The problems of written language

[Skeptisk]

https://youtube.com/shorts/nkq7fSy2ZaE?si=nLq_usbT...

For those not clicking on the video it explains that the sentence “I never said that she stole my money” has seven different meanings, depending upon which word in the sentence is being emphasised (except the word “that”). Try it yourself if you don’t watch the video.

It just demonstrates clearly that the written word can completely fail to convey what someone actually means and how easy it is to misinterpret people. A bit of a problem when so much of our communication is via emails texts and posts.

[Badda]

That is so interesting.

(Emphasis where you see fit )

[bigpriest]

Don't click the link, it's a gurning attention-seeker! smile Even in text-based communications you have a little bit of context in terms of what that sentence is trying to convey, it would be rarely used on its own out of nowhere. Even in face-to-face conversations, the wrong emphasis on a syllable through a different accent can cause the same issue.

[Dan_1981]

Yup I was considering this only the other day as I was helping my Uncle jack off a horse...

[dontlookdown]

All you have to do to avoid any such ambiguity, is to punctuate properly.

[Super Sonic]

It only has one meaning, although any one of a number of different things could be implied.

[Skeptisk]

Badda said:

That is so interesting.

(Emphasis where you see fit )

Okay you win the thread!

[Skeptisk]

Super Sonic said:

It only has one meaning, although any one of a number of different things could be implied.

Not sure about that. If you emphasise the “I” it means something very different to emphasising “money”. With the first it means someone else accused her. The second that you accused her but you accused her of stealing something else. Rather fundamental differences in what you are trying to convey.

[SlimJim16v]

That sentence can't be used on its own though.

[Super Sonic]

Skeptisk said:

Super Sonic said:

It only has one meaning, although any one of a number of different things could be implied.

Not sure about that. If you emphasise the “I” it means something very different to emphasising “money”. With the first it means someone else accused her. The second that you accused her but you accused her of stealing something else. Rather fundamental differences in what you are trying to convey.

These are implied. The meaning of the sentence remains the same. Emphasising the I implies someone else accused her, but the sentence still says that the person speaking didn't accuse her. It doesn't say someone else accused her, it only implies it. The second, likewise, implies the speaker accused her of stealing something else, but doesn't actually say it.

[Marcellus]

Same as “I didn’t say he killed his wife”…

[Skeptisk]

Super Sonic said:

Skeptisk said:

Super Sonic said:

It only has one meaning, although any one of a number of different things could be implied.

Not sure about that. If you emphasise the “I” it means something very different to emphasising “money”. With the first it means someone else accused her. The second that you accused her but you accused her of stealing something else. Rather fundamental differences in what you are trying to convey.

These are implied. The meaning of the sentence remains the same. Emphasising the I implies someone else accused her, but the sentence still says that the person speaking didn't accuse her. It doesn't say someone else accused her, it only implies it. The second, likewise, implies the speaker accused her of stealing something else, but doesn't actually say it.

I think you are missing the point by a country mile. If you heard some saying it to you then it wouldn’t be “implied” it would be bloody obvious. Which is the point of the thread. The words by themselves often can’t convey what the speaker is saying because of the context in which the sentence is spoken and the way it is spoken.

[Super Sonic]

Skeptisk said:

Super Sonic said:

Skeptisk said:

Super Sonic said:

It only has one meaning, although any one of a number of different things could be implied.

Not sure about that. If you emphasise the “I” it means something very different to emphasising “money”. With the first it means someone else accused her. The second that you accused her but you accused her of stealing something else. Rather fundamental differences in what you are trying to convey.

These are implied. The meaning of the sentence remains the same. Emphasising the I implies someone else accused her, but the sentence still says that the person speaking didn't accuse her. It doesn't say someone else accused her, it only implies it. The second, likewise, implies the speaker accused her of stealing something else, but doesn't actually say it.

I think you are missing the point by a country mile. If you heard some saying it to you then it wouldn’t be “implied” it would be bloody obvious. Which is the point of the thread. The words by themselves often can’t convey what the speaker is saying because of the context in which the sentence is spoken and the way it is spoken.

You may want to look up the meaning of 'implied'. You may consider the meaning bloody obvious, but it is not explicit in the sentence, however strong the implication.
The sentence, as written, has no context.
ETA
Also, to add emphasis as spoken, if the speaker were to say "I didn't say SHE stole the money", it could imply that the speaker said someone else stole the money, but the original sentence would still mean that the speaker didn't say that the 'she' in the original sentence stole the money, so the meaning would be unchanged.

Edited by Super Sonic on Saturday 6th July 16:08

[Wiccan of Darkness]

I like to help blind children.

[SlimJim16v]

Super Sonic said:

The sentence, as written, has no context.

[Skeptisk]

SlimJim16v said:

Super Sonic said:

The sentence, as written, has no context.

It isn’t the lack of context that is importance it is the lack of voice and how it is said. Even if there were context the written sentence is ambiguous whereas if you heard it spoken it wouldn’t be.

[Super Sonic]

Skeptisk said:

It isn’t the lack of context that is importance it is the lack of voice and how it is said. Even if there were context the written sentence is ambiguous whereas if you heard it spoken it wouldn’t be.

Read my reply above. The word 'SHE' which I put in capitals would be emphasised in a spoken sentence, but, as I pointed out, would not change the sentence's meaning.

[CammyN]

This style goes back many years. At school during English lessons we had to understand the sentence

She is selling apples in the square today


We then had to stand and give an explanation of how an emphasis on each word changes to meaning.


Part of the answer for how texts and some business emails can be misinterpreted.

[Super Sonic]

CammyN said:

This style goes back many years. At school during English lessons we had to understand the sentence

She is selling apples in the square today


We then had to stand and give an explanation of how an emphasis on each word changes to meaning.


Part of the answer for how texts and some business emails can be misinterpreted.

So would you like to give an example of how changing the emphasis on ANY of the words in your example sentence changes it's meaning?

[Skeptisk]

Super Sonic said:

Skeptisk said:

It isn’t the lack of context that is importance it is the lack of voice and how it is said. Even if there were context the written sentence is ambiguous whereas if you heard it spoken it wouldn’t be.

Read my reply above. The word 'SHE' which I put in capitals would be emphasised in a spoken sentence, but, as I pointed out, would not change the sentence's meaning.

Did you even watch the video?

If you emphasised the word SHE it would mean that you had accused someone of stealing but it wasn’t her. If you emphasised MONEY it would mean that you did accuse her of stealing something but it wasn’t money. Those two sentences have completely different meanings. Similarly if you emphasise “I” it means someone else accused her. Again a different meaning.