Synonimity

Are these statements synonymous in meaning?


A grammar is all one needs to get basic principles in a language and communicate at a rudimentary level.

A grammar can only give one the basic principles that allow one to communicate at a rudimentary level.

To me, yes.

No, those sentences aren't synonymous.

The first sentence says that you need nothing more than a grammar to do those things, but it places no limits on *other* things that a grammar may be able to do.

But the second sentence places a limit on what a grammar can do: it can do nothing more than the specified things.

I agree with Lazar.

They are semantically synonymous, but pragmatically non-synonymous.

I don't see how they're synonymous in any sense. "Semantically synonymous" suggest to me that they literally mean the same thing, but they would be interpreted differently by the speaker. Although such things do happen, that isn't the case here; the literal meaning is different between the two sentences.

- Kef

<the literal meaning is different between the two sentences. >

Not to me.

<<Not to me.>>

Really? The difference seems quite evident to me.

#1 says, "A grammar is all you need to do these things." Is it possible that a grammar may enable me to do other things as well? Yes.

#2 says, "A grammar can do nothing more than this thing." Can a grammar do anything else? No.

Could you explain how, in your view, these sentences are synonymous? (#2 implies the truth of #1, but the restriction of #2 cannot be inferred from #1.)

They don't sound synonymous to me, either.

<They don't sound synonymous to me, either. >

Isn't it just a difference in viewpoint regarding the usefulness of a grammar? One sentence presents a "positive" view" and the other a somewhat "negative" view.

Don't both mean:

"A grammar can provide one with the basic principles of a language that will allow one to communicate at a rudimentary level."

No, they aren't synonymous. I daresay they are entirely different.

The first one says that all you need is grammar to get basic principles in a language and communicate at a rudimentary level, whereas the second one is implying that grammar is only one thing among the many that can give you basic principles etc.

I think an "of" is missing from the second sentence. That should be: "A grammar can only give one of the basic principles that allow one to communicate at a rudimentary level. Or does "one" refer to the person who is given the principles and is enabled to communicate? If so, the second sentence means what Lazar said.

Hmm, the addition of the word "of" does indeed change the meaning of the sentence, but it still wouldn't match the first sentence. I'm not sure that such an omission happened, though... what other "basic principles" to a language are there other than grammar?

<< Don't both mean:

"A grammar can provide one with the basic principles of a language that will allow one to communicate at a rudimentary level." >>

They both include that idea, but that idea isn't necessarily the point of the sentence. The point of the first sentence is to explain what you need, or to explain the usefulness of the grammar; the point of the second sentence is to explain the limitations of the grammar. The first sentence is saying "A grammar is all you need [because it can ____]" The second sentence is saying something closer to "A grammar is not enough [because it can't do anything more than _____]". Does that make sense?

- Kef

<<Hmm, the addition of the word "of" does indeed change the meaning of the sentence, but it still wouldn't match the first sentence. I'm not sure that such an omission happened, though... what other "basic principles" to a language are there other than grammar?>>

Pronunciation and vocabulary, for example.

<<They both include that idea, but that idea isn't necessarily the point of the sentence. The point of the first sentence is to explain what you need, or to explain the usefulness of the grammar; the point of the second sentence is to explain the limitations of the grammar. The first sentence is saying "A grammar is all you need [because it can ____]" The second sentence is saying something closer to "A grammar is not enough [because it can't do anything more than _____]". Does that make sense?>>

I'm inclined to think so. But, anyway, the two sentences don't have the same meaning.

<I think an "of" is missing from the second sentence. That should be: "A grammar can only give one of the basic principles that allow one to communicate at a rudimentary level. Or does "one" refer to the person who is given the principles and is enabled to communicate?>

Obviously, it's an impersonal pronoun in bothe sentences.

<< Pronunciation and vocabulary, for example. >>

Right, but I wouldn't really call them "principles". For instance, a vocabulary is just a long (really long!) list of words and definitions. Although it's essential to develop a vocabulary, a vocabulary in itself won't teach the learner any principles. A grammar will, though.

- Kef