4 ms·
There's a list on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_linguistic_example_sentences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_linguistic_example_sen...
by lloeki 3y ago
There's a list on this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_linguistic_example_sentences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_linguistic_example_sen...
The non-english examples section is fun too!
The Czech ambiguity one with 5 words giving 7+ sentence meanings (raising to 58 possible meanings when allowing same syllables but a single word merge) is mind boggling.
I also quite like this punctuation-based one:
Dear John:
I want a man who knows what love is all about. You are generous, kind, thoughtful. People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me for other men. I yearn for you. I have no feelings whatsoever when we’re apart. I can be forever happy–will you let me be yours?
Jane
vs
Dear John,
I want a man who knows what love is. All about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people, who are not like you. Admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me. For other men, I yearn. For you, I have no feelings whatsoever. When we’re apart, I can be forever happy. Will you let me be?
Yours,
Jane
- avip 3y agoNon-English list missing the canonical Hebrew example שלמה שלמה שלמה שלמה שלמה (or maybe it doesn't count because it's based on missing punctuation)
- HenryBemis 3y agoAnd an ancient Greek example - it's all about the 'gap', where you breath/put the comma. ἥξεις ἀφήξεις, οὐκ ἐν πολέμῳ θνήξεις You go you will return, not die in the war. ἥξεις ἀφήξεις οὐκ, ἐν πολέμῳ θνήξεις You go you will return not, die in the war.
- istjohn 3y agoDEAR JOHN I WANT A MAN WHO KNOWS WHAT LOVE IS ALL ABOUT YOU ARE GENEROUS KIND THOUGHTFUL PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT LIKE YOU ADMIT TO BEING USELESS AND INFERIOR YOU HAVE RUINED ME FOR OTHER MEN I YEARN FOR YOU I HAVE NO FEELINGS WHATSOEVER WHEN WERE APART I CAN BE FOREVER HAPPY WILL YOU LET ME BE YOURS JANE
- The_Colonel 3y agoThese examples provide a nice illustration how human language evolution optimizes for most common use cases and basically ignores the worst case scenarios. Quite a bit different from formal languages where even rare worst cases get a lot of attention (or rather they are designed in a way to avoid worst case scenarios at the cost of making the typical scenarios less efficient).