14 ms·

A similar phenomenon, at least in English, is that you can (technically) infinitely embed subclauses without using complementisers ("that", "who" and "which").

A similar phenomenon, at least in English, is that you can (technically) infinitely embed subclauses without using complementisers ("that", "who" and "which"). So you get unparsable things like: The dog the cat the mouse feared loathed barked. ...punctuated and complementised makes it slightly better: The dog, who the cat, who the mouse feared, loathed, barked. ...unwound makes it readable, but changes the semantics subtly but significantly: The mouse feared the cat, who loathed the dog who barked. I say "technically" because there's nothing stopping you from doing this, but in reality, even one level of embedding can be borderline nonsensical (e.g., the "The horse raced past the barn fell" example).

colanderman 11y ago
The dog, who was loathed by the cat whom the mouse feared, barked. Unwound and same meaning as your first and second sentences. Or even simpler: The dog, who was loathed by the cat who was feared by the rat, barked. Come to think of it, this reminds me somewhat of tail-recursion optimization.
Jabbles 11y ago
You can't "technically" do that. Which "rule" (from which rulebook) do you think allows you to arbitrarily repeat structures?
- Xophmeister 11y ago
  There's no rulebook when it comes to syntax (grammar), unless you're a prescriptivist. There is plenty of precedent for embedding subclauses (e.g., "Here is a sentence, that I just made up, which has an embedded subclause."), but -- beyond anecdotal data -- there is no hard cut-off point to how many times you are permitted to embed. Empirically, most people don't like more than one level, but plenty of people allow it; thus it becomes more a function of cerebral load than it does an argument of permitted structures.
  - morgante 11y ago
    If you're arguing over technicalities, you are inherently adopting a prescriptivist approach. There are two possible approaches to your sentence and neither renders it grammatically correct. A prescriptivist would dismiss it as not being allowed by any rules while a descriptivist would point out that it defies both common usage and intelligibility.
    - Natanael_L 11y ago
      I would argue there's a large grey zone. It isn't binary, I'd say it is more of a spectrum between prescriptivism and descriptivism. After all, grammar and syntax isn't fully randomized even if largely arbitary. We make certain choices (even if we aren't aware of it) prescriptively which we try to teach each other (even if we aren't aware of it), and the mixing and noise creates a set of choices in the language actively in use that simply needs to be described for what it is. There's recurring patterns of various sources. And if they allow one sentence to be understood by members of the intended audience that knows the common rules and context and usage well, then that's as valid as it gets. Even if only very few can understand it, the fact that it is possible is enough. A bit like HTML in browsers - there's the written rules and there's what browsers do anyway, and what's valid in real life is whatever gets the point across.
    - Tenhundfeld 11y ago
      I disagree, and FWIW, I find your tone hostile. A prescriptivist would say it follows allowed grammar rules but is still unintelligible. A descriptivist would say it follows common usage patterns but takes it to such an extreme as to be unintelligible. You see this pattern more often with proper names: - That's the house Jack built. - That's the woman the house Jack built fell on. - That's the lawyer the woman the house Jack built fell on hired. - That's the briefcase the lawyer the woman the house Jack built fell on hired carried. At what point does it become "incorrect"? When it becomes unintelligible to most native speakers? It's also worth noting these sentences seem much stranger in writing than they do when heard. In writing, most sane people will use punctuation in the examples above. But in speaking, our tone of voice conveys enough context to use more streamlined structures.
