# two hours  to travel across the ocean and for a reply to return



## SuprunP

The speed of sound in water is such that *it would take nearly two hours for the song to travel across the Atlantic Ocean and for a reply to return*.
(The Selfish Gene; Richard Dawkins)

Would you be so kind as to tell me whether it is immediately clear to you that it takes sound two hours to travel in one direction and another two to come back?
(I had to do a small calculation to be sure.)

Thanks.


----------



## Copyright

Reading it without a calculator, I would understand two hours as the time for a round trip.


----------



## entangledbank

It's not perfectly phrased, as it does leave it open to question, but I think for the other meaning we'd normally write 'and two hours for a reply'. Without that, the presumption is that it's two hours in total.


----------



## SuprunP

Thank you *Copyright* and *entangledbank*!


----------



## wandle

I beg to differ from the above views. I believe the meaning has to be 'two hours in each direction'.
The fact is that Dawkins has chosen to use two different nouns and two different verbs.

The result of those differences  is that when we ask, "What is the full version of the abbreviated clause 'and for a reply to return'?" we can only say that it is 'and it would take nearly two hours for a reply to return'.

Consequently, we have to read the whole sentence as:
_'The speed of sound in water is such that it would take nearly two hours for the song to travel across the Atlantic Ocean and it would take nearly two hours for a reply to return'._

Thus as a matter of English it is two hours each way (this post was written without a calculator or knowledge of the speed of sound in water).


----------



## RM1(SS)

Copyright said:


> Reading it without a calculator, I would understand two hours as the time for a round trip.





entangledbank said:


> It's not perfectly phrased, as it does leave it open to question, but I think for the other meaning we'd normally write 'and two hours for a reply'. Without that, the presumption is that it's two hours in total.


I agree.


----------



## JamesM

I agree with the others who see it as two hours in total. 

Looking it up, I found that the speed of sound in water is about 5,400 kph (3,355 mph), so it could travel from New York, New York to Porto, Portugal in one hour.  I think he meant two hours in total.

This seems like a typical assumption.  If I say "It will take two weeks for my letter to get to them and to receive a reply"  I mean two weeks in total, not two weeks each direction.


----------



## wandle

JamesM said:


> Looking it up, I found that the speed of sound in water is about 5,400 kph (3,355 mph), so it could travel from New York, New York to Porto, Portugal in one hour.  I think he meant two hours in total.


In that case, he must have meant two hours; but has expressed himself wrongly.


> If I say "It will take two weeks for my letter to get to them and to receive a reply"  I mean two weeks in total, not two weeks each direction.


That is a different sentence structure.


----------



## Wordsmyth

I also read it instinctively as two hours in total, probably for the reason that etb gives in #3.

@wandle: I follow your reasoning, but I'm not convinced that "and for a reply to return" is necessarily an abbreviated clause requiring a full version.

Consider a very similar sentence, but without the second "for":
- The speed of sound in water is such that it would take nearly two hours {for {the song to travel across the Atlantic Ocean and a reply to return}}.
The part after "for" is effectively a complex noun phrase formed from two noun phrases joined by a conjunction. That same part, but including "for", is a prepositional phrase. None of those phrases is an abbreviated clause.

The fact of repeating "for", for clarity or for emphasis, doesn't seem to me to move the status of the last half of the sentence from that of prepositional phrase to that of 'abbreviated clause'.

Compare "I've reserved two seats for John and Mary" and "I've reserved two seats for John and for Mary". By your reasoning, the second sentence would mean that there are four reserved seats. However, I can't imagine anyone understanding it that way. The addition of the second "for" seems to me to be a legitimate nuance, emphasising John's and Mary's separate rights to their seats, rather than their combined right as a 'couple'.

Similarly, "I did it for king and country" or "I did it for king and for country". Does the second one mean that I did it twice? I think not.

Ws
_[Edit]: Added last line._​


----------



## Copyright

If he meant one direction, it would have been easy to shorten the sentence:

_The speed of sound in water is such that it would take nearly two hours for the song to travel across the Atlantic Ocean_ and for a reply to return.
(The Selfish Gene; Richard Dawkins)


----------



## siares

@Wordsmyth, would you give an example with two different verbs?

I've reserved a ticket for John and for Mary. Is this incorrect? If not, how many tickets have been reserved?
King can be seen as one with a country...I did it for John and for Mary. How many times did I do it?


----------



## srk

Ws, maybe I'm prejudiced having read "I've reserved two seats for John and Mary", but when I read "I've reserved two seats for John and for Mary" I think "that must mean four seats; otherwise it would be written simply as 'for John and Mary.'"

