence is grammatical and would be said, whereas Fry's sentence is obviously ungrammatical and would not normally be said. It's not stark raving ungrammatical, and people would mostly give him the benefit of the doubt because it's Fry saying it, but it's not a normal sentence. Whereas yours is. In other words: you can't just take a quantifier and use it as an excuse to do weird shit. Some weird shit is grammatical and some isn't, and the ungrammatical stuff shouldn't really be considered part of the grammar, needless to say.