“I Didn’t Say You Stole My Money”
Comments: 79 - Date: January 29th, 2008 - By: Schwern - Categories: blogosphere, text
In We Don’t Write, We Speak With Our Fingers, I gave an example of how speaking with text can lead to misinterpretation. It was kind of weak. Adrian Howard tipped me off to this much better example:
This sentence is interesting in that if you say the sentence seven times, each time placing the emphasis on a different word, the meaning of the sentence shifts.
Try it…
- I Didn’t Say You Stole My Money.
- I Didn’t Say You Stole My Money.
- I Didn’t Say You Stole My Money.
- I Didn’t Say You Stole My Money.
- I Didn’t Say You Stole My Money.
- I Didn’t Say You Stole My Money.
- I Didn’t Say You Stole My Money.
[GREETINGS STUMBLERS! Feedburner informs me that this post has been StumbleUpon‘d. Some 40,000 of you so far. I’m glad folks are enjoying this post, and perhaps you’d consider looking at the rest of the blog? Or maybe subscribe to it? Maybe read some Klingon dating tips or how We Don’t Write, We Speak With Our Fingers]
Comment by Titannick - 30 January 2008 @ 17:50
This is the result of the highly ambigious nature of natural language.
Specifically grammaticians still are not sure how to classify the word “not”.
I think it’s the negation that is responsible for the underlying cause of the shifting meaning.
Using a different wording though, you could probably completely avoid confusion, likely at the expense of perceived superfluence.
Comment by Anon - 30 January 2008 @ 18:02
Really cool! didn’t think of it like that before
Comment by b-train - 30 January 2008 @ 18:06
there’s a sampled bit of something similar on a foetus album from somewhere between 1983-86. it’s a woman saying:
WHAT have you been doing?
what HAVE you been doing?
what have YOU been doing?
what have you BEEN doing?
what have you been DOING?
Comment by Peter - 30 January 2008 @ 20:22
HI guyz whats up
hi GUYZ whats up
hi guyz WHATS up
hi guyz whats UP
it works on any sentance you could think of
Comment by Curious - 30 January 2008 @ 23:03
Is there a such thing as un-natural language?
Re: “This is the result of the highly ambigious nature of natural language.
Specifically grammaticians still are not sure how to classify the word “not”.
I think it’s the negation that is responsible for the underlying cause of the shifting meaning.
Using a different wording though, you could probably completely avoid confusion, likely at the expense of perceived superfluence.”
Comment by Paul Logasa Bogen II - 30 January 2008 @ 23:58
There is unnatural language. Unnatural language is an invented language, something that didn’t evolve over time through usage. The original sign languages were unnatural but they have become natural. Not sure if Esperanto has evolved but it would be unnatural originally also. Other examples would be Tolkein’s languages he invented throughout his life. The key is that natural languages are descriptively defined, the definition (grammar, syntax, and vocabulary) is a reflection of usage by speakers, while unnatural languages are prescriptively defined, the speaker’s usage is a reflection of the definition.
Comment by Curious - 31 January 2008 @ 0:02
Thank you. This is all most interesting.
Comment by Bren - 31 January 2008 @ 2:50
Quote: “This is the result of the highly ambigious nature of natural language.
Specifically grammaticians still are not sure how to classify the word “not”.
I think it’s the negation that is responsible for the underlying cause of the shifting meaning.
Using a different wording though, you could probably completely avoid confusion, likely at the expense of perceived superfluence.”
Really? The “not” is the problem? Besides the other examples, you get the same thing with the sentence “I said you stole my money”, which is really just the same sentence without the “not”. It doesn’t have anything to do with “not”. Changing the emphasis to a different word for almost every sentence can have the same effect, although complex or long sentences won’t have the property that works for each word.
Comment by Anonymous - 31 January 2008 @ 3:02
It’s the question mark. If it were a declaration, you wouldn’t emphasize the same way.
Comment by Anonymous - 31 January 2008 @ 3:03
Wait. I’m wrong about the question mark. Damn.
