shares the World Trade Center site with the largest shopping mall in Manhattan

Discussion in 'English Only' started by VicNicSor, Jan 12, 2018.

  1. VicNicSor

    VicNicSor Senior Member

    Russia
    Russian
    The 9/11 memorial shares the World Trade Center site with the largest shopping mall in Manhattan. There's a Forever 21, an Under Armour, a Kate Spade, and a pair of shoes that I want, but they're too expensive, and my feet are too big, and I'm too tall to wear high heels anyway...
    What's Wrong with Capitalism (Part 1), video by ContraPoints

    Does that mean there's the World Trade Center site, and that site is divided into two parts: the 9/11 memorial and the largest shopping mall in Manhattan. Do I understand correctly?
    Thanks.
     
  2. Glasguensis

    Glasguensis Signal Modulation

    Versailles
    English - Scotland
    That is correct, bearing in mind that “the WTC site” refers to the plot of land where the WTC stood prior to 11 September 2001.
     
  3. The Newt

    The Newt Senior Member

    USA / EEUU
    English - US
    Both the memorial and the mall occupy part of the WTC site, but not the same part.
     
  4. Florentia52

    Florentia52 Modwoman in the attic

    Wisconsin
    English - United States
  5. VicNicSor

    VicNicSor Senior Member

    Russia
    Russian
    I just didn't want to go deep into the history of what excatly buildings have been built on the site after the 9/11, but wanted to know how the OP phrase is understood grammatically.
    Sorry, two contradictory answers...
     
  6. Myridon

    Myridon Senior Member

    Texas
    English - US
    The "World Trade Center site" is the entire area in the lighter green surrounding the buildings labelled "WTC x". The World Trade Center is not just the Twin Towers. It's a complex of buildings that occupy a site.
    The original World Trade Center site: WTC 1 and WTC 2 are the twin towers.
    [​IMG]

    The current World Trade Center site: The blue squares are the water feature where the original towers were. Some streets have been added.
    The shopping area is the first 5 floors of WTC 3 and WTC 4
    [​IMG]
     
  7. VicNicSor

    VicNicSor Senior Member

    Russia
    Russian
    Thank you everybody.

    But is then the verb "share" used correctly? I think not. Because grammatically it implies that the WTC site only consists of the two places mentioned in the OP. Maybe she meant "share borders"?
     
  8. Myridon

    Myridon Senior Member

    Texas
    English - US
    If I share my pizza with you, we both have part of the pizza. It doesn't mean that we have eaten all of the pizza. It doesn't mean I haven't given some pizza to someone else.
    The buildings share the site. They each have a part of the site.
     
  9. VicNicSor

    VicNicSor Senior Member

    Russia
    Russian
    If something is shared between people, they have the whole of it (in parts), and nobody else has it. I always thought that it was the intrinsic meaning of "share":eek:

    Maybe what you suggest works with "pizza", logically, as when the two of us eat the pizza, nobody else joins us, but when you come home you may share the rest of the pizza with your wife.
    But, the memorial and the mall are stationary, they are always there. And if they share a place between them two, how can something else do too?...:confused:
     
  10. Edinburgher Senior Member

    Scotland
    German/English bilingual
    You are using a fairly narrow definition of "share". It can simply mean to "have something in common with". If you and I both have blue eyes, we could say that "we share blue eyes".

    To say that the memorial and the big mall share the site simply means that they are both located on the site. It doesn't mean that together they occupy the whole site, it doesn't mean nothing else shares the site too, and it doesn't mean they occupy the same part of the site.
     
  11. VicNicSor

    VicNicSor Senior Member

    Russia
    Russian
    I am aware of this meaning of "share", about opinions, views, qualities, etc.

    But in the OP context, it's all about this:

    (Cobuild's definition of "share")

    E.g., if you say "My friend and I once shared a house in Brooklyn.", could it possibly imply you two weren't the only residents?
     
  12. RedwoodGrove

    RedwoodGrove Senior Member

    California
    English, USA
    I never use that collocation as I prefer to think of "share" in the way that you describe and not in the broader sense. I may well be a US citizen but I don't feel I share my citizenship with millions of Americans I'll never meet any more than I share my height or age with others.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2018
  13. Edinburgher Senior Member

    Scotland
    German/English bilingual
    Well, it wouldn't imply it, but you certainly could use "share" in such a situation. Who did you and your friend share the Brooklyn house with? A couple of students and a cat.
     
  14. Myridon

    Myridon Senior Member

    Texas
    English - US
    In the OP context, it's obvious that 9 buildings and the memorial (the two blue squares and, perhaps, the museum) share the site along with some streets and other things. The native speakers agree that the sentence is fine. Therefore, your definition or your interpretation of the definition is not correct (consistent with the way the word is actually used).
     
