a. You are killing a cash cow for both of us.

b. You are killing what is a cash cow for both of us.

Are both of the above sentences grammatical and meaningful?

My problem in (a) is that it seems to be saying that you are doing the killing for both of us. "For both of us" seems to be adverbial. It seems to modify "are killing". Could it be adjectival and modify "a cash cow"?


This is from

"Ricky Gervais at the 2011 Golden Globes"

Ricky Gervais is talking about Steve Carell: strong text "He was a jobbing actor, career not going that well if I'm being totally honest, who got his big break when I cast him in a remake of a show that I created called "The Office". He's now leaving that show, killing a cash cow for both of us."

He says that when he is presenting Tina Fey and Steve Carell.

I have a problem with "killing a cash cow for both of us".

So the show will die because of Steve Carell, and the show was a cash cow for both of them.


10:00 to 10:30

Many thanks.

1 Answer 1


The meaning is the same regardless of whether "for both of us" refers to the cash cow or to killing it.

Further, adding "which is" doesn't remove the ambiguity -- "for both of us" can still refer either to the cash cow or to killing it.

But yes, both of those sentences are natural, grammatically correct, and have the same meaning(s).

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .