SS/PS question

Carol justcarol67 at yahoo.com
Wed Aug 6 21:05:39 UTC 2008


Potioncat:
> English is such a precise language. ;-)
> 
> I've noticed a trend. Most have said that they thought in-his-hand 
> modified caught until the alternative was offered and they thought 
> about it. I'd say, go with the first impression. The suggestion 
> instiled doubt and some things don't do well with too much thought.
> 
> But, having given it too much thought, this is what I think. The
important thing is that he "caught" the small item, not the small item
itself. The 50 foot dive also describes the quality of the catching.
<snip>
> If Harry had caught some wee dark creature and McGonagall wanted to 
> show it to Quirrell, then  "He caught that thing-in-his-hand (after
a 50 foot dive)" would be a reasonable interpretation. But in the case
of the rememberall, I think  "in his hand" refers to caught.
>
Carol:
Oh, well. I still think that he caught "that thing in his hand" (the
Remembrall), not that he caught "that thing" (the Remembrall) "in" his
hand. ("With" would be more idiomatic and would eliminate the
ambiguity.) Just goes to show what a slippery thing the English
language is. Sometimes, commas can clear up ambiguity, but, in this
case, there's no place to put them.

I agree that the fifty-foot dive refers to the spectacular nature of
the catch, but I think it's also necessary to indicate what, exactly,
Harry caught, with "that thing in his hand" giving a (slightly) more
precise indication of what he caught than "that thing" used without a
qualifier. ("What thing?" Wood is likely to ask unless McG is pointing
to Harry's hand.)

Carol, who would have queried the sentence, suggesting "that
Remembrall he's holding" in place of "that thing in his hand" to
eliminate ambiguity (or "with" for "in" if she intended the phrase to
modify "caught")





More information about the HPFGU-OTChatter archive