I believe that it doesn't break any rules from a strictly grammatical perspective. Furthermore, while it is awkwardly worded there isn't really any potential for ambiguity that I can see. The only change I'd strongly recommend (if I were asked for such a recommendation) would be the addition of "is" in the middle of "and an" but even that, I think, is not strictly necessary.
Further proof that a sentence is not necessarily good communication just because it is grammatically correct ~wry grin~
Okay, I retract the statement about no ambiguity, and that also explains why I want the extra "is" in there ^_^ However, I do maintain that the odds of someone coming to the conclusion that you mention are very small, even in the original sentence.
The garden-path interpretation happens because 'teaches X and Y' is a pretty typical sort of construction. The reason the incremental 'teaches (A and B)' parse is ungrammatical (rather than just odd) is the optional ditransitive semantics of 'teaches'. The explicit subcategorization goes as 'X teaches Y to Z' - the ditransitive form goes as 'X teaches Z Y'. Conjugations (e.g., "an officer and a gentleman") need both (all) of their constituents to have the same semantic type, but the garden-path interpretation for "an expert" assumes a left-extraction of 'to' that's missing in "entrepreneurship". This makes it incompatible in conjunction.
Further proof that a sentence is not necessarily good communication just because it is grammatically correct ~wry grin~
Reply
Yes and oh God yes!
... there isn't really any potential for ambiguity that I can see.
Going out on a limb I think you could get ambiguity in this way:
"Professor [name] is an attorney who teaches [...] an expert in urban business startups."
Silly, yes, and pretty clearly *not* what was intended but that was how my brain originally tried to parse it.
Reply
Reply
Reply
And yeah, you can use my icon with attribution.
Reply
Leave a comment