Teacher Discussion Forums

Which of these would you use and why?

spoke to several inmates who had serious problems

spoke to several inmates with serious problems

Where there is no ambiguity, I see the two as interchangeable. Problems can arise with sentences like I photographed the elephant with an expensive digital camera (since when have elephants had digital cameras?) or The policeman shot the gangster with a handgun (who had the handgun?).

Prepositions can be a pain for learners, but not in this instance. (Efficiency rules? One less word innit). Edit: And there's little likelihood of the shorter version being misunderstood (well, not deliberately at least!).

My first example is pretty clear if you use common sense (thought it usually raises a chuckle), but in the second example, is there any way of knowing whether the speaker means "The policeman used a handgun to shoot the gangster" or "The policeman shot the gangster with a handgun as opposed to the one with a rifle"? Context may provide the clues, but there's no guarantee, which is why I advise students to be careful to check that they aren't being ambiguous when they use with.

I would tend to use who had like this with the gangster example.

The policeman who had a handgun shot the gangster.

The policeman shot the gangster who had a handgun.

I feel that here with presents too much ambiguity. The fact is, of course, that usually it doesn't matter whether you use who had or with as someone before pointed out.

spoke to several inmates with serious problems
shot the guy with a/the gun

Hmm...if I shot someone, it would hardly be with a banana (or, if you like, someone with a banana, unless we're talking Monty Python here ), would it, and it would be strange that I'd made no mention of any gun until...ummm...ah yes, a/the GUN! OMG suddenly appeared in my hand; that is, if I shot somebody with a gun (my gun?) that I knew I was already there to be used, I'd be likely to mention the gun beforehand ('I had a gun in my desk...I got it...and shot him/the intruder' - note the ellipsis of 'with it'), thus altering the text and indeed the context along with it.

But hey if the text really has to remain 'I shot the guy with the (?a) gun', I think we can assume that a) I was armed and that b) I was probably being attacked by several people, at least one of whom was also armed with a gun...but you're still welcome to imagine you and/or your attackers running fingers along Deathtrap-like walls lined with a variety of weapons (ranging from bows and arrows to HMGs) before settling on pistol(s) (or, indeed, lead banana-shaped coshes, if you or they prefer); either way, someone gets shot, and at least one gun was present to cause the shooting.

Of course, Fluff, that's why I used the word handgun. There could have been a gangster with a handgun, another with a rifle, another with an Uzi, another wth a Kalashnikov... and I shot the gangster with a handgun, using my trusty bow and arrow. Hence the ambiguity.

But did the policeman use a digital camera to shoot the gangster with a handgun?

Stephen Jones wrote:But did the policeman use a digital camera to shoot the gangster with a handgun?

It was the elephant did it.

metal56 wrote: It was the elephant did it.

So that's where my digital camera went!

lolwhites wrote:

metal56 wrote: It was the elephant did it.

So that's where my digital camera went!

Dumbo goes digital!

lolwhites wrote:Of course, Fluff, that's why I used the word handgun. There could have been a gangster with a handgun, another with a rifle, another with an Uzi, another wth a Kalashnikov... and I shot the gangster with a handgun, using my trusty bow and arrow. Hence the ambiguity.

Yes, but the point I was trying to make was that ambiguity usually only is (remains) a problem with decontextualized sentences; many so-called problems (for students, or really only among linguists?) would soon evaporate if the people asking (posing?) them built up the surrounding discourse - with some actual lines, some co-text, rather than just "directorial asides" - a bit more (i.e. considered not only the (re)phrasing of the sentence but also what, in their own words, might come before and after it). But perhaps that is just what you guys have been doing* and I was the only one unhelpfully twisiting my knickers.

*You have after all mentioned 'shooting an armed assailant with your trusy bow' at least (uh oh, did you or he have the bow and you forgot to mention what you shot him with LOL. See, this continual questioning can seem or get a bit pathological, eh ).