Mixing
“Why does paper cut so well?â€, ambiguous question?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
I have posted a question titled "Why does paper cut so well?" (on the Physics stack exchange). After a while, I noticed that over 40 people understood the question as "Why is it so easy to cut paper (with a pair of scissors)?". But what I meant was that it was easy to cut things with paper, paper being the cutting material. So I edited the question to make it more explicit.
I am not a native English speaker, and I completely missed the ambiguity. And now that I know about it, even if I force myself, I am unable to understand the question "Why does paper cut so well?" as "Why is it so easy to cut through paper?". I would understand if the question was "How can paper be cut so well?". So using "to be cut" as opposed to "to cut".
I wonder what I am missing. How is it possible to understand the question that way?
phrase-meaning ambiguity sentence-meaning
asked 1 hour ago
coniferous_smellerULPBG-W8ZgjR
1312
New contributor
coniferous_smellerULPBG-W8ZgjR is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
I have posted a question titled "Why does paper cut so well?" (on the Physics stack exchange). After a while, I noticed that over 40 people understood the question as "Why is it so easy to cut paper (with a pair of scissors)?". But what I meant was that it was easy to cut things with paper, paper being the cutting material. So I edited the question to make it more explicit.
I am not a native English speaker, and I completely missed the ambiguity. And now that I know about it, even if I force myself, I am unable to understand the question "Why does paper cut so well?" as "Why is it so easy to cut through paper?". I would understand if the question was "How can paper be cut so well?". So using "to be cut" as opposed to "to cut".
I wonder what I am missing. How is it possible to understand the question that way?
phrase-meaning ambiguity sentence-meaning
asked 1 hour ago
coniferous_smellerULPBG-W8ZgjR
1312
New contributor
coniferous_smellerULPBG-W8ZgjR is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
If it's any consolation I actually read it the way you intended when I first read it. It immediately made me wonder about paper cuts. So, I'm also at a bit of a loss as to why you would find that people understood paper as the material to be cut and not the material that would do the cutting.
– psosuna
1 hour ago
@psosuna I also asked on IRC, and about half the people understood it either way. So it was split there too.
– coniferous_smellerULPBG-W8ZgjR
1 hour ago
Oh, funny, I didn't even think of the second interpretation, having seen the original title on the HNQ.
– Azor Ahai
1 hour ago
I would have thought the second meaning would be expressed by 'why is paper cut so easily? ' I immediately accepted your own meaning relating to paper-cuts on skin.
– Nigel J
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
I have posted a question titled "Why does paper cut so well?" (on the Physics stack exchange). After a while, I noticed that over 40 people understood the question as "Why is it so easy to cut paper (with a pair of scissors)?". But what I meant was that it was easy to cut things with paper, paper being the cutting material. So I edited the question to make it more explicit.
I am not a native English speaker, and I completely missed the ambiguity. And now that I know about it, even if I force myself, I am unable to understand the question "Why does paper cut so well?" as "Why is it so easy to cut through paper?". I would understand if the question was "How can paper be cut so well?". So using "to be cut" as opposed to "to cut".
I wonder what I am missing. How is it possible to understand the question that way?
phrase-meaning ambiguity sentence-meaning
asked 1 hour ago
coniferous_smellerULPBG-W8ZgjR
1312
New contributor
coniferous_smellerULPBG-W8ZgjR is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I have posted a question titled "Why does paper cut so well?" (on the Physics stack exchange). After a while, I noticed that over 40 people understood the question as "Why is it so easy to cut paper (with a pair of scissors)?". But what I meant was that it was easy to cut things with paper, paper being the cutting material. So I edited the question to make it more explicit.
I am not a native English speaker, and I completely missed the ambiguity. And now that I know about it, even if I force myself, I am unable to understand the question "Why does paper cut so well?" as "Why is it so easy to cut through paper?". I would understand if the question was "How can paper be cut so well?". So using "to be cut" as opposed to "to cut".