Copyright's version would have settled the issue, but so would "It would take nearly two hours for the song to travel across the Atlantic Ocean and return," meaning two hours for the round trip.


----------



## Wordsmyth

siares said:


> @Wordsmyth, would you give an example with two different verbs?


I can't think of one based on my examples, but we already have one in the original post.


siares said:


> I've reserved a ticket for John and for Mary. Is this incorrect? If not, how many tickets have been reserved?


For me that can only mean one ticket, because it says "a ticket". I would understand it to mean the same as "I've reserved a ticket for John and Mary", but with a different emphasis, as I mentioned above.


siares said:


> King can be seen as one with a country...I did it for John and for Mary. How many times did I do it?


 Good point. Depending on context, it might be once or twice. I think that illustrates my view on wandle's comment. It's not the grammatical construction that fixes the meaning; the degree of ambiguity (if any) will depend on the context. With "I did it for king and for country", most people would assume that "it" was one occurrence. With "for John and for Mary", it would depend on what "it" is.


srk said:


> Ws, maybe I'm prejudiced having read "I've reserved two seats for John and Mary", but when I read "I've reserved two seats for John and for Mary" I think "that must mean four seats; otherwise it would be written simply as "for John and Mary."


 Fair point, though when I read it I think '"that must mean two seats; otherwise it would be written as "two seats for John and two for Mary"'.

I'll grant you that it's not a watertight example (and, on reflection, it's not a very good one). I can't really make a case for it having only one possible meaning; but what I was really trying to do was to demonstrate a weakness in the argument that the original sentence could have only one possible meaning (and, contextually, the least likely one, judging by the majority view).

My position is simply that the OP's quoted sentence is a potentially ambiguous one (as were my other examples), but that it's not intrinsically wrong, even in the case where "two hours" refers to the total time. The "abbreviated clause" reasoning doesn't work for me as an absolute argument, but only as a possible one. (I see it as being like an archaeologist's claim that remnant A _must _be older than remnant B because it was lower down in the dig. It _might_ be, but that reasoning overlooks other possible explanations.)

I think we're all agreed, though, that any trace of ambiguity could be removed if the sentence were phrased differently (as in your suggestion or Copyright's).

Ws


----------



## siares

Thanks Ws, that makes sense.

But ambiguity cannot be removed as suggested above without destroying the meaning. The sentence is about whales communicating with one another, and the rewrite suggests a solitary whale.


----------



## siares

SuprunP said:


> across the Atlantic Ocean


Does "across" unequivocably mean "between continents" (from New York, New York to Porto, Portugal), rather than across North and South Atlantic (N-S axis)?


SuprunP said:


> (I had to do a small calculation to be sure.)


Could you give your calculation, SunprunP?


----------



## SuprunP

*Thank you everyone!*



siares said:


> Could you give your calculation, SunprunP?



It was slightly flawed I have to admit (wrong initial data). It's in the range of 32 to 71 minutes in one direction given the speed of sound in water at 1482 m/s and the Atlantic's width varying from 2848 km to 6400 km.

Since the question is still almost purely concerned with the linguistic side of the sentence and whether it is prone (for want of correct data and/or a calculator at hand) to be misinterpreted it is to be hoped that my inaccurate introductory computation has not been of much influence on how the sentence was perceived and understood. My apologies if it has.


----------



## Wordsmyth

siares said:


> But ambiguity cannot be removed as suggested above without destroying the meaning. The sentence is about whales communicating with one another, and the rewrite suggests a solitary whale.


 Ah, if only we'd known that.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





But yes, you're right, even without knowing about the whales, the original sentence does say that the _song_ is going one way and the _reply_ is coming back. So how could it be rephrased to avoid ambiguity? ... 

One way might be to remove the second "for". That should satisfy wandle's objection; but it still might not be immediately clear at first reading. For absolute clarity, one could also add "in total" after "two hours".

@wandle: I'd be interested to know how _you _would write it to represent clearly (or, in your view, correctly) the idea of two hours for the whole process.    

Ws


----------



## siares

This made me overcome my laziness: N-S berth (??) of Atlantic (South + North) according to google maps is around 14 800 km; over 5 hours of song travel there and back. Dawkins must have allowed for areas too cold for whales.

The book is 30th edition by: Oxford University Press.


