Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "Zz" <a@b.c>
Newsgroups: alt.languages.english
References: <vopk9028mt5nbe@corp.supernews.com>
Subject: Re: Grammar Help
Lines: 26
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Message-ID: <i1bjb.6796$pz5.1035255@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:26:16 +0100
NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.99.80.129
X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com
X-Trace: newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net 1066220750 81.99.80.129 (Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:25:50 BST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:25:50 BST
Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.languages.english:84
They are both grammatical.
#1 is the only choice where there is only one father (of all the boys)
#2 more generally when there are several fathers (each one the father of one
or more of the boys, but not all)
In answer to your query about each boy having more than one father:
No. Unless the context was some kind of dream sequence, this situation is
absurd/impossible and so it would not generally be interpreted as such.
However, when you replace "fathers" with "cats", for instance, this
interpretation is okay.
"nh1980" <nh1980@thematrix.com> wrote in message
news:vopk9028mt5nbe@corp.supernews.com...
> Which is correct?
>
> #1) All the boys should go with their father?
>
> #2) All the boys should go with their fathers?
>
> In question #1, it implies that all boys have the same father? Is this
> assumption correct?
> In question #2, it implies that all the different boys have different
> fathers? Is this correct? It can also imply each one has more than one
> father?
|
|