group

[dido4]

1.Is this right? 2.Is the lexical order right?

Black-faced spoonspills dance and fly in groups beautifully.

thank you

[Pete]

1.Is this right? 2.Is the lexical order right?

Black-faced spoonspills dance and fly in groups beautifully.

thank youThe word order in in the sentence sounds fine to me.

The sentence would also make sense with "beautifully" coming immediately after "fly", but that would appear to say that they sometimes fly not in groups, but that flying isn't beautiful. The sentence you give is neutral; it says nothing about flying other than in groups.

I suspect that you really mean "black-faced spoonbills".

[Temico]

1.Is this right? 2.Is the lexical order right?

Black-faced Spoonbills dance and fly in groups beautifully.

thank you
The sentence can be ambiguous because it can mean:-
i) Black-faced Spoonbills dance + Black-faced Spoonbills fly in groups beautifully.
ii) Black-faced Spoonbills dance in groups beautifully + Black-faced Spoonbills fly in groups beautifully. ( I guess this is the intended meaning of the sentence).

To avoid this ambiguity, it is better to rewrite the sentence as:-
"Black-faced Spoonbills both dance and fly beautifully when in groups."
or
"Black-faced Spoonbills when in groups, (both) dance and fly beautifully."

[danmahaffey]

The sentence can be ambiguous because it can mean:-
i) Black-faced Spoonbills dance + Black-faced Spoonbills fly in groups beautifully.
ii) Black-faced Spoonbills dance in groups beautifully + Black-faced Spoonbills fly in groups beautifully. ( I guess this is the intended meaning of the sentence).

To avoid this ambiguity, it is better to rewrite the sentence as:-
"Black-faced Spoonbills both dance and fly beautifully when in groups."
or
"Black-faced Spoonbills when in groups, (both) dance and fly beautifully."
Stick with Pete's answer. Simple sentences are better to say and easier to understand. An unambiguous sentence is often a tortured sentence.

[Temico]

Stick with Pete's answer. Simple sentences are better to say and easier to understand. An unambiguous sentence is often a tortured sentence.
Simple sentences are better to say and easier to understand.
That's not what they said about, "I am sorry..." and "I applogise..." . Remember the EP-3 spy-plane incident, not so very long ago, off the Chinese island of Hainan??

[danmahaffey]

The language of diplomacy is rightfully different from the language of the street or the language of literature or the language of the newspaper. In non-specialized English language communications, a simple, straightforward sentence has the greatest value to the listener and the speaker.

In America, we have a saying, known by its acronym, KISS. It is abrupt itself. It means, "keep it simple, stupid." Of course, we don't scold each other with this, but we all know it. KISS applies to design, communication, theories, planning, dinner parties, child rearing, football plays, and everything else where experience has taught us that elaboration does not improve the outcome.

So, the sentence,

"What is it that you want that I should do?"

while it may pass grammatical muster, is much less effective than,

"What do you want me to do?"

And the sentence,

"Black-faced spoonbills dance and fly in groups beautifully,"

is simple, straightforward, and has poetry to it. It is a pleasant and well-formed sentence. It is no more ambiguous than most human communication, and the image of the ballet of spoonbills is comes through clearly.

[Temico]

The language of diplomacy is rightfully different from the language of the street or the language of literature or the language of the newspaper. In non-specialized English language communications, a simple, straightforward sentence has the greatest value to the listener and the speaker.

In America, we have a saying, known by its acronym, KISS. It is abrupt itself. It means, "keep it simple, stupid." Of course, we don't scold each other with this, but we all know it. KISS applies to design, communication, theories, planning, dinner parties, child rearing, football plays, and everything else where experience has taught us that elaboration does not improve the outcome.

So, the sentence,

"What is it that you want that I should do?"

while it may pass grammatical muster, is much less effective than,

"What do you want me to do?"

And the sentence,

"Black-faced spoonbills dance and fly in groups beautifully,"

is simple, straightforward, and has poetry to it. It is a pleasant and well-formed sentence. It is no more ambiguous than most human communication, and the image of the ballet of spoonbills is comes through clearly.
FYI, when native English speakers get used to saying something foolish and/or illogical, they can still claim it to be English. (They are, in a way, right because it is,afterall, their language.) When non-native speakers do the same, it is called Spanglish, Japlish, Chinklish, Inglish, Singlish...and even Rubbish! To me, rubbish is still rubbish no matter who utters it, be it native or non-native speakers. Non-native speakers, especially those in commerce, should beware of ambiguous sentences because many a trader have lost money because of the ambiguities in the phrasing of the sentences in the contracts.

[Pete]

Several comments come to mind. Note that I am not a professional linguist.

Of course, any language is defined by the things its speakers say. If different groups of speakers say different things, we call the different speech patterns "dialects" and often give names to them. When speaking with someone, it is best to use speech patterns that will enhance communication with that person and will present both yourself your ideas as worthy of consideration in that context.

