[General] A quick question regarding the subject of a sentence. Thanks guys.

[richuk]

Hey guys, just a quick question if you don’t mind please.
When you are comparing two things for example: ‘I think the toy show wasn’t as fun as the car shows’ and you extend the sentence for example:
‘I think the toy show wasn’t as fun as the car shows but we learnt a lot more!’
‘I think the toy show wasn’t as fun as the car shows because we didn’t see that much!’
How do we know the sentence part after the ‘but’ or ‘because’ relates to the ‘toy show’ and not the ‘car shows’ without specifically mentioning it again? Is it because the ‘toy show’ is the subject of the sentence and the ‘car shows’ is just the object for comparison?
Thank you for your time and help, I really appreciate it.

 

[mmasny]

I don't see any room for ambiguity here... Those clauses don't modify 'the toy show' and they don't modify 'the car shows'. They are in relation to the whole main clause.

I am not a teacher.

 

[Barb_D]

Mmm. I can't agree. You need to apply real-world knowledge.

X wasn't as good as Y because we didn't see as much [at Y].
X was better than Y because there was more to see [at X].

Or, if you're a kid who hates museums but your parents stop and read every sign at every exhibit:
a. X was better than Y because there was less to see [at X].
b. X was better than Y because there was more to see [at Y].
c. X wasn't as good as Y because there was more to see [at X].

Things aren't said without some knowledge of the situation. You still have to apply common sense. And yes, that can create confusion/ambiguity.

In the second set of my sentences, let's say I love museums, but I don't know that you do not. If you said b, would assume that means that there is more to see at X because you said it was better.

 

[mmasny]

That is right. Would you say that there is such a problem in the original sentences? I think there isn't. And I the think that the reason is of semantic nature (as opposed to the suggestion of richuk).
I think no one would ever say
‘I think the toy show wasn’t as fun as the car shows but we learnt a lot more from the car shows!’
‘I think the toy show wasn’t as fun as the car shows because we didn’t see that much on the car shows!’
They don't make any sense in my opinion (in any circumstances). Would you agree?

 

[richuk]

t

 

[bhaisahab]

‘I think the toy show wasn’t as much fun as the car shows, but we learnt a lot more!’;-)

 

[IHIVG]

I think no one would ever say
‘I think the toy show wasn’t as fun as the car shows but we learnt a lot more from the car shows!’
‘I think the toy show wasn’t as fun as the car shows because we didn’t see that much on the car shows!’
They don't make any sense in my opinion (in any circumstances). Would you agree?

I would disagree. The last collocation of each sentences seems unnecessary and a bit redundant, but the sentences still make sense to me as a whole. The bolded part is just a logical extension to what has been said before. It may or may not be omitted without the loss of the meaning.

 

[mmasny]

I would disagree. The last collocation of each sentences seems unnecessary and a bit redundant, but the sentences still make sense to me as a whole. The bolded part is just a logical extension to what has been said before. It may or may not be omitted without the loss of the meaning.

You are right of course. I meant 'from the toy show' and 'on the toy show'. I'm sorry about the confusion. How about them now?

 

[richuk]

Hey guys thanks for all of your responses.
So am I correct in saying that there are no specific rules but instead a degree of common sense?
For example:
‘I think the toy show wasn’t as fun as the car shows but we learnt a lot more!’
is unlikely to mean as mmasny suggested:
1) ‘I think the toy show wasn’t as fun as the car shows but we learnt a lot more from the car shows!’
Instead it is more likely to mean:
2) ‘I think the toy show wasn’t as fun as the car shows but we learnt a lot more from the toy show!’

How come version 1 meaning is unlikely/impossible? Is it because it effectively means ‘the car shows were more fun but we learnt a lot more from the car shows’ when one would usually expect to learn more from a show that is more fun?

Thanks for any help.

 

[IHIVG]

Oh wait. I missed something while reading in a rush.
Actually, YOU were right, mmasny.

The sentences I quoted in the original don't make sense indeed. Here's what would make:

'I think the toy show wasn’t as much fun as the car show but we learnt a lot more (from the toy show.)’
‘I think the toy show wasn’t as much fun as the car show because we didn’t see that much (on the toy show)’

 

[IHIVG]

Hey guys thanks for all of your responses.
So am I correct in saying that there are no specific rules but instead a degree of common sense?
For example:
‘I think the toy show wasn’t as fun as the car shows but we learnt a lot more!’
is unlikely to mean as mmasny suggested:
1) ‘I think the toy show wasn’t as fun as the car show but we learnt a lot more from the car shows!’ Yes, it's unlikely beacuse it wouldn't make sense. "<Whatever1> was not as good as <whatever2>, BUT..." structure usually implies that you are going to say something in support of <whatever1>, that there are still some positives in it even though <whatever2> was better than <whatever1>.
The sentence would make sense though if you substitute 'but' for 'because'.
Instead it is more likely to mean:
2) ‘I think the toy show wasn’t as fun as the car shows but we learnt a lot more from the toy show!’ Yes.

How come version 1 meaning is unlikely/impossible? Is it because it effectively means ‘the car shows were more fun but we learnt a lot more from the car shows’ when one would usually expect to learn more from a show that is more fun?

Thanks for any help.

~

 

[mmasny]

Oh wait. I missed something while reading in a rush.
Actually, YOU were right, mmasny.

The sentences I quoted in the original don't make sense indeed. Here's what would make:

'I think the toy show wasn’t as much fun as the car show but we learnt a lot more (from the toy show.)’
‘I think the toy show wasn’t as much fun as the car show because we didn’t see that much (on the toy show)’

This thread is becoming messy because of 'reading in rush' by both of us. Yes, I agree, when you posted your correction to my sentences I just thought you must be right and agreed with you thoughtlessly. I'm sorry again.

Hey guys thanks for all of your responses.
So am I correct in saying that there are no specific rules but instead a degree of common sense?
For example:
‘I think the toy show wasn’t as fun as the car shows but we learnt a lot more!’
is unlikely to mean as mmasny suggested:
1) ‘I think the toy show wasn’t as fun as the car shows but we learnt a lot more from the car shows!’
Instead it is more likely to mean:
2) ‘I think the toy show wasn’t as fun as the car shows but we learnt a lot more from the toy show!’

How come version 1 meaning is unlikely/impossible? Is it because it effectively means ‘the car shows were more fun but we learnt a lot more from the car shows’ when one would usually expect to learn more from a show that is more fun?

Thanks for any help.

I think it's because of the word 'but' that introduces opposition. There was something bad about the toy show - it wasn't very funny. But there was something good about it too - it taught us something. The problem that Barb_D pointed out is that it doesn't necessarily have to be clear what is good and what is bad. However, I can't think of a situation in which it would lead to a confusion in this case.

 

[richuk]

Thank you everyone for your help