-2

a) I sent them the document to analyze.

Can't this correspond to:

  1. I sent them the document for them to analyze it

and

  1. I sent them the document which was to be analyzed.

(It is even possible to imagine a scenario where we were supposed to analyze the document and I sent it to them by mistake.)

?

Improve this question
1
  • Are you asking if that sentence is ambiguous? Yes, it is. But that's not really noteworthy.
    – gotube ♦
    Commented May 1, 2023 at 1:33

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

It says that the purpose of sending them the document was so that the document was analysed. You may infer (though it isn't stated) that "they" will do the analysis. This is the common sense interpretation. Sending something does not automatically cause it to be analysed so the analysis must be either done by the recipients or perhaps subcontracted by them.

By contrast something that happens automatically through the process of sending would not prompt this inference. For example, consider the example

I sent them the document (by post, not by email) to postmark it.

Here it is clear from the context that "to postmark it" is not done by "them".

Improve this answer
2
  • Thank you very much, James K. How about: "I lost the documents to analyze; Isn't that correct? It would mean I lost the documents that were to be analyzed, doesn't it? Many thanks
    – azz
    Commented Apr 24, 2023 at 23:08
  • 1
    Thats right. You might express that differently "I lost the documents we were going to analyse". But "I lost the documents to analyse" is a slightly odd way to say the same thing. This is a classic example of a semantic ambiguity that is completely resolved by context.
    – James K
    Commented Apr 25, 2023 at 5:17

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