1) The sound of the dog barking was annoying.
From a grammatical point of view, does the sound belong to the dog or to the barking?

Is the sentence equivalent to:
2) The sound of the dog that was barking was annoying.
or to
3) The sound of the dog's barking was annoying.

And are these grammatical:

4) The dog barking was Daisy.
5) The dog barking was in the second floor balcony.
(the dog that was barking)

Gratefully,
Navi

Thu, 20 Jan 2022 01:32:03 -0800 (PST): arthurvv vart
<arthurvarr@gmail.com> scribeva:

>1) The sound of the dog barking was annoying.
>From a grammatical point of view, does the sound belong to the dog or to the barking?
>
>Is the sentence equivalent to:
>2) The sound of the dog that was barking was annoying.
>or to
>3) The sound of the dog's barking was annoying.

Both 2) and 3) are possibly. In speech, they can be distinguished by a
slighty different stress pattern: extra stress on "DOG" means you mean
3, some extra stress on "BARking" indicates it's more likely 2).

>And are these grammatical:
>
>4) The dog barking was Daisy.
>5) The dog barking was in the second floor balcony.
>(the dog that was barking)

Grammatical, yes. (Says this non-native speaker lifelong second
language learner.)
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Thu, 20 Jan 2022 11:09:51 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com>
scribeva:

>Thu, 20 Jan 2022 01:32:03 -0800 (PST): arthurvv vart
><arthurvarr@gmail.com> scribeva:
>
>>1) The sound of the dog barking was annoying.
>>From a grammatical point of view, does the sound belong to the dog or to the barking?
>>
>>Is the sentence equivalent to:
>>2) The sound of the dog that was barking was annoying.
>>or to
>>3) The sound of the dog's barking was annoying.
>
>Both 2) and 3) are possibly.

Possible. Possibly, or certainly, or undoubtedly possible.

> In speech, they can be distinguished by a
>slighty different stress pattern: extra stress on "DOG" means you mean
>3, some extra stress on "BARking" indicates it's more likely 2).
>
>>And are these grammatical:
>>
>>4) The dog barking was Daisy.
>>5) The dog barking was in the second floor balcony.
>>(the dog that was barking)
>
>Grammatical, yes. (Says this non-native speaker lifelong second
>language learner.)

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 9:32:06 AM UTC, arthurvv vart wrote:
> 1) The sound of the dog barking was annoying.
> From a grammatical point of view, does the sound belong to the dog or to the barking?
>
> Is the sentence equivalent to:
> 2) The sound of the dog that was barking was annoying.
> or to
> 3) The sound of the dog's barking was annoying.
>
> And are these grammatical:
>
> 4) The dog barking was Daisy.
> 5) The dog barking was in the second floor balcony.
> (the dog that was barking)

Unless you are at the theatre, you can't be "in" a balcony.

On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 01:38:17 -0800 (PST), "spains...@gmail.com"
<spainsharden@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 9:32:06 AM UTC, arthurvv vart wrote:
>> 1) The sound of the dog barking was annoying.
>> From a grammatical point of view, does the sound belong to the dog or to the barking?
>>
>> Is the sentence equivalent to:
>> 2) The sound of the dog that was barking was annoying.
>> or to
>> 3) The sound of the dog's barking was annoying.
>>
>> And are these grammatical:
>>
>> 4) The dog barking was Daisy.
>> 5) The dog barking was in the second floor balcony.
>> (the dog that was barking)
>
>Unless you are at the theatre, you can't be "in" a balcony.

Amazing, then, how many people live in a theater....all those
apartment buildings with balconies are domiciles for actors?
--

Tony Cooper Orlando Florida

On 21/01/2022 13:58, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 01:38:17 -0800 (PST), "spains...@gmail.com"
> <spainsharden@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 9:32:06 AM UTC, arthurvv vart wrote:
>>> 1) The sound of the dog barking was annoying.
>>> From a grammatical point of view, does the sound belong to the dog or to the barking?
>>>
>>> Is the sentence equivalent to:
>>> 2) The sound of the dog that was barking was annoying.
>>> or to
>>> 3) The sound of the dog's barking was annoying.
>>>
>>> And are these grammatical:
>>>
>>> 4) The dog barking was Daisy.
>>> 5) The dog barking was in the second floor balcony.
>>> (the dog that was barking)
>>
>> Unless you are at the theatre, you can't be "in" a balcony.
>
> Amazing, then, how many people live in a theater.

Non sequitur. Theatres aren't balconies.

>...all those
> apartment buildings with balconies are domiciles for actors?

No doubt some are domiciles for actors, who may occasionally like to sit
out /on/ the balcony, but I've never known for anyone, be they actor or
otherwise, to sit "in" a balcony. "On", sure. "In", no.

Is this a pondian thing?

