0

Consider the sentence below.

We shouldn't say that we dislike things that we haven't lived.

The way it was pronounced, it sounded more as follows, though.

We shouldn't say... that we dislike things... that we haven't lived.

Am I correct to see an ambiguity here?

One interpretation would be that things which we have not experienced and lived through are not a subject that we should pass an opinion of in regard to how we appreciate those.

The second is that we should not mention disapproving views nor speak of things that we have not been through ourselves.

Since it was difficult to distinguish the spoken pause, I'm not able to provide more input other than there was a hang time (since I noticed it) but it wasn't very obvious (since I have to ask here).

edit (due to comments)

The second interpretation might be denoted as follows.

We shouldn't say: that "we dislike things", that "we haven't lived".

  • 1
    I don't see any ambiguity and I don't think the pause, if any, matters. The correct interpretation is the first one. – TypeIA Oct 27 '19 at 17:43
  • 2
    The sentence itself is somewhat nonsensical. It's not possible to live things. Better (as you yourself write) would be we dislike things we haven't experienced or we dislike things we haven't lived through. The rest is just interpretation—but I see nothing ambiguous about the specific use of that. – Jason Bassford Supports Monica Oct 27 '19 at 18:18
  • 1
    Your second interpretation is quite simply incorrect. With or without either/both of the optional that's, the original says nothing about whether it's okay to speak of liking things that we haven't personally experienced, only that if we don't like them, we shouldn't explicitly say so. That's not the same as saying we shouldn't say anything about things outside our personal experience. – FumbleFingers Reinstate Monica Oct 27 '19 at 18:41
  • @TypeIA Check the edit. I tried to make it more apparent. – Konrad Viltersten Oct 27 '19 at 20:28
  • @JasonBassford The nonsensicality might actually be an implication of the second interpretation being more accurate. Please check the edit I made to the question. I believe that it's more clear now how the living might come into play. – Konrad Viltersten Oct 27 '19 at 20:30
0

I agree that it can be ambiguous if the spoken pauses are too big.

The large pauses while speaking can imply the presence of commas or semicolons (or even a colon as OP mentioned).

We shouldn't say [pause] that we dislike things [pause] that we haven't lived [pause] ...

The large pauses can get one to think that there is one or more clauses coming.

We shouldn't say: (1) that we dislike things; (2) that we haven't lived; (3) that we couldn't have the perfect life; ...

I think that is what OP is talking about. The pauses in speech are so long that it makes the sentence sound like it is a list with different elements.

I think there are two things that may create this ambiguity depending on the length of the pause: (1) the second "that" which makes the second part sound like an element of a list and (2) the way the ending is worded - "haven't lived".

The ambiguity goes away if we use "which" in place of the second "that" and if the wording is changed to any of the two options that Jason Bassford suggested in the comments.

We shouldn't say that we dislike things which we haven't experienced.

Even with the pauses, it is at least less ambiguous than before.

We shouldn't say [pause] that we dislike things [pause] which we haven't experienced.

|improve this answer|||||

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.