Does English need a grammar wake up call?
I read this sentence on the internet.
>>The easiest way to brush your baby's teeth is by sitting them comfortably on your lap<<
Is English in danger of losing all grammatical sense? I say this as a native speaker, and obviously I understand what it means, but still???
How is it losing grammatical sense?
The logical reading of it is that the 'them' is referring to the teeth. The fact that the plural pronoun refers to the singular noun as opposed to the plural noun is grammatically odd. Of course if you replace 'baby' with 'children' it would be a bit different because then there are two plural nouns. Of course 'they' has come to replace 'he' as the default in English and from an equality point of view it's a good thing, but still from a strictly grammatical point of view, a bizarre sentence has been produced here.
How do you propose we remedy the situation? Add cases?
The easiest way to brush teeth youren babyen teeth, is by sitting themen comfortably on yourish lapish.
Is English in danger of losing all grammatical sense? I say this as a native speaker, and obviously I understand what it means, but still???
Was it written by a native speaker?
"Sitting one's baby on one's lap is the easiest way to brush his teeth."
Hoorah for traditional usage!
<How do you propose we remedy the situation? Add cases? >
Or just, you know, not have so many pronouns. "The easiest way to brush a baby's teeth is by sitting the baby on your lap". I'm also uncomfortable with "sit" as a transitive verb. I would prefer "place". Also, there's the logical, rather than grammatical, issue of the fact that this is clearly the first step in a list of instructions, yet it is presented as being the entire procedure. I would recommend: "The easiest way to brush a baby's teeth is by first placing the baby on your lap, then..."
Obvious solution, at least in this case:
The easiest way to brush your baby's teeth is by sitting it comfortably on your lap.
Babies are not really well-defined by sex so just use 'it'.
It's always possible to write ambiguous sentences in English. Some of my favorites:
"Bouncing down the street and rolling into the gutter, John's eyes spotted the ball."
"Wondering irresolutely what to do next, the clock struck 10."
The goal is to avoid writing such sentences.
Those aren't ambiguous sentences, so much as "the grammar of the sentence is unambiguously saying one thing, but logic is saying something else" sentences.
<Babies are not really well-defined by sex so just use 'it'. >
Just try asking a mother this question when you see her baby:
"How cute! How old is it?"
The sex of the baby is important to Mama.
<I'm also uncomfortable with "sit" as a transitive verb. >
Why would you be uncomfortable with something that is standard.
<The goal is to avoid writing such sentences. >
Or for listeners and readers to be less stupid in misinterpreting such sentences.
<<Or for listeners and readers to be less stupid in misinterpreting such sentences. >>
But it's hardy unambiguous. When I brush my baby's teeth I rip them out of his face with pliers and place the bloody pulp on my lap and clean them. It could hardly be called 'comfortable' though...
Exactly, Propaganda Bottle. Anyone who sees the thread example as ambiguous is either a non-native speaker of English, a very poor native speaker of English or a pedantic prescriptivist.