I wonder what I am missing. How is it possible to understand the question that way?
phrase-meaning ambiguity sentence-meaning
phrase-meaning ambiguity sentence-meaning
asked 1 hour ago
coniferous_smellerULPBG-W8ZgjR
1312
New contributor
coniferous_smellerULPBG-W8ZgjR is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 1 hour ago
coniferous_smellerULPBG-W8ZgjR
1312
New contributor
coniferous_smellerULPBG-W8ZgjR is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 1 hour ago
coniferous_smellerULPBG-W8ZgjR
1312
New contributor
coniferous_smellerULPBG-W8ZgjR is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 1 hour ago
coniferous_smellerULPBG-W8ZgjR
1312
asked 1 hour ago
coniferous_smellerULPBG-W8ZgjR
1312
1312
New contributor
coniferous_smellerULPBG-W8ZgjR is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
coniferous_smellerULPBG-W8ZgjR is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
coniferous_smellerULPBG-W8ZgjR is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
If it's any consolation I actually read it the way you intended when I first read it. It immediately made me wonder about paper cuts. So, I'm also at a bit of a loss as to why you would find that people understood paper as the material to be cut and not the material that would do the cutting.
– psosuna
1 hour ago
@psosuna I also asked on IRC, and about half the people understood it either way. So it was split there too.
– coniferous_smellerULPBG-W8ZgjR
1 hour ago
Oh, funny, I didn't even think of the second interpretation, having seen the original title on the HNQ.
– Azor Ahai
1 hour ago
I would have thought the second meaning would be expressed by 'why is paper cut so easily? ' I immediately accepted your own meaning relating to paper-cuts on skin.
– Nigel J
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
If it's any consolation I actually read it the way you intended when I first read it. It immediately made me wonder about paper cuts. So, I'm also at a bit of a loss as to why you would find that people understood paper as the material to be cut and not the material that would do the cutting.
– psosuna
1 hour ago
@psosuna I also asked on IRC, and about half the people understood it either way. So it was split there too.
– coniferous_smellerULPBG-W8ZgjR
1 hour ago
Oh, funny, I didn't even think of the second interpretation, having seen the original title on the HNQ.
– Azor Ahai
1 hour ago
I would have thought the second meaning would be expressed by 'why is paper cut so easily? ' I immediately accepted your own meaning relating to paper-cuts on skin.
– Nigel J
1 hour ago
If it's any consolation I actually read it the way you intended when I first read it. It immediately made me wonder about paper cuts. So, I'm also at a bit of a loss as to why you would find that people understood paper as the material to be cut and not the material that would do the cutting.
– psosuna
1 hour ago
If it's any consolation I actually read it the way you intended when I first read it. It immediately made me wonder about paper cuts. So, I'm also at a bit of a loss as to why you would find that people understood paper as the material to be cut and not the material that would do the cutting.
– psosuna
1 hour ago
@psosuna I also asked on IRC, and about half the people understood it either way. So it was split there too.
– coniferous_smellerULPBG-W8ZgjR
1 hour ago
@psosuna I also asked on IRC, and about half the people understood it either way. So it was split there too.
– coniferous_smellerULPBG-W8ZgjR
1 hour ago
Oh, funny, I didn't even think of the second interpretation, having seen the original title on the HNQ.
– Azor Ahai
1 hour ago
Oh, funny, I didn't even think of the second interpretation, having seen the original title on the HNQ.
– Azor Ahai
1 hour ago
I would have thought the second meaning would be expressed by 'why is paper cut so easily? ' I immediately accepted your own meaning relating to paper-cuts on skin.
– Nigel J
1 hour ago
I would have thought the second meaning would be expressed by 'why is paper cut so easily? ' I immediately accepted your own meaning relating to paper-cuts on skin.
– Nigel J
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
This kind of construction has been called an "internal argument as subject" construction, but is more broadly known as a "middle construction," as in between active and passive. It strikes me as not particularly unusual, if maybe a little bit literary.
For example, from Massam (1991), where "_" marks the empty structural object:
This article analyses middle constructions in English, accounting for their
key syntactic and semantic properties. The analysis rests on the observation
that there are certain similarities between middle, tough and recipe-context
null-object constructions, such as in (ia-c).
(i) (a) This bread cuts _ easily.
(b) This bread is easy to cut _.
(c) Take bread. Cut _ carefully (and arrange _ nicely).
Here are some more examples of IASCs, from the same article:
(7) (a) The brown bread cuts easily.
(b) This blouse washes like a dream.