Comment by Lilith - 31 January 2008 @ 5:16
We are refreshed and challenged by your point of view.
Comment by Anonymous - 31 January 2008 @ 6:07
I like this one…
*I* don’t beat my wife.
I *don’t* beat my wife.
I don’t *beat* my wife.
I don’t beat *my* wife.
I don’t beat my *wife*.
Comment by Colin - 31 January 2008 @ 6:52
The ambiguity arises because when we speak, we stress certain words to make them stand out as new information. This can happen with just about any sentence. Something like “John likes Jerry” could be “JOHN likes Jerry” where the “JOHN” is emphasized. In this case, the speaker is taking it for granted that someone likes Jerry and is clarifying that John is that person. If “LIKES” were emphasized, the speaker would be taking for granted that John does something to Jerry. For example, maybe the hearer thinks that John hates Jerry or that John kicks Jerry. Same for Jerry.
The opposite of a natural language is a formal language. These are languages that people have created, like programming languages or predicate calculus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_language
Comment by anonymous - 31 January 2008 @ 6:55
NONE of my friends snort heroin.
none of MY friends snort heroin.
none of my FRIENDS snort heroin.
none of my friends SNORT heroin.
none of my friends snort HEROIN.
Comment by Anonymous - 31 January 2008 @ 10:06
*I* don’t want an anal probe. (But he does.)
I *don’t* want an anal probe. (No, really.)
I don’t *want* an anal probe. (I need one!)
I don’t want *an* anal probe. (Hook me up with twenty!)
I don’t want an *anal* probe. (But wherever else is fine.)
I don’t want an anal *probe.* (Just a loving caress, please.)
Comment by Stu - 31 January 2008 @ 13:05
“Tits like coconuts!”
…so hang one up outside for the birds to eat.
What did you think I meant?
Comment by John - 31 January 2008 @ 18:09
And the winner is… the enlightening (but humbly anonymous) essay on the desirability of anal probes. The Heroin one was good too, but the witty explanations are the cherry on top.
For my two cents, the ambiguity in those two, and the money one, comes mostly from the negation. When you negate a complex proposition, all you’re saying is *that exact thing* didn’t happen - any variation on it could do, so every qualifier you add creates a new possible meaning. Plenty of positive statements change their meanings slightly if you change the emphasis on some of the words, but not to the extent that negatives do.
Comment by JTD - 31 January 2008 @ 21:29
It’s hard to wreck a nice beach…
or is that
It’s hard to recognize speech.
The nuances of articulation are what drive non-native language speakers crazy.
Comment by Neijya - 31 January 2008 @ 22:37
I doesn’t prove that text is necessarily more ambiguous than spoken language. All it proves is that people should take care to use emphasis in written language as well. The bold text solved any confusion, didn’t it ?
Comment by goodfoot - 1 February 2008 @ 1:51
This reminds me of a painting I once saw. The EYES followed me as I walked by. It was freaky.
Comment by Dale - 1 February 2008 @ 4:19
This is what is referred to as ’sentence stress’. It really isn’t that interesting… if you find it that interesting you should do something like Phonetics 1A at uni or something.
Comment by Anonymous - 1 February 2008 @ 4:40
It;s interesting to someone who doesn’t think conciously about “sentence stressing”…stress and meaning come naturally with speech and sometimes we screw up our meanings…but whatevs ha! What;s important is that we convey our meaning almost always subconsiously, when we could say it 7 times another way to mean something else. Get it?
ps: I love the anal probe one…gooooood times.
Comment by e11even - 1 February 2008 @ 4:42
I s’tumbled upon’ this and it made my night. wooooo
Comment by Chris - 1 February 2008 @ 13:13
Is it maybe due to it being a response to a perceived question?
If you change it to
You have stolen my money.
(Of course the entire comment that follows is reliant on “have stolen” being the verb sequence, and if that is not correct, just chalk me up as a another dumb redneck!)
Then as an accusation, if you stress one of the given words, all you really do (apparently) is emphasize the importance of the individual components, to the speaker.
