I’m having a debate elsewhere with someone on a different topic. Part of that revolves around what someone would mean by a particular comment. I will disguise the comment so that this doesn’t become a rehash of the debate itself and to avoid bias. The comment is this:
" …the reason that Dweebles don’t believe in footlianism is, aside from the fact that it is based on gwivery and is by nature dwiverous, because it does not tzoober, and in fact it fails any tzoober spectacularly."
Purely as a matter of english comprehension, is the speakers main point that Dweebles do not to believe in footlianism:
[ul]1/ because it is based on gwivery and is by nature dwiverous, or
2/ because it does not tzoober and in fact it fails any tzoober spectacularly[/ul]
or what?
The parts between the commas are extraneous. The sentence would be read as “the reason that Dweebles don’t believe in footlianism is because it does not tzoober.” You lose points for “the reason is because,” though.
Neither. The main point that Dweebles do not to believe in footlianism is never reached. The sentence is incomplete. I’ll use some bracketing to make it obvious:
" …the reason that Dweebles don’t believe in footlianism is, **[**aside from the fact that it is based on gwivery and is by nature dwiverous, {because it does not tzoober, (, and in fact it fails any tzoober spectacularly.)}]"
Notice that the “aside” clause ends at the end of the sentence, and the main idea is never picked back up.
It is a poorly constructed sentence.
The juncture “dwiverous, because it…” needs a “the reason is”, or some other modifier to clarify whether the aside is closed, or continuing into the next part of the sentence. Without something like that, the subject, and the main point, gets lost.
racinchikki, you say that the main point is 1/ but then say the parts between the commas are extraneous. 1/ is the part between the commas. Could you clarify?
I apologize for that. I accidentally typed “1” instead of “2” as the first character of this post, thus completely changing my answer to an incorrect one. The correct answer, as indicated in the text of my reply, is “2.”
Joe Random, you’ve got some brackets in the wrong places… read it this way:
the reason that Dweebles don’t believe in footlianism is, [aside from the fact that it is based on gwivery and is by nature dwiverous,] because it does not tzoober, [and in fact it fails any tzoober spectacularly.]
Yes, it is as racinchikki and Eonwe say, the speaker’s man point is: 2/ because it does not tzoober and in fact it fails any tzoober spectacularly.
The sentence is very clumsily constructed. It should read: " …the reason that Dweebles don’t believe in footlianism, aside from the fact that it is based on gwivery and is by nature dwiverous, is that it does not tzoober (in fact, it fails any tzoober [noun] spectacularly**)**."
Joe Random, listen to Eonwe. Eonwe sees through the sentence’s apparently dwiverous nature to its ungwivery and understands, therefore, that it does indeed tzoober, albeit somewhat unspectacularly.
So Joe and Squink, two more questions. Firstly, if you assume that the aside bit ends after “dwiverous”, (referring to my original question) is the main point 1/ or 2/?
Secondly, if you assume that the aside runs on into the latter part of the sentence do I take it that you are posing a third interpretation, namely that it is because footlianism does not tzoober and in fact fails any tzoober spectacularly it is based on gwivery and is by nature dwiverous and because of that Dweebles don’t believe in it? ie because of 2/, therefore 1/ therefore Dweebles don’t believe?
I can see the source of your confusion. The aside regarding gwivery and dwiverosity should be a subordinate to the main body of the sentence i.e the sentence without this phrase. However using aside to introduce the phrase makes it seem to say that gwivery and dwiverosity are kind of self evident properties of footlianism and at least equally the cause for Dweeble doubts about footlianism.
Strictly speaking the use of aside means that the comment is a digression and is not taken into account or excluded from consideration. This is what creates the impression that it is an agreed fact.
In parsing any sentence of that construction, you disregard the “aside” between the commas there. It’s mostly irrelevant. There’s not even a debate here. Last year you took a holiday during which you spent your time in Bangkok. The fact that you visited Pattaya for a brief moment makes no difference; the main force of the sentence is that you spent your time in Bangkok.
I can play only one instrument, aside from the kazoo: the guitar. The point of this sentence is that the only instrument I can really play is the guitar. The kazoo doesn’t count.
The reason I don’t like winter, aside from the increased frequency of colds and flus, is that I cannot stand to shovel snow. I don’t like winter because I hate shovelling snow. The increased frequency of colds and flus is almost unimportant.
The clause beginning with “aside from” is of much lesser importance and can usually be safely ignored. The main idea of the sentence is the part that does NOT begin with “aside from.”
Your friend is completely wrong in his interpretation.
Tee hee, if you had seen the most recent (and highly vituperative) exchanges between myself and my opponent you would know how funny your use of the term “friend” in your last sentence is, racinchikki!
Grammatically, that’s probably more correct (if a “more correct” makes any sense). However, the sentence is a bit ambiguous, and it can easily be misconstrued as to what the “because it does not tzoober” clause is referring to.
Based on that assumption, the main point is most definitely 2.
As you yourself pointed out, your way of making sense of the sentence leaves us with an incomplete sentence. So, you can’t try to make sense of it that way.
The key is to find the main clause, then work on the subordinate stuff.
Very true. I wasn’t trying to be contradictory, just pointing out one of the many fun ways that the rules can be broken, as long as you know you’re using them.
> " …the reason that Dweebles don’t believe in footlianism is,
> aside from the fact that it is based on gwivery and is by nature
> dwiverous, because it does not tzoober, and in fact it fails any
> tzoober spectacularly."
As has already been pointed out, this sentence should be rewritten as something like “The reason that Dweebles don’t believe in footlianism is, aside from the fact that it based on gwivery and is by nature dwiverous, that it does not tzoober and in fact fails any tzoober test spectacularly.” You want to know what the main point of the person who says this sentence is (as opposed to his secondary points). O.K., the problem is that dividing things into main points and secondary points isn’t useful, or even possible, based on this single sentence. A better distinction would be between the assertions and the presuppostions of this sentence.
This distinction is a pretty standard one in linguistics and would be useful for explaining what’s going on here. The assertions of a sentence are the new points that it’s trying to make. The presuppositions of a sentence are the things that are already accepted in the conversation and which are only being mentioned, not asserted.
The assertion of this sentence is that footlianism does not tzoober and fails any tzoober test. The presupposition of this sentence is that footlianism is based on gwivery and is dwiverous. The person who said this sentence is assuming that it’s already been established in the conversation that footlianism is based on gwivery and is dwiverous. If it has not been established that this is true, then he is cheating on conversational rules. You don’t say “aside from the fact that X” unless it’s already been established that X is true. (Well, unless you’re being snide and trying to say, “You fool, are you too stupid to notice that X is true?” I suspect that the person you’re arguing with is being snide. As a general rule, I refuse to argue with snide people. It’s not worth the hassle to figure out what they’re saying.)
The person saying this sentence is asserting that footlianism does not tzoober and fails any tzoober test. In other words, that’s a new point in the conversation. But the distinction between assertions and presuppositions has nothing to do with the main points and the secondary points of an entire conversation. To know what this person’s main and secondary points are, we would have to analyze the entire conversation, not just one sentence.