(c) The soup that eats like a meal. (Campbell's advertisement)
From the author's conclusion, which I will attempt to summarize at the end:
In this way, middles
are claimed to ... involve non-thematic chains which are licensed by being co-indexed with a chain which does receive a theta-role [and to] involve empty reflexives which do not arise via Move-α
but which are base-generated. ... The view of middles utilized here is one which considers their defining
property to consist of an element of modality which appears in INFL and
which is usually further spelled out by an overt adverbial or modal element.
It is this element which is able (universally) to license a non-thematic subject
which serves to identify a null object.
In other words, the author of the paper suggests not that "paper" moves from the object position to the subject, but rather the presence of an adverbial like "well" or "easily" (or a modal*) allows for the use of a patient** as a structural subject in an English middle construction.
After all, it would be odd to say "?Paper cuts" to mean "Paper is cuttable."
So in other words, the fact that you want to say something like "You can cut paper easily" allows you to instead say the English sentence "Paper cuts easily," which is indeed ambiguous with "Paper cuts [other things] easily."
That some people analyzed your title as one or the other depends on the fact that paper is both cut often and cuts people frequently (after all, we have the word "paper cut"), and it just depends on which association came to mind more easily for each person.
For example, me, and other people who interpreted your sentence as "paper is easy to cut" might have been thinking about scissors gliding through paper.
* An example of a modal licensing middle construction is "This blouse won't wash" (p. 126, example 27.f).
** In linguistics, the patient is the recipient of the action of the verb, as in "Mary cuts the paper."
Citations:
Massam, D. (1992). Null objects and non-thematic subjects. Journal of Linguistics, 28(01), 115. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700015012
answered 23 mins ago
Azor Ahai
3,07121132
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
It might have to do with the describing construction that exists in English in the form of:
Object + Applicable action + adjective
In this case, let me change the verb cut to shred.
Consider this passage, then:
Paper shreds well. Glass, however, doesn't. It shatters before it can be shred, when run through a shredder.
Here, it's not very ambiguous that we're talking about the property of the materials paper and glass, and their degree of ability to be shred. However, the context necessary for the passage to be understood that way is present.
If the passage were just:
Paper shreds well. Glass, however, doesn't.
...then it is a bit more ambiguous. Logically speaking, paper as a material is not a worthwhile material to do any shredding, whereas glass would, so logically this doesn't make sense. Therefore, the other sense needs to be taken into account, to make logical sense of what's being said.
It's likely that whoever mistook your context for the other context didn't immediately think credible that paper would be the cutting agent and not the material that is being cut.
answered 1 hour ago
psosuna
1,580314
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
This kind of construction has been called an "internal argument as subject" construction, but is more broadly known as a "middle construction," as in between active and passive. It strikes me as not particularly unusual, if maybe a little bit literary.
For example, from Massam (1991), where "_" marks the empty structural object:
This article analyses middle constructions in English, accounting for their
key syntactic and semantic properties. The analysis rests on the observation
that there are certain similarities between middle, tough and recipe-context
null-object constructions, such as in (ia-c).
(i) (a) This bread cuts _ easily.
(b) This bread is easy to cut _.
(c) Take bread. Cut _ carefully (and arrange _ nicely).
Here are some more examples of IASCs, from the same article:
(7) (a) The brown bread cuts easily.
(b) This blouse washes like a dream.
(c) The soup that eats like a meal. (Campbell's advertisement)
From the author's conclusion, which I will attempt to summarize at the end:
In this way, middles
are claimed to ... involve non-thematic chains which are licensed by being co-indexed with a chain which does receive a theta-role [and to] involve empty reflexives which do not arise via Move-α
but which are base-generated. ... The view of middles utilized here is one which considers their defining
property to consist of an element of modality which appears in INFL and
which is usually further spelled out by an overt adverbial or modal element.
It is this element which is able (universally) to license a non-thematic subject
which serves to identify a null object.
In other words, the author of the paper suggests not that "paper" moves from the object position to the subject, but rather the presence of an adverbial like "well" or "easily" (or a modal*) allows for the use of a patient** as a structural subject in an English middle construction.
After all, it would be odd to say "?Paper cuts" to mean "Paper is cuttable."
So in other words, the fact that you want to say something like "You can cut paper easily" allows you to instead say the English sentence "Paper cuts easily," which is indeed ambiguous with "Paper cuts [other things] easily."