*You* have stolen my money. (Emphasis increases strength of accusation)
You *have stolen* my money. (Emphasis clarifies perceived offense)
You have stolen *my* money. (Emphasis sets emotional attachment)
You have stolen my *money.* (Emphasis sets value of the object as greater than other things)
But if you perceive the same words as a response to a question, then by emphasizing the individual words, not only are you changing it’s meaning but you are in essence changing the imagined question.
*You* have stolen my money. (Who stole your money?)
You *have stolen* my money. (What did I do to your money?)
You have stolen *my* money. (Whose money was stolen?)
You have stolen my *money.* (What did I steal from you?)
Of course I would never say “You have stolen my money” because I am an uneducated redneck.
I would probably say “You stole my damn money!” due to colloquial speech patterns I learned as a child.
Note: The addition of the word “damn” is used as an epithet, not necessarily as an adjective to “money”. As money is the root of all evil, it is already “damned” to the mythological place of punishment “Hell”, popularized by the Christian and Muslim faiths, and therefore would be superfluous in that context.
“Course I ain’t one o’ them educated fellers’ tho’, so I mightn’t be right!”
Comment by stumbler - 1 February 2008 @ 14:40
Chris, I applaud you. While the article above is good, your comment made me think and laugh, and that is always a good thing. That, and well, I must have grown up in a similar manner to you, as I would have also said “You stole my damn money!”
Thank you for the humor and thought.
Comment by Mary - 1 February 2008 @ 16:21
I’m a nurse in a hospital and the importance of tone and strees when answering the call button of a patient can make or break a theraputic relationship.
Imagine lying there sick and in pain, pressing the call button and someone answers:
WHAT do you want?
What do YOU want?
What do you WANT?
Trite but true, it’s 100% what you say and 100% how you say it.
Comment by Simon - 1 February 2008 @ 22:34
Whats this thing called love
Whats this thing called love
whats this thing called love
whats this thing called love
whats this thing called love
Comment by Jason - 1 February 2008 @ 23:28
public class TestForUnNaturalLanguage()
{
public TestForUnNaturalLanguage()
{
}
//”Is there a such thing as un-natural language?”
public static boolean testUnNaturalLanguage()
{
public boolean nat;
Language[] worldLangs = world.getLanguages();
for(Language lang: worldLangs)
{
if (!(lang.isNatural()))
nat = true;
}
return nat;
}
public static void main(String args[])
{
System.out.println(”The statement \”There are unnatural languages in the world\” evaluates to: ” +”\”" +TestForUnNaturalLanguage.testUnNaturalLanguage())+”\”.”;
}
}
Prints out
The statement “There are unnatural languages in the world” evaluates to: “true”.
yeah… there’s unnatural languages…
Comment by Brian - 1 February 2008 @ 23:30
Other examples of languages not natural are programming languages, like C++, Java, and Prolog
Comment by Name - 2 February 2008 @ 0:35
time flies like an eagle, fruit flies like a banana
Comment by Chiron - 2 February 2008 @ 0:42
With text, we lose a huge part of the information that spoken language gives us - tone of voice, stress, rising or falling intonation, etc. If we were to hear the various sentences spoken, we’d know which meaning was intended - or at least, we’d have a better chance at getting the intended one. Without that, we’re limited to italics, underscore, asterisks (I didn’t say *you* stole my money), and so on. They help, but are a poor substitute for speech.
Comment by bit-head - 2 February 2008 @ 2:03
what about dude?
dude
dude
dude
DUDE
dude?
dood!
Comment by Mad Bob - 2 February 2008 @ 9:57
This only really works with english (? ok major generalisation there IANAL (…linguist!) - but it won’t work in german, french, spanish etc.), and is one reason why non-english speaking people find english difficult to learn - the fact that the meaning of a sentence can change just by changing which word is emphasised. Interesting tho…
Comment by Sale - 2 February 2008 @ 19:48
LUKE, I am your father.
Luke, I! am your father.
Luke, I AM your father.
Luke, I am YOUR father.
Luke, I am your FATHER.
