A bad sentence in need of correction
Hi, folks!
Read the sentence below.
The picture on the bedroom wall, which Joe had painted, was damaged in the fire last night.
This is a bad sentence because it's unclear whehter Joe painted the picture, or the wall, or both.
If you want to clearly indicate that Joe painted the picture, not the wall, how will you rewrite this sentence into another single sentence?
Where's Geoff when you need him? He loves this stuff...
<<The picture on the bedroom wall, which Joe had painted, was damaged in the fire last night.>>
The picture Joe had painted, on the bedroom wall, was damaged in the fire last night.
The picture, on the bedroom wall which Joe had painted, was damaged in the fire last night.
I think that "The picture Joe had painted" can be condensed and rewritten as "Joe's painting."
Thus, we have two possibilities:
1) Last night, fire damaged Joe's painting on the bedroom wall.
2) Joe's painting on the bedroom wall was damaged in the fire last night.
Number one is a little thriftier.
Yeh, one small adjustment I would make to the first sentence would be:
1) Last night, the fire damaged Joe's painting on the bedroom wall.
or
Last night, a fire damaged Joe's painting on the bedroom wall.
I'd put the 'the' or 'a' in there, because you need to specify which fire it was.
Ben
Uriel, your fist sentence may be grammatical but the placement of the propositional phrase, on the wall, looks a bit awkward to me. Your second sentence clearly indicates that Joe painted the wall, not the pircture, because the relative pronoun which, is placed immediately next to the word wall.
Brenus & Ben, Joe's painting does not necessarily mean a painting painted by Joe; it can mean that Joe owns a painting which he did not paint.
Well, I thought you might want both versions, since you were pointing out that the sentence was ambiguous about which thing Joe had painted, the wall or the painting. And I was trying to stay as close as possible to your original sentence, which I agree was difficult and awkward.
The picture Joe had painted, placed on the bedroom wall was damaged in the fire last night.
<< Joe's painting does not necessarily mean a painting painted by Joe; it can mean that Joe owns a painting which he did not paint. >>
Try and apply Ockam's Razor to it - the best explanation for any phenomenon or puzzle is almost always the one that involves the least complexity.
Hello, Guest!
Mr. Incognito, do you have a name? Or is "Guest" really your name?
Hi, Uriel!
How about this?
The picture on the bedroom wall in my house built last year, which Joe painted 10 years ago, was damaged in the fire last night.
I added "in my house built last year" and "10 years ago" to the sentence to for a clarification, but the new sentence is awkward and may not be grammatical.
Tell me what you think about what I did to the original sentence.
I'm sorry I cheated a bit.
The picture painted by Joe, which hangs on the bedroom wall, was damaged in the fire last night.
My Japanese version:
Joe ga shinshitsu na kabe no e o enoida wa hi no yube no aida ni
songai ga arimashita.
I think for purposes of clarity, if you're going to have that much information, you should probably split it up into more than one sentence. The sentence you have is bulging at the seams, Tetsuo!
<< My Japanese version:
Joe ga shinshitsu na kabe no e o enoida wa hi no yube no aida ni
songai ga arimashita. >>
Joe ga shinshitsu na kabe no e o enoida wa yube no hi no aida ni
songai ga arimashita.
Geoff_One,
Excellant! Why couldn't I think of a sentence like yours? But shouldn't "hangs" be "hanged"?
My Japanese (nippongo) version:
Shinshitsu no kabe ni kaketeatta Joe-san ga kaita e wa yuube no kaji de higaiwo koumurimashita.
Geoff_one, are you a native speaker?
Do you speak and/or write Japanese?
Uriel, you're absolutely right.
But if you split up the sentence into more than one, it will take all the fun out of the game, don't you think?