That some people analyzed your title as one or the other depends on the fact that paper is both cut often and cuts people frequently (after all, we have the word "paper cut"), and it just depends on which association came to mind more easily for each person.
For example, me, and other people who interpreted your sentence as "paper is easy to cut" might have been thinking about scissors gliding through paper.
* An example of a modal licensing middle construction is "This blouse won't wash" (p. 126, example 27.f).
** In linguistics, the patient is the recipient of the action of the verb, as in "Mary cuts the paper."
Citations:
Massam, D. (1992). Null objects and non-thematic subjects. Journal of Linguistics, 28(01), 115. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700015012
answered 23 mins ago
Azor Ahai
3,07121132
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
This kind of construction has been called an "internal argument as subject" construction, but is more broadly known as a "middle construction," as in between active and passive. It strikes me as not particularly unusual, if maybe a little bit literary.
For example, from Massam (1991), where "_" marks the empty structural object:
This article analyses middle constructions in English, accounting for their
key syntactic and semantic properties. The analysis rests on the observation
that there are certain similarities between middle, tough and recipe-context
null-object constructions, such as in (ia-c).
(i) (a) This bread cuts _ easily.
(b) This bread is easy to cut _.
(c) Take bread. Cut _ carefully (and arrange _ nicely).
Here are some more examples of IASCs, from the same article:
(7) (a) The brown bread cuts easily.
(b) This blouse washes like a dream.
(c) The soup that eats like a meal. (Campbell's advertisement)
From the author's conclusion, which I will attempt to summarize at the end:
In this way, middles
are claimed to ... involve non-thematic chains which are licensed by being co-indexed with a chain which does receive a theta-role [and to] involve empty reflexives which do not arise via Move-α
but which are base-generated. ... The view of middles utilized here is one which considers their defining
property to consist of an element of modality which appears in INFL and
which is usually further spelled out by an overt adverbial or modal element.
It is this element which is able (universally) to license a non-thematic subject
which serves to identify a null object.
In other words, the author of the paper suggests not that "paper" moves from the object position to the subject, but rather the presence of an adverbial like "well" or "easily" (or a modal*) allows for the use of a patient** as a structural subject in an English middle construction.
After all, it would be odd to say "?Paper cuts" to mean "Paper is cuttable."
So in other words, the fact that you want to say something like "You can cut paper easily" allows you to instead say the English sentence "Paper cuts easily," which is indeed ambiguous with "Paper cuts [other things] easily."
That some people analyzed your title as one or the other depends on the fact that paper is both cut often and cuts people frequently (after all, we have the word "paper cut"), and it just depends on which association came to mind more easily for each person.
For example, me, and other people who interpreted your sentence as "paper is easy to cut" might have been thinking about scissors gliding through paper.
* An example of a modal licensing middle construction is "This blouse won't wash" (p. 126, example 27.f).
** In linguistics, the patient is the recipient of the action of the verb, as in "Mary cuts the paper."
Citations:
Massam, D. (1992). Null objects and non-thematic subjects. Journal of Linguistics, 28(01), 115. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700015012
answered 23 mins ago
Azor Ahai
3,07121132
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
This kind of construction has been called an "internal argument as subject" construction, but is more broadly known as a "middle construction," as in between active and passive. It strikes me as not particularly unusual, if maybe a little bit literary.
For example, from Massam (1991), where "_" marks the empty structural object:
This article analyses middle constructions in English, accounting for their
key syntactic and semantic properties. The analysis rests on the observation
that there are certain similarities between middle, tough and recipe-context
null-object constructions, such as in (ia-c).
(i) (a) This bread cuts _ easily.
(b) This bread is easy to cut _.
(c) Take bread. Cut _ carefully (and arrange _ nicely).
Here are some more examples of IASCs, from the same article:
(7) (a) The brown bread cuts easily.
(b) This blouse washes like a dream.
(c) The soup that eats like a meal. (Campbell's advertisement)
From the author's conclusion, which I will attempt to summarize at the end:
In this way, middles
are claimed to ... involve non-thematic chains which are licensed by being co-indexed with a chain which does receive a theta-role [and to] involve empty reflexives which do not arise via Move-α
but which are base-generated. ... The view of middles utilized here is one which considers their defining
property to consist of an element of modality which appears in INFL and
which is usually further spelled out by an overt adverbial or modal element.