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 9:11:07 AM UTC-5, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 21/01/2022 13:58, Tony Cooper wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 01:38:17 -0800 (PST), "spains...@gmail.com"
> > <spains...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Unless you are at the theatre, you can't be "in" a balcony.
> > Amazing, then, how many people live in a theater.
>
> Non sequitur. Theatres aren't balconies.

He didn't suggest they are.

> >...all those
> > apartment buildings with balconies are domiciles for actors?
>
> No doubt some are domiciles for actors, who may occasionally like to sit
> out /on/ the balcony, but I've never known for anyone, be they actor or
> otherwise, to sit "in" a balcony. "On", sure. "In", no.

You would be on the balcony of an apartment, in the balcony of a theater.

> Is this a pondian thing?

I can't tell what Cooper is claiming.

In message <sseetn$cc0$1@dont-email.me> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> On 21/01/2022 13:58, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 01:38:17 -0800 (PST), "spains...@gmail.com"
>> <spainsharden@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 9:32:06 AM UTC, arthurvv vart wrote:
>>>> 1) The sound of the dog barking was annoying.
>>>> From a grammatical point of view, does the sound belong to the dog or to the barking?
>>>>
>>>> Is the sentence equivalent to:
>>>> 2) The sound of the dog that was barking was annoying.
>>>> or to
>>>> 3) The sound of the dog's barking was annoying.
>>>>
>>>> And are these grammatical:
>>>>
>>>> 4) The dog barking was Daisy.
>>>> 5) The dog barking was in the second floor balcony.
>>>> (the dog that was barking)
>>>
>>> Unless you are at the theatre, you can't be "in" a balcony.
>>
>> Amazing, then, how many people live in a theater.

> Non sequitur. Theatres aren't balconies.

>>...all those
>> apartment buildings with balconies are domiciles for actors?

> No doubt some are domiciles for actors, who may occasionally like to sit
> out /on/ the balcony, but I've never known for anyone, be they actor or
> otherwise, to sit "in" a balcony. "On", sure. "In", no.

> Is this a pondian thing?

No, I think it is a matter of the size of the balcony. It also might
matter on how enclosed the balcony is. Much like a porch, in fact. On a
small porch, you are standing on the porch, on a large porch, you may
well be in it, especially if it is mostly enclosed.

When my in-laws enclosed their front porch it became an 'in' space, not
an 'on' space.

--
The ability to ask question like 'Where am I and who is the "I" that
is asking?' is one of the things that distinguishes mankind from,
say, cuttlefish. --The Last Continent

In article <vreluglqo0krrp0eqhl90v6fupupvggk7e@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 01:38:17 -0800 (PST), "spains...@gmail.com"
> <spainsharden@gmail.com> wrote:

> >On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 9:32:06 AM UTC, arthurvv vart wrote:
> >> 1) The sound of the dog barking was annoying. From a grammatical
> >> point of view, does the sound belong to the dog or to the barking?
> >>
> >> Is the sentence equivalent to: 2) The sound of the dog that was
> >> barking was annoying. or to 3) The sound of the dog's barking was
> >> annoying.
> >>
> >> And are these grammatical:
> >>
> >> 4) The dog barking was Daisy. 5) The dog barking was in the second
> >> floor balcony. (the dog that was barking)
> >
> >Unless you are at the theatre, you can't be "in" a balcony.

> Amazing, then, how many people live in a theater....all those apartment
> buildings with balconies are domiciles for actors?

I have seen one equipped with a couch - a casting couch?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 14:11:02 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

>On 21/01/2022 13:58, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 01:38:17 -0800 (PST), "spains...@gmail.com"
>> <spainsharden@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 9:32:06 AM UTC, arthurvv vart wrote:
>>>> 1) The sound of the dog barking was annoying.
>>>> From a grammatical point of view, does the sound belong to the dog or to the barking?
>>>>
>>>> Is the sentence equivalent to:
>>>> 2) The sound of the dog that was barking was annoying.
>>>> or to
>>>> 3) The sound of the dog's barking was annoying.
>>>>
>>>> And are these grammatical:
>>>>
>>>> 4) The dog barking was Daisy.
>>>> 5) The dog barking was in the second floor balcony.
>>>> (the dog that was barking)
>>>
>>> Unless you are at the theatre, you can't be "in" a balcony.
>>
>> Amazing, then, how many people live in a theater.
>
>Non sequitur. Theatres aren't balconies.
>
>>...all those
>> apartment buildings with balconies are domiciles for actors?
>
>No doubt some are domiciles for actors, who may occasionally like to sit
>out /on/ the balcony, but I've never known for anyone, be they actor or
>otherwise, to sit "in" a balcony. "On", sure. "In", no.
>
>Is this a pondian thing?

No. It's the same for me and my AmE.

