He preferred eating beef, raw and salty.

< Previous | Next >

Curiosity777

Senior Member
Korean
He preferred eating beef, raw and salty. (I made this sentence because I couldn't find similar sentences)

What does this sentence mean?

  1. He preferred eating beef that is raw and salty.
  2. He preferred eating beef in the way beef is raw and salty.
  3. 1 or 2 according to context.
I would choose 3 because we can see "raw and salty" as an adjectival group to simply modify "beef" or see "raw and salty" as an adjectival group as well as used to express the way or manner of his eating beef.
 
  • Rigardo Lee

    Senior Member
    Hello, another fellow Korean.

    #2 was the first interpretation that I made when I first read it.

    I think separating adjectives from the main sentence strongly suggests how it's cooked, not the status of the steak.
     
    Last edited:

    LVRBC

    Senior Member
    English-US, standard and medical
    Idiomatic English for what you seem to be trying to say is:
    "He liked to eat raw salted beef."
     

    Curiosity777

    Senior Member
    Korean
    Hello, another fellow Korean.

    #2 was the first interpretation that I made when I first read it.

    I think separating adjectives from the main sentence strongly suggests how it's cooked, not the status of the steak.
    Hi, this was my first interpretation as well, but on second thought, I've found out it does not make any sense.
    "raw and salty" would just simply modify the status of "beef" but cannot be used to express the result status by his way or manner of eating beef.
    This mis-interpretation would have caused by these words "want and prefer" because, as you might already know, these verbs seem to be possible to be interpreted in either way as I said in #1, but I'm still not sure whether my guess would be correct.
     

    boozer

    Senior Member
    Bulgarian
    #2 was the first interpretation that I made when I first read it.
    Grassy told you that definition #2 in the original post is basically meaningless - it cannot be an interpretation of anything because it is not normal English... It does not reflect the manner in which beef was cooked or anything else, for that matter.

    He preferred eating beef in the way beef is raw and salty. :confused:
     

    boozer

    Senior Member
    Bulgarian
    As regards the original sentence
    He preferred eating beef, raw and salty.
    I think it is only grammatically ambiguous in the following way:
    1. He preferred eating beef (as opposed to other meats)
    2. (Because/when) he was raw and salty :D

    or, as common sense would have me invariably assume

    1a. He preferred eating beef (as opposed to other meats)
    2a. He also preferred his beef raw and salty

    Edit: of course, far more confusing sentences are possible, e.g. He preferred eating beef, high and mighty. :D
     

    Curiosity777

    Senior Member
    Korean
    2a. He also preferred his beef raw and salty
    This sentence seems actually ambiguous to me because if we think "to be" is implied as in "He also preferred his beef to be raw and salty", 2a sentence could be analyzed in the same way as 2 in my first post.

    To sum up, 2a could be interpreted in either 1 or 2 below

    1. He also preferred his beef that was raw and salty.
    2. He also preferred his beef to be raw and salty.

    If someone asked him what type of beef he prefers, the most possible answer would be 1?
    On the other hand, if someone asked him how he prefers his beef, the most possible answer would be 2?

    But it's sure thing that "eat" cannot be analyzed as "prefer" or "want", because "He preferred eating beef to be raw and salty" doesn't make any sense.

    Just my guess. :D
     
    Last edited:

    boozer

    Senior Member
    Bulgarian
    1. He also preferred his beef that was raw and salty.
    This is not a possible interpretation of any sentence written by me. Only a sentence like the one below can be interpreted that way:
    He preferred his raw and salty beef.

    And, by the way, the two parts of the two interpretations in post 8 are only correct when taken together. Considering either part on its own renders the respective interpretation wrong or incomplete.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top