It is this element which is able (universally) to license a non-thematic subject
which serves to identify a null object.
In other words, the author of the paper suggests not that "paper" moves from the object position to the subject, but rather the presence of an adverbial like "well" or "easily" (or a modal*) allows for the use of a patient** as a structural subject in an English middle construction.
After all, it would be odd to say "?Paper cuts" to mean "Paper is cuttable."
So in other words, the fact that you want to say something like "You can cut paper easily" allows you to instead say the English sentence "Paper cuts easily," which is indeed ambiguous with "Paper cuts [other things] easily."
That some people analyzed your title as one or the other depends on the fact that paper is both cut often and cuts people frequently (after all, we have the word "paper cut"), and it just depends on which association came to mind more easily for each person.
For example, me, and other people who interpreted your sentence as "paper is easy to cut" might have been thinking about scissors gliding through paper.
* An example of a modal licensing middle construction is "This blouse won't wash" (p. 126, example 27.f).
** In linguistics, the patient is the recipient of the action of the verb, as in "Mary cuts the paper."
Citations:
Massam, D. (1992). Null objects and non-thematic subjects. Journal of Linguistics, 28(01), 115. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700015012
answered 23 mins ago
Azor Ahai
3,07121132
This kind of construction has been called an "internal argument as subject" construction, but is more broadly known as a "middle construction," as in between active and passive. It strikes me as not particularly unusual, if maybe a little bit literary.
For example, from Massam (1991), where "_" marks the empty structural object:
This article analyses middle constructions in English, accounting for their
key syntactic and semantic properties. The analysis rests on the observation
that there are certain similarities between middle, tough and recipe-context
null-object constructions, such as in (ia-c).
(i) (a) This bread cuts _ easily.
(b) This bread is easy to cut _.
(c) Take bread. Cut _ carefully (and arrange _ nicely).
Here are some more examples of IASCs, from the same article:
(7) (a) The brown bread cuts easily.
(b) This blouse washes like a dream.
(c) The soup that eats like a meal. (Campbell's advertisement)
From the author's conclusion, which I will attempt to summarize at the end:
In this way, middles
are claimed to ... involve non-thematic chains which are licensed by being co-indexed with a chain which does receive a theta-role [and to] involve empty reflexives which do not arise via Move-α
but which are base-generated. ... The view of middles utilized here is one which considers their defining
property to consist of an element of modality which appears in INFL and
which is usually further spelled out by an overt adverbial or modal element.
It is this element which is able (universally) to license a non-thematic subject
which serves to identify a null object.
In other words, the author of the paper suggests not that "paper" moves from the object position to the subject, but rather the presence of an adverbial like "well" or "easily" (or a modal*) allows for the use of a patient** as a structural subject in an English middle construction.
After all, it would be odd to say "?Paper cuts" to mean "Paper is cuttable."
So in other words, the fact that you want to say something like "You can cut paper easily" allows you to instead say the English sentence "Paper cuts easily," which is indeed ambiguous with "Paper cuts [other things] easily."
That some people analyzed your title as one or the other depends on the fact that paper is both cut often and cuts people frequently (after all, we have the word "paper cut"), and it just depends on which association came to mind more easily for each person.
For example, me, and other people who interpreted your sentence as "paper is easy to cut" might have been thinking about scissors gliding through paper.
* An example of a modal licensing middle construction is "This blouse won't wash" (p. 126, example 27.f).
** In linguistics, the patient is the recipient of the action of the verb, as in "Mary cuts the paper."
Citations:
Massam, D. (1992). Null objects and non-thematic subjects. Journal of Linguistics, 28(01), 115. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700015012
answered 23 mins ago
Azor Ahai
3,07121132
answered 23 mins ago
Azor Ahai
3,07121132
answered 23 mins ago
Azor Ahai
3,07121132
answered 23 mins ago
Azor Ahai
3,07121132
3,07121132
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
It might have to do with the describing construction that exists in English in the form of:
Object + Applicable action + adjective
In this case, let me change the verb cut to shred.
Consider this passage, then:
Paper shreds well. Glass, however, doesn't. It shatters before it can be shred, when run through a shredder.
Here, it's not very ambiguous that we're talking about the property of the materials paper and glass, and their degree of ability to be shred. However, the context necessary for the passage to be understood that way is present.