Comment by lakelady - 2 February 2008 @ 21:04
while I find this interesting is it pointing out anything more than the importance of context when reading anything. It also points to why there’s an art to reading any script out loud.
Comment by fontanelli - 2 February 2008 @ 23:14
>This only really works with english (? ok major generalisation there IANAL (…linguist!) - but it won’t work in german, french, spanish etc.), and is one reason why >non-english speaking people find english difficult to learn - the fact that the meaning of a sentence can change just by changing which word is emphasised. Interesting >tho…
it works in german, french, spanish etc., dear
Comment by Ken - 3 February 2008 @ 16:02
I can’t believe that in all of this, no one has emphasized multiple words in the sentences given, as say, William Shatner would do:
LUKE…I AM, your FAsha!
“I believe one should right in a manner consistent with speech patterns, whether it be with curse words…longer pauses that a comma does not compensate for, fragments, and purposeful misspellings when in fact ya talk that way…and want others to be set more squarely in your frame of mind.” (This of course is best suited to writing as if speaking, or copying someone else’s speech as politically correct as possible, cuz ya heard ‘em yourself:-)
Yeah, I gots the red-neck in ME too.
Comment by Race - 3 February 2008 @ 16:13
The emphasis has nothing to do with changing the meaning. and it does not come from the negation. One would only use one of the presented statements when correcting someone’s false beliefs. (i.e. john thinks that steve stole his money so he says “*I* didnt steal your money”, implying that someone else did). the same is true for the rest of the sentences. they are simply used when one tries to correct someone else false information. If you are talking with someone, and they ask you how your weekend was, you can reply “I had a fun weekend”-without emphasis on any of the words, just a simple, straight forward statement. However, you would only sue the sentence with emphasis with the following situations.(when talking to john)
“*I* had a fun weekend”(john thought, for some reason, that someone else had a fun weekend insead of you)
“I *had* a fun weekend”(John thought, for some reason, that you were still having a fun weekend)
“I had *a* fun weekend” (john thought you had several)
“I had a *fun* weekend”(john thought you had a lousy one)
“I had a fun *weekend*”(john thought you had a fun week)
The emphasis is simply there to specify which piece of information is false, while stating that the rest of the unaffected sentence is true. and that’s all there is to it.
Comment by Anonymous - 3 February 2008 @ 20:16
well said race ….
Comment by Awesome McSaint - 4 February 2008 @ 4:32
i still say that “I didn’t tell you to shoot you’re wife” is a better sentence for this type of thing.
Comment by realgt - 4 February 2008 @ 5:19
I! stumbled here
i STUMBLED! here
i stumbled HERE!
Comment by Anonymous - 4 February 2008 @ 8:09
im still cracking up on - I don’t beat *my* wife!
Comment by JB - 4 February 2008 @ 17:35
Mad Bob, this is really not limited to the English. I’m not saying every language has the same issues equally, but in this case, as far as I can tell, it functions the same way with French, German, Spanish and Portuguese. And I truly believe you can’t find a language where it doesn’t work like that. The question here seems to be that you can say a lot of different things in the same short, general sentence, which don’t really cover all the details of the contexts where you use the said sentence - and that is why you can use the same sentence in all those different cases. Of course it is much more complex than that, but I’m still sure it works the same way in all written languages.
Oh, and by the way, English has to be one of the easiest languages any person can learn. Speaking in a Euro-Asian point of view.
Comment by splint - 4 February 2008 @ 21:50
Race, I see your point but John doesn’t have to think anything about the weekend at all. If John asks how my weekend was I can answer with a straight “I had a fun weekend.” End of discussion unless John would like to ask about the details.
But, if something extraordinary happened over the weekend, I’d use emphasis as a vehicle to convey this information. It has no bearing on truth of John’s belief.
*I* had a fun weekend (But Mary got pregnant with a hobo’s baby)
I *had* a fun weekend (up until Sunday afternoon when I got kicked in the gonads)
I had *a* fun weekend (as opposed to the 51 others that sucked donkey last year)
I had a *fun* weekend (could be a sarcastic emphasis about your root canal on Saturday)
I had a fun *weekend* (But let me tell you about the week before when I lost a finger in pasta roller)
Comment by Mailslut - 5 February 2008 @ 14:28
No paper towels down toilet pan please dave.