E: added the point


----------



## wandle

SuprunP said:


> The speed of sound in water is such that *it would take nearly two hours for the song to travel across the Atlantic Ocean and for a reply to return*. (The Selfish Gene; Richard Dawkins)





Wordsmyth said:


> I'm not convinced that "and for a reply to return" is necessarily an abbreviated clause requiring a full version.


The expression 'and for a reply to return' is incomplete on its own and does need to be supplemented in our understanding grammatically as well as semantically (not only in information but also in structure).

Is it a clause? The OED has this to say under meaning *A 18* of 'for' as a preposition:


> *a*. Governing a n. or pers. pron. followed by an infinitive, forming a construction equivalent to _‘that he, etc. may, might, should’_, etc. Originally, the prep. had the sense *A. 13*  or *A. 16a*, the inf. being either the subject of the sentence or expressive of purpose; but the use was early extended to include cases to which this analysis is inapplicable. In the 15-16th c. the Latin use of the accus. and inf. was often imitated in English: e.g. _‘Behold how good..it is, brethren to dwell together in unity’_ ( Ps. cxxxiii. 1, Prayer-bk. version).


That means that the construction of 'for' governing a noun or pronoun followed by an infinitive is equivalent to a 'that' clause expressing purpose. That is how I was taught to regard it, namely as a prepositional phrase equivalent to a clause. Modern linguists now classify this construction as a clause in its own right, even though it does not contain a finite verb. That is at least partly a matter of terminology. For now I shall follow the modern trend and call it a purpose clause (even though that makes it unique among all the uses listed by the OED for 'for' as preposition).

The key point for interpreting the topic sentence is that it is a complex expression employing a noun in conjunction with a verb to convey a purpose. That makes it different from any examples of 'for' governing a noun without an infinitive.

In the expression 'and for a reply to return' the word 'for' appears a second time in the sentence, and a new noun and a new infinitive are employed. This means that Dawkins is here creating a second, fresh purpose clause (just as if it had been a second clause starting with 'that').

The word 'and' shows that this clause is co-ordinate with the first one. From that it follows that whatever applies grammatically and semantically to the first purpose clause applies equally to the second.

The first purpose clause 'for the song to travel across the Atlantic Ocean' is grammatically dependent upon the expression 'it would take two hours'. Because the second purpose clause is a fresh one, the force of 'it would take two hours' needs to be applied once again to the new noun and new infinitive, and to be understood semantically as a second two hours.

The structure is not the same as 'it would take nearly two hours for the song to travel across the Atlantic Ocean and return'.
Of course, on semantic grounds Dawkins could not have said that. In trying to accommodate the necessary second noun 'reply', he has been misled into creating a parallel structure which does not match his semantic intention.

He could have said, 'for the song to travel across the Atlantic Ocean and a reply to return, nearly two hours would be needed'.
Here, the absence of a second 'for' shows that the second idea (the return) is not in a new purpose clause but is part of the first; at the same time, the reversal of the word order helps to unite the two ideas (travel and return) for the purpose of the calculation.


----------



## Packard

I thought I would simply look up the speed of sound in ocean water and get an answer (and I did, sort of).

See:  https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111207074607AAGB5LC

(I think this counts as just three sentences and so I quote it complete.  I hope this helps.)

It has been modeled by the function 
C = 1449.2 + 4.6T – 0.055T^2 + 0.00029T^3 + (1.34 – 0.01T)(S – 35) + 0.016D 
where C is the speed of sound (in meters per second), T is the temperature (in 
degrees Celsius), S is the salinity (the concentration of salts in parts per thousand, 
which means the number of grams of dissolved solids per 1000 g of water), and D 
is the depth below the ocean surface (in meters). Compute 
dC/dT, dC/dS, dC/dD 
when 
T = 10 degree Celcius, S = 35 parts per thousand, and D = 100 m. Explain the physical 
significance of these partial derivatives


----------



## Wordsmyth

Thanks for the treatise, wandle. I'm still puzzled by one thing, though:


wandle said:


> That means that the construction of 'for' governing a noun or pronoun followed by an infinitive is equivalent to a 'that' clause expressing purpose.


So the OP's sentence is equivalent to:
- "The speed of sound in water is such that it would take nearly two hours that the song might travel across the Atlantic Ocean and that a reply might return."
I still don't see why the coordinating conjunction, "and", must mandatorily require the implicit repetition of "it would take nearly two hours". Why can it not be read that the two-hour period is needed for two things: that the song might travel *and* that a reply might return?

(Still @wandle): JamesM said ...


JamesM said:


> If I say "It will take two weeks for my letter to get to them and to receive a reply" I mean two weeks in total, not two weeks each direction.