If the passage were just:
Paper shreds well. Glass, however, doesn't.
...then it is a bit more ambiguous. Logically speaking, paper as a material is not a worthwhile material to do any shredding, whereas glass would, so logically this doesn't make sense. Therefore, the other sense needs to be taken into account, to make logical sense of what's being said.
It's likely that whoever mistook your context for the other context didn't immediately think credible that paper would be the cutting agent and not the material that is being cut.
answered 1 hour ago
psosuna
1,580314
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
It might have to do with the describing construction that exists in English in the form of:
Object + Applicable action + adjective
In this case, let me change the verb cut to shred.
Consider this passage, then:
Paper shreds well. Glass, however, doesn't. It shatters before it can be shred, when run through a shredder.
Here, it's not very ambiguous that we're talking about the property of the materials paper and glass, and their degree of ability to be shred. However, the context necessary for the passage to be understood that way is present.
If the passage were just:
Paper shreds well. Glass, however, doesn't.
...then it is a bit more ambiguous. Logically speaking, paper as a material is not a worthwhile material to do any shredding, whereas glass would, so logically this doesn't make sense. Therefore, the other sense needs to be taken into account, to make logical sense of what's being said.
It's likely that whoever mistook your context for the other context didn't immediately think credible that paper would be the cutting agent and not the material that is being cut.
answered 1 hour ago
psosuna
1,580314
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
It might have to do with the describing construction that exists in English in the form of:
Object + Applicable action + adjective
In this case, let me change the verb cut to shred.
Consider this passage, then:
Paper shreds well. Glass, however, doesn't. It shatters before it can be shred, when run through a shredder.
Here, it's not very ambiguous that we're talking about the property of the materials paper and glass, and their degree of ability to be shred. However, the context necessary for the passage to be understood that way is present.
If the passage were just:
Paper shreds well. Glass, however, doesn't.
...then it is a bit more ambiguous. Logically speaking, paper as a material is not a worthwhile material to do any shredding, whereas glass would, so logically this doesn't make sense. Therefore, the other sense needs to be taken into account, to make logical sense of what's being said.
It's likely that whoever mistook your context for the other context didn't immediately think credible that paper would be the cutting agent and not the material that is being cut.
answered 1 hour ago
psosuna
1,580314
It might have to do with the describing construction that exists in English in the form of:
Object + Applicable action + adjective
In this case, let me change the verb cut to shred.
Consider this passage, then:
Paper shreds well. Glass, however, doesn't. It shatters before it can be shred, when run through a shredder.
Here, it's not very ambiguous that we're talking about the property of the materials paper and glass, and their degree of ability to be shred. However, the context necessary for the passage to be understood that way is present.
If the passage were just:
Paper shreds well. Glass, however, doesn't.
...then it is a bit more ambiguous. Logically speaking, paper as a material is not a worthwhile material to do any shredding, whereas glass would, so logically this doesn't make sense. Therefore, the other sense needs to be taken into account, to make logical sense of what's being said.
It's likely that whoever mistook your context for the other context didn't immediately think credible that paper would be the cutting agent and not the material that is being cut.
answered 1 hour ago
psosuna
1,580314
answered 1 hour ago
psosuna
1,580314
answered 1 hour ago
psosuna
1,580314
answered 1 hour ago
psosuna
1,580314
1,580314
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
coniferous_smellerULPBG-W8ZgjR is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
coniferous_smellerULPBG-W8ZgjR is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
coniferous_smellerULPBG-W8ZgjR is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
coniferous_smellerULPBG-W8ZgjR is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f464223%2fwhy-does-paper-cut-so-well-ambiguous-question%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
If it's any consolation I actually read it the way you intended when I first read it. It immediately made me wonder about paper cuts. So, I'm also at a bit of a loss as to why you would find that people understood paper as the material to be cut and not the material that would do the cutting.
– psosuna
1 hour ago
@psosuna I also asked on IRC, and about half the people understood it either way. So it was split there too.
– coniferous_smellerULPBG-W8ZgjR
1 hour ago
Oh, funny, I didn't even think of the second interpretation, having seen the original title on the HNQ.
– Azor Ahai
1 hour ago
I would have thought the second meaning would be expressed by 'why is paper cut so easily? ' I immediately accepted your own meaning relating to paper-cuts on skin.
– Nigel J
1 hour ago