- jclem 11y ago
  This is called center embedding, and it's actually the subject of quite a lot of research. Some of this research has led to a distinction between grammatical (which a sentence like "The cat the rat the dog bit chased escaped" may be) and acceptable (which such a sentence is not). Other research has deemed it agrammatical and unacceptable. Here's a helpful presentation summarizing some of this research: https://depts.washington.edu/lingconf/slides/Bader&Haeussler.pdf https://depts.washington.edu/lingconf/slides/Bader&Haeussler... The sentence the comment the user replied to included parsed with difficulty.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- zodiac 11y ago
  Well, you can go from "The cat meowed" to "The cat the mouse feared meowed" If your claim is that nesting to arbitrary depths is not allowed, what is the maximum depth that is "legal"?
  - xenophonf 11y ago
    My guess is when the parse tree exhausts short term memory. I have no problem reading the sentence with a single nested clause ("the cat the mouse..."), but the one with a doubly nested clause is unreadable ("the dog the cat the mouse..."). Greater nesting levels might be grammatical in an abstract sense but is extremely difficult for people to understand, much like how it's possible to come up with legal C code that results in indeterminate behavior.
- xigency 11y ago
  Probably neither the Chicago manual of style nor my Sunday school grammar book would condone such writing.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
logingone 11y ago
you can ... So you get unparsable things... If it's not parseable, then surely you can't.
- Xophmeister 11y ago
  I meant "unparsable" in the same sense as garden path sentences are unparsable; in that, they are parsable, but you'll probably have to give it a few tries before you get it.
bshimmin 11y ago
Steven Pinker has a nice one of these: The rapidity that the motion that the wing that the hummingbird has has has is remarkable.
taliesinb 11y ago
The ad absurdim example of this phenomenon is the Buffalo buffalo sentence: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buff... Here's a toy Python parser I wrote many years ago actually listing out all valid parses of this sentence: https://github.com/taliesinb/chartreuse/blob/master/README.markdown#examples https://github.com/taliesinb/chartreuse/blob/master/README.m...
prezjordan 11y ago
This is why I love Lisp so much.
hcrisp 11y ago
Another example which I have heard is: Throw the cow over the fence some hay. It also reminds me of the sentence that wins the award for ending in the most prepositions: What did you bring that book that I didn't want to be read to out of up for?
- XaspR8d 11y ago
  I love that example! But I don't think it won any awards, because it's fairly easy to extend. > What did you take the car driving the man who brought the book that I didn't want to be read to out of up away in for? Almost-untangled form: > For what reason did you take in the car driven away by the man who brought up the book that I did not want anyone to read words out of [the book] to me? Although if you are being very specific, I think some syntacticians might treat the "out" in "out of" and the "up" in "bring up" as a different word classes than normal prepositions (the "out" is modifying another preposition's direction, and the "up" is a particle in a phrasal verb [1]). And I think that's one of the reasons the original form is so compelling is that you have some variance in form giving you clues -- the directional modifier, the question-inversion/wh-fronting, the salience of "bring up" -- that make it tantalizingly close to natural. Whereas mine just becomes a churn of words, at least in my reading. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrasal_verb#Examples_of_Phrasal_Verb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrasal_verb#Examples_of_Phras... (see the notes on distinguishing between particle & prepositional phrasals)