Although I have not studied many languages, all of those that I have studied have their share of "idioms", which could be described as "illogical" or "non-literal" phrases that take on meanings that are understood. I'd call this the richness of language, not something to complain about. Do you know if there are languages that do not have idioms?

Almost all "real" language use takes place in some context of discourse, either a conversation or a written document like a letter or essay. There is a great deal of redundancy in the whole. In fact, you can almost always leave out a word and the reader/listener could fill it in from context. It is this redundancy that allows sentences that would be ambiguous alone to be used without problem in real discourse.

Of course you are correct that in contracts and treaties, it is very important not to be ambiguous. We jokingly call the language in contracts "legalese", and people will sometimes write, say, a Christmas greeting in that rigid, unambiguous style as a form of humor. Unless you are writing a contract, you don't want to pick that style as a model for your everyday writing.

(I do enjoy this forum. Thanks for the interesting discussion.) -- Pete

[Rusty]

Stick with Pete's answer. Simple sentences are better to say and easier to understand. An unambiguous sentence is often a tortured sentence. I have not been able to find any on-line reference that says to capitalize the names of birds. I believe the names of birds and animals are not capitalized: robin, thrush, fox, beaver, spoonbill. Can anyone confirm this?

[Temico]

I have not been able to find any on-line reference that says to capitalize the names of birds. I believe the names of birds and animals are not capitalized: robin, thrush, fox, beaver, spoonbill. Can anyone confirm this?
Quote:
Record numbers of the globally threatened Black-faced Spoonbill Platalea minor were counted at the 2003.......
http://www.birdlife.org/news/news/2003/06/black-faced_spoonbill.html

I am not alone, you know.

[danmahaffey]

Quote:
Record numbers of the globally threatened Black-faced Spoonbill Platalea minor were counted at the 2003.......
http://www.birdlife.org/news/news/2003/06/black-faced_spoonbill.html

I am not alone, you know.
The names of animals and birds, fish and reptiles, etc. are not capitalized in ordinary discourse and writing. Capitalization is reserved for proper names, like Bob, and for the initial word in a sentence. Black-faced spoonbill is a common noun, not a proper noun. If you said, "This is my native-American friend whose name is Black-faced Spoonbill," then capitalizing the name is correct. Otherwise, perhaps only in the jargon of birders, or in the taxonomy they use, is it appropriate to capitalize.

This is no different from referring to a red fox, a wire-haired terrier, a trout, a blue-footed boobie, or a Canada goose. Note that Canada is a proper noun--the name of a country; goose is not.

Company is no guarantor of correctness.

[danmahaffey]

Several comments come to mind. Note that I am not a professional linguist.

Of course, any language is defined by the things its speakers say. If different groups of speakers say different things, we call the different speech patterns "dialects" and often give names to them. When speaking with someone, it is best to use speech patterns that will enhance communication with that person and will present both yourself your ideas as worthy of consideration in that context.

Although I have not studied many languages, all of those that I have studied have their share of "idioms", which could be described as "illogical" or "non-literal" phrases that take on meanings that are understood. I'd call this the richness of language, not something to complain about. Do you know if there are languages that do not have idioms?

Almost all "real" language use takes place in some context of discourse, either a conversation or a written document like a letter or essay. There is a great deal of redundancy in the whole. In fact, you can almost always leave out a word and the reader/listener could fill it in from context. It is this redundancy that allows sentences that would be ambiguous alone to be used without problem in real discourse.

Of course you are correct that in contracts and treaties, it is very important not to be ambiguous. We jokingly call the language in contracts "legalese", and people will sometimes write, say, a Christmas greeting in that rigid, unambiguous style as a form of humor. Unless you are writing a contract, you don't want to pick that style as a model for your everyday writing.

(I do enjoy this forum. Thanks for the interesting discussion.) -- Pete

Good job, Pete. I like your discussion, here.

[Temico]

The names of animals and birds, fish and reptiles, etc. are not capitalized in ordinary discourse and writing. Capitalization is reserved for proper names, like Bob, and for the initial word in a sentence. Black-faced spoonbill is a common noun, not a proper noun. If you said, "This is my native-American friend whose name is Black-faced Spoonbill," then capitalizing the name is correct. Otherwise, perhaps only in the jargon of birders, or in the taxonomy they use, is it appropriate to capitalize.

This is no different from referring to a red fox, a wire-haired terrier, a trout, a blue-footed boobie, or a Canada goose. Note that Canada is a proper noun--the name of a country; goose is not.

Company is no guarantor of correctness.
Company is no guarantor of correctness.
.......and neither are you!

[Temico]

Good job, Pete. I like your discussion, here.
I like the reply. It reminds me of "The monkey and it's tail" story.