NO PAPER. TOWELS DOWN TOILET. PAN PLEASE, DAVE.
(I have no paper unfortunately, and the towels have been put down the toilet. david, please pass me the pan).
NO. PAPER TOWELS. DOWN TOILET PAN. PLEASE DAVE!
(on being asked if i had any fabric towels, i responded that i didnt - but i did have paper ones) Then requested david put the toilet pan down. at first he didnt, so i had to insist.
NO. PAPER TOWELS. DOWN TOILET PAN PLEASE DAVE!
-similar to above, but dave didnt have to be asked twice because i asked politely.
-alternative ending: a request for dave to down tools and thrust himself down the toilet.
NO. PAPER TOWELS. DOWN TOILET PAN PLEASE, DAVE x
similar to above, but this time it was a nice note left by dave to me.
NO PAPER TOWELS. DOWN TOILET. PAN PLEASE, DAVE?
whilst doing an audit of the contents of the room, i found 0 paper towels. i did find some shit done by a kid with downs syndrome however. in order to clear it up i requested dave pass me a dustpan and brush, to which he didnt reply.
NO PAPER TOWELS. DOWN TOILET - PAN PLEASE, DAVE x
Dave left a note on the refrigerator telling me there were no paper towels left (and thus i should get some on my next trip to the shops). Also letting me know that he wouldnt be home tonight as he was down the toilet, and as an after thought mentioned i should also pick up a pan when i go to get the paper towels.
NO - PAPER TOWELS! DOWN!!! TOILET PAN PLEASE. DAVE…
(I expected the enemy to adopt a different strategy, but when I saw them advancing over the hill clothed in paper towels I knew the war and my life was lost. Still, I had some desire for my men and I to live so I barked an order to take cover. I lay in the dirt wishing to relieve myself when david…)
NO! *PAPER* TOWELS DOWN TOILET PAN! .. *PLEASE* DAVE. (when david asked if he should put metal towels down the toilet… for the umpteenth time)
NO PAPER. TOWELS DOWN! TOILET PAN???! … PLEASE, DAVE. (dave had asked me if i had some paper, then picked up 2 towels which weren’t his property. then he said ‘do you want to eat a toilet pan’ to which i responded as if he was crazy).
NO… PAPER! TOWELS DOWN TOILET PAN…. *** PLEASE *** DAVE! (pleading with dave to put the towels down the toilet pan to prevent the oncoming attack from paper).
NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! PAPER!!!!!!!!! (my freind, nicknamed ‘paper’ has just been shot). TOWELS DOWN!!!! (pleading for a ceasefire with the shooter, who was using a gun commonly known as the 44mm Towel). Toilet pan… please dave. (instruction to dave (a sniper on our side) to proceed with operation ‘toilet pan’, and thus take out any remaining enemy combatants).
Comment by A.Notheerr.STUMBLER - 5 February 2008 @ 15:22
I wonder how many of us came from STUMBLE?!
Comment by Schwern - 5 February 2008 @ 20:05
About 43000 of you, almost everyone, came from StumbleUpon. Stumblers are just reading this one post, and it’s not even a particularly well thought out one. I’d encourage you to read the rest of the site.
Comment by F - 5 February 2008 @ 20:08
This is exactly why I wish people would not ignore the proper use of italicizing words, which is obviously to emphasize them.
Comment by gabrielle - 6 February 2008 @ 4:34
anal probes ftw, dude. (the example, I mean, OF COURSE.)
Comment by Mike P - 6 February 2008 @ 8:26
To the person that said it works on any sentence: You’re wrong. Some of your sentences “HI guys what’s up” for example, make absolutely no sense, and don’t differ from the others in any significant way.
But that’s for commenting.