On 21-Jan-22 17:28, charles wrote:
> In article <vreluglqo0krrp0eqhl90v6fupupvggk7e@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
> <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Amazing, then, how many people live in a theater....all those apartment
>> buildings with balconies are domiciles for actors?
>
>
> I have seen one equipped with a couch - a casting couch?
>
Anglers really don't like to rough it these days.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 22/01/22 00:58, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 01:38:17 -0800 (PST), "spains...@gmail.com"
> <spainsharden@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Unless you are at the theatre, you can't be "in" a balcony.
>
> Amazing, then, how many people live in a theater....all those
> apartment buildings with balconies are domiciles for actors?

Are you suggesting that people who live in those apartments are
sub-letting their balconies to people who live on the balcony?

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

Sam Plusnet blurted out:
> On 21-Jan-22 17:28, charles wrote:
>> In article <vreluglqo0krrp0eqhl90v6fupupvggk7e@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
>> <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Amazing, then, how many people live in a theater....all those apartment
>>> buildings with balconies are domiciles for actors?
>>
>>
>> I have seen one equipped with a couch - a casting couch?
>>
> Anglers really don't like to rough it these days.

I bet you paid a fin to use that.

/dps

--
You could try being nicer and politer
> instead, and see how that works out.
-- Katy Jennison

On 22-Jan-22 1:59, Snidely wrote:
> Sam Plusnet blurted out:
>> On 21-Jan-22 17:28, charles wrote:
>>> In article <vreluglqo0krrp0eqhl90v6fupupvggk7e@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
>>> <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Amazing, then, how many people live in a theater....all those apartment
>>>> buildings with balconies are domiciles for actors?
>>>
>>>
>>> I have seen one equipped with a couch - a casting couch?
>>>
>> Anglers really don't like to rough it these days.
>
> I bet you paid a fin to use that.

But I might find a couple of squid under the couch cushions.

--
Sam Plusnet

Sam Plusnet submitted this idea :
> On 22-Jan-22 1:59, Snidely wrote:
>> Sam Plusnet blurted out:
>>> On 21-Jan-22 17:28, charles wrote:
>>>> In article <vreluglqo0krrp0eqhl90v6fupupvggk7e@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
>>>> <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Amazing, then, how many people live in a theater....all those apartment
>>>>> buildings with balconies are domiciles for actors?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have seen one equipped with a couch - a casting couch?
>>>>
>>> Anglers really don't like to rough it these days.
>>
>> I bet you paid a fin to use that.
>
> But I might find a couple of squid under the couch cushions.

Looking for suckers, are you? Going Barnum on us?

/dps

--
And the Raiders and the Broncos have life now in the West. I thought
they were both nearly dead if not quite really most sincerely dead. --
Mike Salfino, fivethirtyeight.com

On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 22:45:57 +0000
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

> On 22-Jan-22 1:59, Snidely wrote:
> > Sam Plusnet blurted out:
> >> On 21-Jan-22 17:28, charles wrote:
> >>> In article <vreluglqo0krrp0eqhl90v6fupupvggk7e@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
> >>> <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Amazing, then, how many people live in a theater....all those apartment
> >>>> buildings with balconies are domiciles for actors?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I have seen one equipped with a couch - a casting couch?
> >>>
> >> Anglers really don't like to rough it these days.
> >
> > I bet you paid a fin to use that.
>
> But I might find a couple of squid under the couch cushions.
>
>
Careful, it can be expensive, if your vacuum is turbot-charged.
> --
> Sam Plusnet

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 5:46:02 PM UTC-5, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 22-Jan-22 1:59, Snidely wrote:
> > Sam Plusnet blurted out:
> >> On 21-Jan-22 17:28, charles wrote:
> >>> In article <vreluglqo0krrp0eq...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
> >>> <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Amazing, then, how many people live in a theater....all those apartment
> >>>> buildings with balconies are domiciles for actors?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I have seen one equipped with a couch - a casting couch?
> >>>
> >> Anglers really don't like to rough it these days.
> >
> > I bet you paid a fin to use that.
>
> But I might find a couple of squid under the couch cushions.

The floodwaters should have receded by then.

Le 20/01/2022 à 09:32, arthurvv vart a écrit :
>
> 1) The sound of the dog barking was annoying.
> From a grammatical point of view, does the sound belong to the dog or to the barking?
>
> Is the sentence equivalent to:
> 2) The sound of the dog that was barking was annoying.
> or to
> 3) The sound of the dog's barking was annoying.

They all seem wordy to me - the word 'barking' already includes the idea
of sound. Why not just say:

The dog's barking was annoying.

(Concision's a wonderful thing - but only in small doses.)

> And are these grammatical:
>
> 4) The dog barking was Daisy.
> 5) The dog barking was in the second floor balcony.
> (the dog that was barking)

It may be worth toying with formulations based on "The barking dog...."

