Yesterday I met your brother (while) buying something for his children

[NAL123]

1) Yesterday I met your brother buying something for his children.

Does (1) mean:

2) Yesterday I met your brother while he was buying something for his children.


Is the following correct and does it mean the same as (2)?

3) Yesterday I met your brother, buying something for his children. (with a comma after "brother")

 

[Raymott]

Yes, 1 would generally mean 2. The comma in 3 doesn't belong there.

 

[NAL123]

Yes, 1 would generally mean 2. The comma in 3 doesn't belong there.

One more question:

4) Yesterday I met your brother buying something for my children.

Could it mean:

Yesterday I met your brother while I was buying something for my children.

 

[jutfrank]

One more question:

4) Yesterday I met your brother buying something for my children.

Could it mean:

Yesterday I met your brother while I was buying something for my children.

Not really, no.

(If you really pushed me, I think I'd have to say yes, but for now I think the best answer is no.)

 

[NAL123]

Not really, no.

(If you really pushed me, I think I'd have to say yes, but for now I think the best answer is no.)

But this sentence is okay, right?

Buying something for my children, I met your brother yesterday.

~ Yesterday I met your brother while I was buying something for my children.

 

[jutfrank]

But this sentence is okay, right?

Buying something for my children, I met your brother yesterday.

~ Yesterday I met your brother while I was buying something for my children.

It's clear who was doing the buying, yes.

However, it's not the kind of thing anyone would be likely to say.

 

[PaulMatthews]

1) Yesterday I met your brother buying something for his children.

Does (1) mean:

2) Yesterday I met your brother while he was buying something for his children.


Is the following correct and does it mean the same as (2)?

3) Yesterday I met your brother, buying something for his children. (with a comma after "brother")

[1] Yesterday I met [your brother buying something for his children].


[2] Yesterday I met your brother while he was buying something for his children.

I'd say that the salient interpretation of the underlined clause in [1] is that is a temporal adjunct in clause structure. A case could also be made for it modifying "brother", rather like a relative clause.

In [2] the underlined clause is a temporal location adjunct in clause structure.

 

[NAL123]

[1] Yesterday I met [your brother buying something for his children].


[2] Yesterday I met your brother while he was buying something for his children.

I'd say that the salient interpretation of the underlined clause in [1] is that is a temporal adjunct in clause structure. A case could also be made for it modifying "brother", rather like a relative clause.

In [2] the underlined clause is a temporal location adjunct in clause structure.

What's the difference between a temporal location adjunct and a temporal adjunct?

 

[Tarheel]

NAL_123, you seem more interested in grammar arcana than in natural speech, but here is my latest dialogue.

Mary: I saw your brother yesterday.
Harry: Where?
Mary: Wal-mart.
Harry:What was he doing there?
Mary: He was buying toys for his kids.
Harry: Aren't they old enough to buy their own toys?
Mary: Probably. But he was getting them some Christmas presents.

 

[Tdol]

But this sentence is okay, right?

Not really.

 

[canadalynx]

1)
1) Yesterday I met your brother buying something for his children.

2) Yesterday I met your brother while he was buying something for his children.

4) Yesterday I met your brother buying something for my children.

Could it mean:

Yesterday I met your brother while I was buying something for my children.

I am not a teacher.

I am interested in this thread.
I was told to use 'meet' when you face and talk to someone for the first time.
Is it correct to use 'met' in the sentences (1), (2) and (4) ?

I noticed that Tarheel used 'saw' in lieu of 'met' in the conversation between Mary and Harry.
Is there a difference in choice of verb if :
i) one spots another person without being noticed back;
ii) both spot each other and talk.

Based on sentences (1) and (2), I have the impression that the brother was buying something for his own kids ( The brother's children) where as sentence (4) means the brother was buying something for the speaker's kids. This same sentence doesn't really tell if the speaker was there to buy something for his/her kids.

 

[5jj]

Is it correct to use 'met' in the sentences (1), (2) and (4) ?

Yes.

 

[Tarheel]

Do you really think that if I saw my brother somewhere I would say I spotted him?

 

[canadalynx]

NAL_123, you seem more interested in grammar arcana than in natural speech, but here is my latest dialogue.

Mary: I saw your brother yesterday.
Harry: Where?
Mary: Wal-mart.
Harry:What was he doing there?
Mary: He was buying toys for his kids.
Harry: Aren't they old enough to buy their own toys?
Mary: Probably. But he was getting them some Christmas presents.

I was referring to this conversation.
I wouldn’t use the same verb if it was my own brother.
Why saw and not met in this case?

 

[emsr2d2]

"Met" must include some kind of interaction, such as stopping and speaking to the person. "Saw" could mean that you just saw them and then carried on with what you were doing, with no interaction (and possibly they didn't see you), or that you interacted.

If there was interaction but it was unexpected, I'd say "I bumped into your brother yesterday".

 

[Tarheel]

I was referring to this conversation.
I wouldn’t use the same verb if it was my own brother. Why "saw" and not "met" in this case?

The meeting wasn't prearranged. Context will tell you a great deal. (In this case you could also use "bumped into" or "ran into".)

Language allows for individual variations in speech patterns.