 ... and you dismissed that as a different sentence structure (presumably because there was no second "for"). But now imagine that sentence rephrased with the same structure as the one about whale-song:
- "It will take two weeks for my letter to get to them and for me to receive a reply."
I'd be very surprised if anyone understood that as four weeks in total.

I see the second "for" as adding clarity. Without it, that sentence would be less clear:
- "It will take two weeks for my letter to get to them and me to receive a reply." The juxtaposition of "them and me" is potentially confusing. The additional "for" helps to avoid that.

Would you say that with the second "for" it must mean four weeks? If not, then where's the difference in the whale-song sentence?

Ws


----------



## wandle

Wordsmyth said:


> JamesM said ...
> 
> 
> 
> If I say "It will take two weeks for my letter to get to them and to receive a reply" I mean two weeks in total, not two weeks each direction.
> 
> 
> 
> ... and you dismissed that as a different sentence structure
Click to expand...

My post 8 was not dismissive. It merely made a factual point. It drew no conclusion and was expecting a response.


> Why can it not be read that the two-hour period is needed for two things: that the song might travel and that a reply might return?


In other words, why must it be read that the two-hour period is needed for each purpose clause and not both?

This point I take it applies equally well to the two structures (the 'for' clause and the 'that' clause). Presumably we agree that the grammatical force of the introductory expression applies to each purpose clause individually (otherwise, it could not apply to either of them on its own).

The introductory clause 'it would take two hours ...' means in semantic terms that the action referred to in the following clause, which is in grammatical terms the argument of the function expressed in the introductory clause, needs a two-hour period. The use of a second 'for' or a second 'that' signals the start of a new argument applied to the same function. Hence the action of the second purpose clause would also take a two-hour period.

On the other hand, if the second idea (the return of the reply) were expressed without a 'for' or a 'that', it would grammatically be part of the first purpose clause and it would have to be included with that as part of the argument applied to the function of the introductory clause. Without a second 'for' there is a single argument to be applied to the introductory function: with a second 'for' there are two separate arguments to be applied.


----------



## Wordsmyth

wandle said:


> Presumably we agree that the grammatical force of the introductory expression applies to each purpose clause individually (otherwise, it could not apply to either of them on its own).


 Nope. I would consider the possibility that the introductory expression (whether viewed grammatically or semantically, or both) might apply *either *to each purpose clause individually *or* to the overall phrase formed by the two purpose clauses coordinated with "and" (that phrase being a constituent in the syntax of the sentence). The assumption that "for" can only introduce a new argument overlooks the possibility of "for" having a different function, as I suggested in #21. 

I'd still be interested to know your answer to my question, above: 





Wordsmyth said:


> - "It will take two weeks for my letter to get to them and for me to receive a reply."
> I'd be very surprised if anyone understood that as four weeks in total.
> _[...]_
> *Would you say that with the second "for" it must mean four weeks?*



Ws


----------



## wandle

Wordsmyth said:


> the introductory expression (whether viewed grammatically or semantically, or both) might apply *either* to each purpose clause individually *or* to the overall phrase formed by the two purpose clauses coordinated with "and" (that phrase being a constituent in the syntax of the sentence).


If we say that in grammar, as distinct from semantics, the introductory clause may or may not apply to each following clause individually, then we are saying that the sentence structure does not work and Dawkins has made a grammatical error.


> The assumption that "for" can only introduce a new argument overlooks the possibility of "for" having a different function, as I suggested in #21.


In the construction we are considering here, 'for' introduces a purpose clause. If you mean the second 'for' has a different function from that, then the expression 'for a reply to return' is not a purpose clause and this expression is not a parallel to the clause 'for a song to travel across the Atlantic ocean': again, this is saying that Dawkins' sentence is not coherent. It seems to me that if one thing is clear, it is that the sentence involves two parallel structures.


> It will take two weeks for my letter to get to them and for me to receive a reply.


This one is not a true parallel, because the verb 'to receive' expresses not a process, but a result. In Dawkins' sentence, each infinitive is expressing a process which takes considerable time.

If the topic sentence read: '_it would take time for the song to travel across the Atlantic Ocean and for a reply to return',_
then I do not believe anyone would doubt that the grammatical force of the introductory expression applied to each purpose clause individually.


----------



## siares

@Wordsmyth
I feel very curious about


Wordsmyth said:


> I also read it instinctively as two hours in total



Could you specify/describe the instinct? Was it instant and unfailing?