The barking dog was on the second-floor balcony.

(If it was American, it was lower down than a British dog would be.)

On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 17:21:04 +0000, Hibou <h.i@b.ou> wrote:

>Le 20/01/2022 à 09:32, arthurvv vart a écrit :
>>
>> 1) The sound of the dog barking was annoying.
>> From a grammatical point of view, does the sound belong to the dog or to the barking?
>>
>> Is the sentence equivalent to:
>> 2) The sound of the dog that was barking was annoying.
>> or to
>> 3) The sound of the dog's barking was annoying.
>
>They all seem wordy to me - the word 'barking' already includes the idea
>of sound. Why not just say:
>
> The dog's barking was annoying.
>
>(Concision's a wonderful thing - but only in small doses.)

Maybe, but only when performed by doctors, and only on males, not
females.

Le 23/01/2022 à 17:49, Ken Blake a écrit :
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 17:21:04 +0000, Hibou wrote:
>>
>> (Concision's a wonderful thing - but only in small doses.)
>
> Maybe, but only when performed by doctors, and only on males, not
> females.

Is that a cutting remark?

Sunday, Kerr-Mudd, John murmurred ...
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 22:45:57 +0000
> Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>
>> On 22-Jan-22 1:59, Snidely wrote:
>>> Sam Plusnet blurted out:
>>>> On 21-Jan-22 17:28, charles wrote:
>>>>> In article <vreluglqo0krrp0eqhl90v6fupupvggk7e@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
>>>>> <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Amazing, then, how many people live in a theater....all those apartment
>>>>>> buildings with balconies are domiciles for actors?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have seen one equipped with a couch - a casting couch?
>>>>>
>>>> Anglers really don't like to rough it these days.
>>>
>>> I bet you paid a fin to use that.
>>
>> But I might find a couple of squid under the couch cushions.
>>
>> Careful, it can be expensive, if your vacuum is turbot-charged.
>> --
>> Sam Plusnet

Jacko, you aren't being careful of which guzintas you're inserting at.

Sam's post doesn't suck, does it?

-d

--
But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason
to 'be happy.'"
Viktor Frankl

Hibou asserted that:
> Le 23/01/2022 à 17:49, Ken Blake a écrit :
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 17:21:04 +0000, Hibou wrote:
>>>
>>> (Concision's a wonderful thing - but only in small doses.)
>>
>> Maybe, but only when performed by doctors, and only on males, not
>> females.
>
> Is that a cutting remark?

I doubt he'll offer a retraction.

/dps

--
As a colleague once told me about an incoming manager,
"He does very well in a suck-up, kick-down culture."
Bill in Vancouver

On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 12:36:27 -0800
Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sunday, Kerr-Mudd, John murmurred ...
> > On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 22:45:57 +0000
> > Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 22-Jan-22 1:59, Snidely wrote:
> >>> Sam Plusnet blurted out:
> >>>> On 21-Jan-22 17:28, charles wrote:
> >>>>> In article <vreluglqo0krrp0eqhl90v6fupupvggk7e@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
> >>>>> <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Amazing, then, how many people live in a theater....all those apartment
> >>>>>> buildings with balconies are domiciles for actors?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have seen one equipped with a couch - a casting couch?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Anglers really don't like to rough it these days.
> >>>
> >>> I bet you paid a fin to use that.
> >>
> >> But I might find a couple of squid under the couch cushions.
> >>
> >Careful, it can be expensive, if your vacuum is turbot-charged.
>
>
> Jacko, you aren't being careful of which guzintas you're inserting at.
>
> Sam's post doesn't suck, does it?
>

Nah. Posted in haste. Hope this is neater.
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

With a quizzical look, Kerr-Mudd, John observed:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 12:36:27 -0800
> Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sunday, Kerr-Mudd, John murmurred ...
>>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 22:45:57 +0000
>>> Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 22-Jan-22 1:59, Snidely wrote:
>>>>> Sam Plusnet blurted out:
>>>>>> On 21-Jan-22 17:28, charles wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <vreluglqo0krrp0eqhl90v6fupupvggk7e@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
>>>>>>> <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Amazing, then, how many people live in a theater....all those
>>>>>>>> apartment buildings with balconies are domiciles for actors?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have seen one equipped with a couch - a casting couch?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anglers really don't like to rough it these days.
>>>>>
>>>>> I bet you paid a fin to use that.
>>>>
>>>> But I might find a couple of squid under the couch cushions.
>>>>
>>> Careful, it can be expensive, if your vacuum is turbot-charged.
>>
>>
>> Jacko, you aren't being careful of which guzintas you're inserting at.
>>
>> Sam's post doesn't suck, does it?
>>
>
> Nah. Posted in haste. Hope this is neater.

One thumb up, innit now.

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?