  15. VicNicSor

    VicNicSor Senior Member

    Russia
    Russian
    It's a different context:), in which the word "share" is grammatically applied to "a couple of students and a cat" too, besides you and your friend.

    It's obvious because of your knowledge as an American, that the WTC site has other buildings in it. But not from the context — e.g., for me, and, as I understand, for Glas (who is not an American, but a native speaker) it was not obvious. The speaker could have used verbs such as occupy/are located/situated/placed/etc., or at least used "share" the way you did in this quote; but she used it in a confusing way.

    Thank you everyone !
     
  16. Loob

    Loob Senior Member

    English UK
    Interesting - I'd have read it like Vic, as implying that the memorial and the mall took up the whole of the site.
     
  17. VicNicSor

    VicNicSor Senior Member

    Russia
    Russian
    Thanks:)
     
  18. Oddmania

    Oddmania Senior Member

    France
    French
    If you don't mind me joining the conversation -- I don't think it sounds confusing at all. It isn't even 'ambiguous'. It's simply not explicit. Sharing something with someone doesn't prevent you from sharing it with somebody else as well; just like living with Tom doesn't prevent you from living with Dick and Harry as well. You might think it unbelievable that Judas would betray Jesus after Jesus shared his meal with him (of course, Jesus also shared his meal with eleven other apostles).

    As far as I know, there is no verb in English that means "divide in two" or "break in half". "Duplicate" doesn't have an exact antonym. "To halfen" doesn't exist. One just has to make do with the verb "to share", however many shares were produced.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2018
  19. Glasguensis

    Glasguensis Signal Modulation

    Versailles
    English - Scotland
    Just to clarify - whilst I agree that share can be used in a non-exclusive way (“the memorial and the mall share the site” for me would be non-exclusive), I do agree with Vic and Loob that the sentence actually used does tend to imply exclusivity. From my general knowledge I suspected that this was incorrect of course.
     
  20. VicNicSor

    VicNicSor Senior Member

    Russia
    Russian
    Thank you everybody!
     
  21. Edinburgher Senior Member

    Scotland
    German/English bilingual
    Indeed "to halfen" does not exist. But "to halve" does. :p
     
  22. VicNicSor

    VicNicSor Senior Member

    Russia
    Russian
    I didn't quite understand your point about dividing in two, by the way, OM. I mean, how is it related to the OP?...
     
  23. Myridon

    Myridon Senior Member

    Texas
    English - US
    People write for people they know who have the same cultural context that they do. People don't write every thing in Fahrenheit and Celsius, miles and kilometers, and convert to every possible currency just in case any one anywhere in the world might read it.
    Sometimes you just have to believe that people mean what they write even if you don't believe it. :)
     
  24. VicNicSor

    VicNicSor Senior Member

    Russia
    Russian
    If you mean it's a case when a person may not 100% precisely use a word, grammatically, knowing that people from the same cultural context understand it correctly anyway, then I'm ok with that:)
     
  25. Oddmania

    Oddmania Senior Member

    France
    French
    What I was trying to say is that there is no verb that means specifically "to share in two equals parts", or "to share in more than two parts". That's why the author of the video probably never felt that her use of "share" could be perceived as confusing, let alone incorrect.

    Of course, if someone only mentions two elements (the memorial and the shopping centre), they shouldn't expect anyone to figure out on their own that other elements also exist. However, if they don't mention them, that very most likely means that those other elements aren't of significant importance to the topic under discussion. If you say "I know Tom very well because we're living together", it doesn't necessarily imply Tom and I also live with other people, but it doesn't suggest otherwise either. Other people are simply not relevant to the discussion about Tom's and my relationship.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2018
  26. VicNicSor

    VicNicSor Senior Member

    Russia
    Russian
    But I didn't say that "share" meant "divide in two". E.g., if I heard the sentence "I shared the flat with Bob and Jane.", I'd take it as the flat was occupied by the three of them but nobody else. That was the point:)
     
  27. Loob

    Loob Senior Member

    English UK
    That's how I'd take it too:cool:.
     
  28. Oddmania

    Oddmania Senior Member

    France
    French
    That's fallacious. Two employees can share the same office space, the same floor. Two students can share the same dormitory. And, obviously, there isn't only the two of them.

    Of course you would take it to mean "Bob + Jane" and nobody else — everyone would — because nobody else has been mentioned in the conversation. My point was that there is nothing incorrect in such usage of the word "share". That's why so many people can get away with lying by omission.

    I was reacting to these remarks:
     
  29. Edinburgher Senior Member

    Scotland
    German/English bilingual
    It's not as simple as that. Context is everything. If my friend Jimmy mentioned Bob and Jane in conversation, and I recognized their names, I might say to him "Oh, I shared a flat with them once.", without mentioning the other three people who were also living there at the time, and I wouldn't expect Jimmy to conclude that there had only been three of us.
     

Share This Page

Loading...