colanderman 11y ago

The dog, who was loathed by the cat whom the mouse feared, barked. Unwound and same meaning as your first and second sentences. Or even simpler: The dog, who was loathed by the cat who was feared by the rat, barked. Come to think of it, this reminds me somewhat of tail-recursion optimization.

Jabbles 11y ago

You can't "technically" do that. Which "rule" (from which rulebook) do you think allows you to arbitrarily repeat structures?

Xophmeister 11y ago
There's no rulebook when it comes to syntax (grammar), unless you're a prescriptivist. There is plenty of precedent for embedding subclauses (e.g., "Here is a sentence, that I just made up, which has an embedded subclause."), but -- beyond anecdotal data -- there is no hard cut-off point to how many times you are permitted to embed. Empirically, most people don't like more than one level, but plenty of people allow it; thus it becomes more a function of cerebral load than it does an argument of permitted structures.
- morgante 11y ago
  If you're arguing over technicalities, you are inherently adopting a prescriptivist approach. There are two possible approaches to your sentence and neither renders it grammatically correct. A prescriptivist would dismiss it as not being allowed by any rules while a descriptivist would point out that it defies both common usage and intelligibility.
  - Natanael_L 11y ago
    I would argue there's a large grey zone. It isn't binary, I'd say it is more of a spectrum between prescriptivism and descriptivism. After all, grammar and syntax isn't fully randomized even if largely arbitary. We make certain choices (even if we aren't aware of it) prescriptively which we try to teach each other (even if we aren't aware of it), and the mixing and noise creates a set of choices in the language actively in use that simply needs to be described for what it is. There's recurring patterns of various sources. And if they allow one sentence to be understood by members of the intended audience that knows the common rules and context and usage well, then that's as valid as it gets. Even if only very few can understand it, the fact that it is possible is enough. A bit like HTML in browsers - there's the written rules and there's what browsers do anyway, and what's valid in real life is whatever gets the point across.
  - Tenhundfeld 11y ago
    I disagree, and FWIW, I find your tone hostile. A prescriptivist would say it follows allowed grammar rules but is still unintelligible. A descriptivist would say it follows common usage patterns but takes it to such an extreme as to be unintelligible. You see this pattern more often with proper names: - That's the house Jack built. - That's the woman the house Jack built fell on. - That's the lawyer the woman the house Jack built fell on hired. - That's the briefcase the lawyer the woman the house Jack built fell on hired carried. At what point does it become "incorrect"? When it becomes unintelligible to most native speakers? It's also worth noting these sentences seem much stranger in writing than they do when heard. In writing, most sane people will use punctuation in the examples above. But in speaking, our tone of voice conveys enough context to use more streamlined structures.
jclem 11y ago
This is called center embedding, and it's actually the subject of quite a lot of research. Some of this research has led to a distinction between grammatical (which a sentence like "The cat the rat the dog bit chased escaped" may be) and acceptable (which such a sentence is not). Other research has deemed it agrammatical and unacceptable. Here's a helpful presentation summarizing some of this research: https://depts.washington.edu/lingconf/slides/Bader&Haeussler.pdf https://depts.washington.edu/lingconf/slides/Bader&Haeussler... The sentence the comment the user replied to included parsed with difficulty.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
zodiac 11y ago
Well, you can go from "The cat meowed" to "The cat the mouse feared meowed" If your claim is that nesting to arbitrary depths is not allowed, what is the maximum depth that is "legal"?
- xenophonf 11y ago
  My guess is when the parse tree exhausts short term memory. I have no problem reading the sentence with a single nested clause ("the cat the mouse..."), but the one with a doubly nested clause is unreadable ("the dog the cat the mouse..."). Greater nesting levels might be grammatical in an abstract sense but is extremely difficult for people to understand, much like how it's possible to come up with legal C code that results in indeterminate behavior.
xigency 11y ago
Probably neither the Chicago manual of style nor my Sunday school grammar book would condone such writing.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

logingone 11y ago

you can ... So you get unparsable things... If it's not parseable, then surely you can't.

Xophmeister 11y ago
I meant "unparsable" in the same sense as garden path sentences are unparsable; in that, they are parsable, but you'll probably have to give it a few tries before you get it.

bshimmin 11y ago

Steven Pinker has a nice one of these: The rapidity that the motion that the wing that the hummingbird has has has is remarkable.

taliesinb 11y ago

The ad absurdim example of this phenomenon is the Buffalo buffalo sentence: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buff... Here's a toy Python parser I wrote many years ago actually listing out all valid parses of this sentence: https://github.com/taliesinb/chartreuse/blob/master/README.markdown#examples https://github.com/taliesinb/chartreuse/blob/master/README.m...

prezjordan 11y ago

This is why I love Lisp so much.

hcrisp 11y ago

Another example which I have heard is: Throw the cow over the fence some hay. It also reminds me of the sentence that wins the award for ending in the most prepositions: What did you bring that book that I didn't want to be read to out of up for?

XaspR8d 11y ago
I love that example! But I don't think it won any awards, because it's fairly easy to extend. > What did you take the car driving the man who brought the book that I didn't want to be read to out of up away in for? Almost-untangled form: > For what reason did you take in the car driven away by the man who brought up the book that I did not want anyone to read words out of [the book] to me? Although if you are being very specific, I think some syntacticians might treat the "out" in "out of" and the "up" in "bring up" as a different word classes than normal prepositions (the "out" is modifying another preposition's direction, and the "up" is a particle in a phrasal verb [1]). And I think that's one of the reasons the original form is so compelling is that you have some variance in form giving you clues -- the directional modifier, the question-inversion/wh-fronting, the salience of "bring up" -- that make it tantalizingly close to natural. Whereas mine just becomes a churn of words, at least in my reading. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrasal_verb#Examples_of_Phrasal_Verb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrasal_verb#Examples_of_Phras... (see the notes on distinguishing between particle & prepositional phrasals)