Obama 08
Comment by steve the designer - 6 February 2008 @ 8:45
its a good point but it overreaches. a skilled typographer, poet, or a 15 year old girl drawing in her notebook is capable of putting just as much emphasis and feeling into the written word, but ascii or simple text as it is used in forums like this is the typographical equivalent of a robotic monotone voice, which is just as incapable of conveying more subtle information. its not the medium of text vs. speech, its the halfassed way most of us go about USING IT and the limitations WE ACCEPT.
Comment by Mark - 7 February 2008 @ 3:27
Colin hit the nose some several dozen posts up while it seems everyone else was still stupefied that “I *don’t* like peanuts” can mean something different from “I don’t like *peanuts*”. It has absolutely nothing to do with the “ambiguity of natural language” that Titannick suggested (and so many others parroted).
All this illustrates is something 5th graders around the country know already ;), text-based communication lacks entire dimensions of communicative information that we rely on every day when we speak. To give credit where this is due, that was the point of the post, it’s just that so many of the commentators have been sidetracked by the grammatical analogue of the 72 Inuit words for snow (there aren’t).
Comment by mike s - 10 February 2008 @ 4:51
there is no such word as grammatician the correct word is grammarian, improper use of a word no matter how often or quasi eruditely does not make it a word.
Comment by Anonymous - 10 February 2008 @ 22:42
It’s crazy because I was just thinking about this kind of stuff lately and then I stumble upon this. NUTS.
Because what IIII was thinking about, is that on instant messaging, or posting, or blogging or anything like this, it’s not the same as a normal message not just because you’re not HEARING the person, but because you’re not hearing the STRESS on the word that’s making the message important. Unless you do THIS. It’s not the same if just then I went “Unless you do this.” Well, do what?
It IS interesting.
Comment by Anonymous - 14 February 2008 @ 0:03
I don’t want an anal ‘probe’ lol
Comment by waynedecelt - 14 February 2008 @ 0:06
I do ‘not’ want an anal probe.
Comment by kozmer - 19 February 2008 @ 0:46
Try this one:
He fed her dog biscuits.
Comment by Sierra Bravo - 21 February 2008 @ 16:17
Oh, please do not touch me sir!
Oh, please do not touch me!
Oh, please do not touch!
Oh, please do not!
Oh, please do!!
Oh, please!!!
Oh !!!
Comment by Bert - 23 February 2008 @ 9:53
While I realize it doesn’t really relate to the discussion at hand, I did notice a post that showed the effects of the placement of punctuation, and it reminded me of a personal favorite that was used to drive that point home for me.
When are we going to eat, mom?
simple question asked of ones mother.
When are we going to eat mom?
The disturbing difference a simple comma can make, or more importantly lack thereof.
Comment by tareeetah - 23 February 2008 @ 10:13
You have had Genital Herpes.
You have had Genital Herpes. (Calling person out.)
You have had Genital Herpes. (HA! I knew it!)
You have had Genital Herpes. (But not currently.)
You have had Genital Herpes. (Specifically in the genital area.)
You have had Genital Herpes. (But we’ll have to run another test to see what that is..)
Yay english is fun
Stumble upon is quite distracting..
Super Awesome William Shatner version:
You have had Genital Herpes. (?)
You have had Genital Herpes. (?)
You have had Genital Herpes. (?)
You have had Genital Herpes. (Shatner being odd.)
You have had Genital Herpes. (Shatner overacting again.)
Comment by gregory - 24 February 2008 @ 1:48
In Chinese single words can radically change their meaning just by a shift in emphasis (not accent).
The difference between ‘bitch’ and ‘woman’ for example, is just one of emphasis. Makes it very tricky for beginners!
Comment by Damien - 26 February 2008 @ 11:13
Did you work for Nova (English School in Japan) at any point?
This was in their book you se
Comment by Caananite - 28 February 2008 @ 23:04
“there is no such word as grammatician the correct word is grammarian, improper use of a word no matter how often or quasi eruditely does not make it a word.”
Ooooookay, let’s see here…
- “Quasi-eruditely” is always hyphenated.
- Your punctuation is terrible (… YOUR punctuation is terrible … your PUNCTUATION is terrible - etc).
