Is any of the following sentences incorrect?

Forums: Grammar, English
Email this Topic • Print this Page

1) I saw a car drive past a stop sign without slowing down.
2) I saw that a car drove past a stop sign without slowing down.
3) I saw a car drove past a stop sign without slowing down.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 1 • Views: 617 • Replies: 12

No top replies

All three are OK grammatically; 1 means you personally saw a car drive past a stop sign without slowing down; 2 and 3 mean you saw evidence or proof that a car had driven past a stop sign without slowing down. Your title should be "Are any of the following sentences incorrect?"

1 Reply

@centrox,

centrox wrote:

All three are OK grammatically; 1 means you personally saw a car drive past a stop sign without slowing down; 2 and 3 mean you saw evidence or proof that a car had driven past a stop sign without slowing down. Your title should be "Are any of the following sentences incorrect?"

Quote:

3) I saw a car drove past a stop sign without slowing down.

I think 3 is dubious. Although the words "see" or "saw" are often used loosely to convey general meanings of understanding, second-hand information, or general impressions, that intended usage is not always clear. Literally "saw" refers to one's own past visual sense impressions.

If you intend it to mean "I heard that," "I read that," "I am informed that," or something to that effect, I think you should use such words, unless the context otherwise makes it clear. Maybe this isn't, strictly speaking, a "grammatical" error, but I think the word choice renders the sentence ambiguous and/or incoherent.

0 Replies

I don't see how the sentence is ambiguous. The meaning is clear. How could it be interpreted differently? And if it were ambiguous or incoherent, how is it more so than sentence 2?

2 Replies

@perennialloner,

perennialloner wrote:

I don't see how the sentence is ambiguous. The meaning is clear. How could it be interpreted differently?

Quote:

3) I saw a car drove past a stop sign without slowing down.

I think it could easily be interpreted as "This guy doesn't know English--he should have used "drive," not "drove."

If you wanted to go with a different intended meaning I think "see" (not saw, in the past tense) would be better suited, although still far from ideal.

1 Reply

@layman,

I feel like you're justifying its ambiguity on the basis of your own dislike for how it sounds. But just because something sounds unnatural does not mean it's necessarilt ambiguous. You wouldn't have to change words to find a different meaning in an actually ambiguous sentence.

1 Reply

@perennialloner,

perennialloner wrote:

I feel like you're justifying its ambiguity on the basis of your own dislike for how it sounds. But just because something sounds unnatural does not mean it's necessarilt ambiguous. You wouldn't have to change words to find a different meaning in an actually ambiguous sentence.

Well, you write your sentences that way, then. I never would, but we don't have to agree.

0 Replies

@perennialloner,

perennialloner wrote:

... if it were ambiguous or incoherent, how is it more so than sentence 2?

#2 adds the word "that" which makes the meaning much more clear. "Saw" and "saw that," in this context, mean different things (unless you want to insist on "forcing" people to read it in the way you intended it--better to just make it clear from the outset).

1 Reply

@layman,

How does it make the meaning more clear? I thought the ambiguity lay in the fact that saw was past tense. I don't much feel like arguing anymore, though. You are a native speaker and I trust your judgment. I just think your explanation is rather weak.

1 Reply

@perennialloner,

In everyday speech a person might say "I saw where.....

The "where" suggests that the information is second hand, and not a reference to the literal act of "seeing' with your eyeballs.

"That" would serve about the same function as "where" but wouldn't be quite as clear.

1 Reply

@layman,

Thank you. That makes sense. But just as the where is implicit in the that, I think the same is true for the third sentence. The that is implicit, and by extension the where is too. But I can now see how it might be viewed as less coherent.

1 Reply

@perennialloner,

The ambiguity comes from using the verb "saw" to mean something like "I am informed that."

You don't literally "see" that kind of information--you acquire it second-hand rather than by direct perception.

1 Reply

@layman,

They it's as ambiguous as every day speech commonly is.

0 Replies

Is any of the following sentences incorrect?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know