3 ms·
But is it even an error? You are parsing it as a single list, but it could just as well be parsed as "subj ((is {a,b}) and vp-predicate)". I guess you could a
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
But is it even an error? You are parsing it as a single list, but it could just as well be parsed as "subj ((is {a,b}) and vp-predicate)".
I guess you could argue that the first list needs an "and"? That's fair I suppose.
- sowbug 8mo ago(We have descended into one of the deeper circles of grammar hell. I will remind you that you're free to leave at any time.) Yes, exactly. English grammar actually doesn't require the "and" to end a list (leaving it out is called "asyndeton" if you're curious). A good example is Lincoln's Gettysburg Address: "... and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." So after all this, there actually is a way to analyze the example that is strictly valid. But most people would look askance at the standalone sentence "This product is fast, lightweight." That is, I suppose, unless someone like Abraham Lincoln worked it into his next speech.
- MarkusQ 8mo agoWell, if we're going by what "most people would accept" we should probably allow: * This product is fast/lightweight. * This product is fast. Lightweight. But yeah, this way lies madness. Unless we passed somewhere it in the dark back there.