Poor phrasing and grammar. But I think it would almost always be interpreted as Adam promising Betty that he will be on time.
Splitting an infinitive nearly always causes confusion. To avoid that in this instance: “He promised to Betty that he would be on time.” Or just eliminate the word “to” in that sentence for brevity.
Wait, really? As a fellow native speaker of AE, who also studied linguistics back in the day, I have to say, I’m surprised to hear that. Is it just “to be” that’s problematic for you? Can you accept other “Adam promised [infinitive verb]” constructions, like, “Adam promised to buy groceries” or “Adam promised to give the problem his full attention”? Or are those also ungrammatical to you?
I think split infinitives are usually clear and fine, but I don’t see any split infinitives here.
I don’t think there’s a way to interpret it as anything but Adam being on time, but it’s a poorly written sentence.
Oops, never mind.
Yeah, for some reason I want ‘Adam promised’ to be followed by a complete clause. Adam promised that he would buy groceries.
Hello,my name is Matteo and i’m Italian,so excuse me for my bad English…this is really an amusing question…in my opinion,this sentence is grammatically incorrect in English(my English teacher would mark it with a red line!)…on the contrary,this sentence would be correct in Italian and it would mean:Adam ha promesso(promised)a Betty (simply,Betty) che(that) lui(he) arriverà (will be) in tempo (on time)…
There is nothing grammatically incorrect about the sentence. Your English teacher would be wrong.
Maybe i am wrong,but if this sentence were correct,his intepretation wouldn’t be so ambiguos. Since one of the target of the communication is the comprehension,if a sentence is ambiguos, it isn’t properly correct.However this is only my humble point of view and i respect yours.
The sentence is not ungrammatical because the meaning is understandable, but it’s poorly worded. “Adam promised Betty he would be on time” is clearer. The Betty reading does not work: you would have to say “Adam promised Betty would be on time.” I’ve never seen anybody use “to” to mean “would.”
The more I read this thread, the more grammatical the example in question sounds. My brain hurts.
First of all, I mean ungrammatical in the sense of the linguistics term. ‘Meaning is understandable’ is not sufficient for judgments of grammaticality in this sense. You have to feel like the sentence is complete or well-formed. (“Grammatically correct” isn’t really right either, though, because that implies following artificially-imposed rules for formal writing.)
For instance, I understand the meaning of “I can has cheeseburger?” completely fine, but I know it’s ungrammatical because as a speaker of standard(-ish) American English, I expect questions to be formed by putting the auxiliary verb first, that the verb ‘to have’ should not be inflected, and that a common noun like ‘cheeseburger’ cannot appear without an article (or other determiner). So it should be “Can I have a cheeseburger?”
But anyway, back to my example. If I say “Adam knew Betty to be on time,” it’s perfectly fine, and it’s unambiguous that what Adam knew was that Betty was on time. My reading of the sentence in the poll follows this form. (And it’s more-or-less equivalent in meaning to ‘Adam knew Betty would be on time’, too, though I think there’s a difference in tense.)
Your Italian sentence contains (che) ‘that’ - that’s what’s missing from the example I gave. The exact English equivalent, “Adam promised Betty that he would be on time”, I wouldn’t argue about.
But now I’m curious as to how this works in other languages. Can you say Adam ha promesso a Betty arrivare in tempo? (Excuse my translation, I’m not an Italian speaker.) And if so, what does it mean? In general, can you use an infinitive after promettere?
Ambiguity does not equal ungrammaticality. One should generally try to avoid ambiguity in formal writing (unless it’s being used for literary effect), but it comes up all the time in speech. For one of the SDMB’s favorite examples, see this discussion of the song “Lola”.
**Also note to everyone: I am only a mere linguistics undergrad, so anyone more knowledgeable in the field is welcome to school me on it if necessary.
In italian it is possible to use an infinitive after “promettere”,but it is necessary to use the preposition “di”(your “of”)…so we have"Adam ha promesso a Betty di arrivare in tempo",that means “Adam promised who will be on time” and stop…in fact,a italian speaker,if he wants to say “Adam promised that Betty will be on time”,has to say "Adam ha promesso che Betty arriverà in tempo"and he can’t use any infinitive constructions…