[Grammar] I 'wisely' a sentence adverbial or a regular one?

[eeshu]

What does 'She wisely refused to answer such a silly question' mean?
Is it the same as 'She refused to answer it in a wise manner' or 'it was wise of her to refuse to answer it'?
Normally I'd go for the first understanding as 'wisely' goes immediately before 'refused'. In this case, however, the second reading seems to be more reasonable. What do you think?

 

[eeshu]

I agree with your thought.

But any explanation? How can I rule out the first reading?

 

[emsr2d2]

But do you have any explanation for that? How can I rule out the first reading?

You can't entirely rule out that way of reading it but, as is so often the case with English (and many other languages), context and common sense come into it. If it's written the way it is in post #1, then there's that theoretical danger of ambiguity. To avoid it, you'd have to add commas.

She, wisely, refused to answer such a silly question.

I don't like that solution though.

 

[GoesStation]

What does 'She wisely refused to answer such a silly question' mean?
Is it the same as 'She refused to answer it in a wise manner' or 'it was wise of her to refuse to answer it'?
Normally I'd go for the first understanding as 'wisely' goes immediately before 'refused'. In this case, however, the second reading seems to be more reasonable. What do you think?

How can I rule out the first reading?

Simply because the first reading isn't logical. What would a wise manner of refusal sound like?

Here is a similar sentence where logic tells us only reading #1 works: "She curtly refused to answer such a silly question."

 

[Tdol]

Or:

Wisely, she refused to answer such a silly question.

 

[Tdol]

How can I rule out the first reading?

You can't state as an absolute fact that the first reading is wrong. It's an opinion- Piscean agrees with you, but others may not. You would need to write it the ways suggested above to exclude the first reading.

 

[jutfrank]

I would say that the word wisely is much more commonly used in the way of the second reading than the first. That is, it's more often a sentence adverb (where it modifies a whole clause or verb phrase) than it is an adverb of manner (where it modifies the verb only).

Following the usual rules of adverb placement, you can quite easily spot which type of adverb it is, since adverbs typically either directly precede, or directly follow what they modify. This means that when used as a sentence adverb, it will appear either directly before or after the clause (or more precisely before/after the verb phrase). In the second sentence below, the adverb comes after the subject of the clause She but, importantly, directly before the modified verb phrase. A sentence adverb cannot appear in the middle of the verb phrase it modifies (at least not without some additional use of pausing and intonation, or, if written, use of commas).

When used as an adverb of manner, it is possible (in fact likely) that as such the word will appear in the middle of the verb phrase, directly after the verb.

Wisely, she refused to answer. :tick:
She wisely refused to answer. :tick:
She refused to answer, wisely. :tick:
She refused wisely to answer. :cross:

If in doubt, contextual clues and/or word meaning will tell you how to read the sentence. In the case of the last sentence above, the sentence is wrong due to the meaning of the verb refuse. You cannot refuse in a wise manner. (On this point, I disagree with the members above when they suggest that you can't rule out an adverb of manner reading here.)

 

[jutfrank]

You can't state as an absolute fact that the first reading is wrong. It's an opinion- Piscean agrees with you, but others may not. You would need to write it the ways suggested above to exclude the first reading.

Really? I think it would be extraordinarily unlikely that someone would misinterpret the sentence in the way you're suggesting.

 

[eeshu]

Really? I think it would be extraordinarily unlikely that someone would misinterpret the sentence in the way you're suggesting.

Simply because the first reading isn't logical. What would a wise manner of refusal sound like?

Here is a similar sentence where logic tells us only reading #1 works: "She curtly refused to answer such a silly question."

Really? Does it sound that illogical if I say shying away from such a question is a wiser choice than bluntly saying no comment?

I do believe that there are skills in fielding awakward questions. That is, some ways of refusal might be wiser than others, aren't they?

 

[GoesStation]

What does 'She wisely refused to answer such a silly question' mean?
Is it the same as 'She refused to answer it in a wise manner' or 'it was wise of her to refuse to answer it'?
Normally I'd go for the first understanding as 'wisely' goes immediately before 'refused'. In this case, however, the second reading seems to be more reasonable. What do you think?

Really? Does it sound that illogical if I say shying away from such a question is a wiser choice than bluntly saying no comment?

Not at all. That's the second reading you offered above.

I do believe that there are skills in fielding awkward questions. That is, some ways of refusal might be wiser than others, aren't they?

Yes, but native speakers will hear "wisely" as a sentence adverb modifying the whole sentence, not as an adverb describing the manner in which she answered.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

What does 'She wisely refused to answer such a silly question' mean?
Is it the same as 'She refused to answer it in a wise manner' or 'it was wise of her to refuse to answer it'?
Normally I'd go for the first understanding as 'wisely' goes immediately before 'refused'. In this case, however, the second reading seems to be more reasonable. What do you think?

Here's another way to look at it:

Yes, it's a matter of context. It's also a matter of logic. Since it's a refusal to act, there's no action, so the action can't have a manner, wise or otherwise.

Now aren't you glad we're unwise enough to answer such a silly question?

 

[eeshu]

Here's another way to look at it:

Yes, it's a matter of context. It's also a matter of logic. Since it's a refusal to act, there's no action, so the action can't have a manner, wise or otherwise.

Now aren't you glad we're unwise enough to answer such a silly question?

This is an interesting answer. This line of reasoning, however, does not seem to hold if I replace 'wisely' with 'bluntly'. In that case, I can only say 'refused in a blunt manner' rather than 'it is blunt to refuse to answer ...'.

 

[jutfrank]

This is an interesting answer. This line of reasoning, however, does not seem to hold if I replace 'wisely' with 'bluntly'. In that case, I can only say 'refused in a blunt manner' rather than 'it is blunt to refuse to answer ...'.

Yes, that makes sense to me. Here, you can understand bluntly as an adverb of manner, as it describes the way that the refusal was made rather than the fact of it being made.

 

[Tarheel]

Eeshu, I think you might be confusing bluntly with rudely. A person can rudely refuse to answer a question (refuse in a rude manner), but bluntly should, in my opinion, be applied to the way a question is answered (in a nonsubtle manner). (My opinion.)

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Eeshu, I think you might be confusing bluntly with rudely. A person can rudely refuse to answer a question (refuse in a rude manner), but bluntly should, in my opinion, be applied to the way a question is answered (in a nonsubtle manner). (My opinion.)

Exactly. Bluntly has the same problem as wisely. I don't bluntly not say anything, but I'm famous for rudely not saying lots of things.

Wisely and bluntly are ways of saying things. If you don't say something, it isn't wise or blunt. It isn't anything.

 

[jutfrank]

Exactly. Bluntly has the same problem as wisely. I don't bluntly not say anything, but I'm famous for rudely note saying lots of things.

Wisely and bluntly are ways of saying things. If you don't say something, it isn't wise or blunt. It isn't anything.

I get what you're saying, Charlie, but it is also possible to refuse to answer a question by saying something. One might say, for example, I'm not answering that or No comment or It's none of your business.

 

[Tdol]

This is an interesting answer. This line of reasoning, however, does not seem to hold if I replace 'wisely' with 'bluntly'. In that case, I can only say 'refused in a blunt manner' rather than 'it is blunt to refuse to answer ...'.

Is this transformation the only way possible to acquire an understanding of an utterance?

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I get what you're saying, Charlie, but it is also possible to refuse to answer a question by saying something. One might say, for example, I'm not answering that or No comment or It's none of your business.

Exactly! Those are blunt answers. Also rude. And very possibly wise.