Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "mustermann" <mustermann@musterland.gov>
Newsgroups: alt.languages.english
References: <vopk9028mt5nbe@corp.supernews.com> <i1bjb.6796$pz5.1035255@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
Subject: Re: Grammar Help
Lines: 39
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Message-ID: <huPjb.165$6E1.173080@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:27:49 +0100
NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.101.121.90
X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com
X-Trace: newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net 1066386445 81.101.121.90 (Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:27:25 BST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:27:25 BST
Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.languages.english:86
"Zz" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:i1bjb.6796$pz5.1035255@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> 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.
However, in real life these grammar prescriptions are often ignored; the
meaning is usually self-evident.
:-)
> "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?
>
>
|
|