- Your syntactical construction is non-existent.
Three strikes; YOU’RE OUTTA HERE!
Pingback by The Young Writers Blog » Blog Archive » Say what? I didn’t say you stole my money. - 4 March 2008 @ 15:49
[…] found this at Geek2Geek who found it at Mission Minded […]
Comment by Anonymous - 13 March 2008 @ 19:00
MY butt itches.
My BUTT itches.
My butt ITCHES!
Comment by Christopher Nehren - 27 March 2008 @ 22:27
This was actually covered in a Garfield comic many, many, *many* years ago. Garfield was saying the sentence “I didn’t do it”, stressing each word in turn. When asked what he was doing, he claimed to be “practicing”.
Comment by Ninya - 23 April 2008 @ 1:49
This whole thing makes me think of William Shatner.
But I think it’s odd that English is classified as a non-tonal language when tone has so much to do with meaning as well as emotion. Though this whole thing would be crazy in Chinese. “I’m going to work later” would become “Did you eat the brass monkey?” just with changes in tones. Only not really. I’m too lazy to look up an actual example.
Oh, and the quote is actually “Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.” And I guess that’s more of a garden path sentence, when you get right down to it.
Comment by René - 15 May 2008 @ 12:56
I stumbled upon this as well. A few remarks. It *is* an interesting phenomenon, but I think it has to do with what is referred to as “focus”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_(linguistics) As it happened, this morning I had an e-mail exchange about it. On the Dutch telly here, we have an anchorwoman who repeatedly introduces a new item with the wrong stress. It annoys me a lot. She can switch from news that happened in France to news that happened in China, with such intonation as if Beijing is just another city in France.
And NO — English is not at all an easy language to learn. It has an incredible number of vowels and diphthongs, it has a horrendous spelling system, and some consonants that for a lot of people are almost impossible to pronounce (such as th and r).
And then, in Chinese it is not so much stress that changes the meaning of words, but “tone” — wich is altogether different from stress.
Comment by Auliya - 19 June 2008 @ 18:47
Oh god. The original post was so obvious and devoid of information I couldn’t figure out why everyone was stumbling here. THEN I READ THE COMMENTS. Now, I understand. Rofl.
Comment by Bob - 18 July 2008 @ 21:20
Natural language will always be somewhat ambiguous. Programming Languages are far more precise.
Programming Language Questions & Review
Comment by kzy - 19 August 2008 @ 3:12
even cooler is the “sayers” eye movements while saying it…just try it. your eyes will move progressively to the right.
Comment by Anonymous - 9 December 2008 @ 6:04
it works in spanish too
Mamá me lavó la blanca My mom washed the white one
Mamáme la bola blanca Suck my ball white girl
Comment by Stumbler - 9 December 2008 @ 21:09
Nah I’m good just looking at this page
Comment by Kevin - 29 December 2008 @ 3:58
As a PhD student in Linguistics, I feel like I should weigh in with another good (if somewhat pedestrian) example: In English, stress can completely alter the meaning of a noun phrase. Take the following:
GLASS containers
vs.
glass CONTAINERS
The former describes a container FOR glasses, which may or may not be MADE OF glass. The latter describes a container MADE of glass which may or may not be FOR glasses.
The difference between these two phrases in terms of audible stress is subtle, but I assure you it’s there.
Comment by allen - 12 February 2009 @ 2:38
black BIRDS
blackbirds
Thank you. This is all most interesting.
Thank you. This is almost interesting.
Comment by Anonymous - 10 May 2009 @ 3:32
cool
Comment by Anonymous - 10 May 2009 @ 3:35
to the guy that wrote the example in spanish, ‘white girl’ is nowhere in the original sentence.
Comment by Brian - 11 May 2009 @ 14:17
It’s not as ambiguous as it looks when you hear it said. Stressing one word makes the meaning clear. What you have to understand is that language is more than just the meaning of the words…
Comment by Vicky - 17 May 2009 @ 10:46
I love stumbling!
On a more relevant note, I’m really glad my native language is English. It seems like it would be impossible to master otherwise.