0

I'm trying to read/understand the following sentence:

Because languages are sets of strings, there are additional operations that can be defined on languages, operations that would be meaningless on more general sets.

The part that confuses me is the "[...] , operations that [...]". Is the sentence have a structure like:

there are additional [A that ...], [B that ...].

Or

there are additional [A that can be defined on [B, C that ...]].

Or maybe both ways are incorrect. What's the correct way to read it?

Improve this question
5
  • No, the B part explains more about the A part, rather than a separate listing. Such appositions are side comments. I like fruit, fruit that is sweet and juicy.
    – Yosef Baskin
    Commented May 21 at 14:24
  • @YosefBaskin: Do you mean it's like there are additional [A that f_1], [A that f_2]?
    – Rain
    Commented May 21 at 14:29
  • 2
    Compare: There are some shears on the workbench, shears that are designed to cut thin sheets of metal. The italicized noun phrase is supplemental information about the shears and the information is presented as an afterthought appended to the first clause rather than as a relative clause that is subordinate to the first clause and linked to it with a relative "which" or "that" -- hence the repetition of the noun "shears".
    – TimR
    Commented May 21 at 14:41
  • There are [A that f_1], meaning that [those A that f_1] do not apply to more general sets.
    – Yosef Baskin
    Commented May 21 at 14:45
  • defined on languages=mistake buzzer. Languages are not sets of strings. A language is made up of utterances that can be described or parsed as sets of strings. The sentence in the question is just too naive...
    – Lambie
    Commented May 21 at 19:38

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

I'm not sure I understand the A/B diagrams you propose. But as TimR's comment shows, we can understand the structure by deleting the second use of the word "operations." It is repeated to help clarify.

To use another example, you could say "I have books about acting and movies." I mean that I have books on these two topics, but there's a (remote) chance that someone would think I had some books (about acting), and also some movies. So I could say "I have many books, books about acting and movies."

Improve this answer
3
  • Is it allowed to further expand the movies in your example? "I have many books, books about acting and movies, movies ...".
    – Rain
    Commented May 21 at 19:46
  • @Rain Well, not if the intended meaning was "I have books on two topics." You technically could do it if the meaning was the opposite. If you meant "I have two things: books about acting, and also movies about books," then you could say "I have many books, books about acting, and movies, movies about books." But you would need the second comma, and it would be a bad choice anyway because this structure is actually more confusing and misleading than a simpler one.
    – Andy Bonner
    Commented May 21 at 21:04
  • 1
    @Rain Also, there's nothing grammatically wrong with "nesting" this kind of repetition: If you meant "I have books that are about two topics: acting, and movies set in Italy," then you could say "I have many books, books about acting and movies, movies set in Italy." But while this is not breaking any grammar rules, it is not clear communication. Instead of clarifying it's actually made it much harder to understand the real intent. There would be no reason for the repetition.
    – Andy Bonner
    Commented May 21 at 21:08

You must log in to answer this question.

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