I'll describe my reading as a non-native (I have a feeling that OP's reading might have gone in similar direction - towards four hours - would you comment, SunPrump?)
This was all instinctive but now I thought about it I can put it into words.

Reading that sentence I experienced cognitive dissonance. There was some pointing to two hours, but there was also something which went against it (I didn't realise before reading wandle's reasoning what this was), and probably hinted at four hours.
Hence for me there were these possibilities:
a) the sentence is non-grammatical. It says two hours.
b) the writer is trying to be clever using an unfamiliar structure. The sentence says two hours.
c) there is something that I am missing (because of which I don't feel clear). The sentence says fours hours.

Definition of context from WR
- the parts of a statement that come before or follow a word or passage and influence its meaning or effect:
- the facts that surround a particular event. (for some part, I am going to treat that sentence as 'an event')

a) I ruled out the sentence being non-grammatical on grounds of Dawkin's writing. There would be other sentences more obviously non-grammatical if he couldn't write, and there weren't.
b) Ruled out due to clarity of Dawkins' writing.
the only option remaining was c: four hours

Another issue: Has Dawkins made an error? Did he think it takes two hours for the songs to travel there and back?
Ruled out on the basis of context.
a) the clarity of writing, the way the arguments are built, the force of simple conviction. It would be out of place to suppose carelessness.
b) the fact is quoted as an evidence supporting a hypothesis, which is a part of a ground breaking theory.
Even if the fact were mentioned as an aside; the credibility of any (popular) science book can be destroyed in an instant if it contains an unsupported claim, or even when the reasoning is only slightly unclear.

E:slightly rephrased


----------



## Wordsmyth

wandle said:


> If we say that in grammar, as distinct from semantics, the introductory clause may or may not apply to each following clause individually, then we are saying that the sentence structure does not work and Dawkins has made a grammatical error.


No, _we_ are not saying that; _you_ are saying that.


wandle said:


> If you mean the second 'for' has a different function from that, then the expression 'for a reply to return' is not a purpose clause and this expression is not a parallel to the clause 'for a song to travel across the Atlantic ocean': again, this is saying that Dawkins' sentence is not coherent.


 I am suggesting that the function of the second "for" is to add clarity. It is neither a new "for", introducing a new argument, nor an error. It is a reiteration of the first "for".

Take the sentence: "It takes two hours for the song to cross the Atlantic, another whale to hear it and the reply to return to the sender." Now the speaker, or writer, is more concerned about communicating his meaning clearly than about satisfying a particular grammatical school of thought, and he realises that the sentence is potentially unclear (partly because of its length, also because it could initially be understood that the other whale hears the the original song and the reply).

So he says: "It takes two hours for the song to cross the Atlantic, for another whale to hear it and for the reply to return to the sender." The second and third instances of "for" are simply reminders of the first "for", and they make the sentence clearer. The total time involved is still two hours, not six. (It's like entering a speed limit, indicated by a big '50' sign. If the road is long enough, you may get reminder signs. They don't indicate that you've left one speed-limit zone and are entering a new one. It's still the same zone, they're just reminding you of that. Those repetitions of "for" are doing the same thing.)

Repetition of a preposition for that reason is a very common (and useful) practice, and I feel sure that's what Dawkins was doing, even if it wasn't vitally necessary in his shorter sentence. If a particular grammatical theory fails to recognise that as legitimate, then I suggest that it's that grammatical theory that's at fault, not Mr Dawkins' English.

One might also argue (as etb did in post #3) that, had he meant two hours each way, he would normally have said "and two hours for the reply ...". The absence of that second "two hours" seems to me to argue in favour of the second "for" having the function I've described.



wandle said:


> This one is not a true parallel, because the verb 'to receive' expresses not a process, but a result. In Dawkins' sentence, each infinitive is expressing a process which takes considerable time.


 Ah, now that's a new angle. If I understand you correctly, you appear to be suggesting that ...
- "It takes two hours for the song to cross the Atlantic and for a reply to return" indicates a total of four hours;
- "It takes two hours for the song to cross the Atlantic and for the sender to receive a reply" indicates a total of two hours (because "to receive" expresses a result, not a process) ...?!

I suspect that most people would take those two sentences as having virtually the same meaning. After all, for the sender to receive the reply, the reply must have returned. Besides, the distinction you're making there seems to go against your theory that a second "for" _must _indicate a new argument. If it does, then what's the new argument in the second sentence? If it doesn't, then what, for you, is the function of "for" in the second sentence?



siares said:


> Could you specify/describe the instinct? Was it instant and unfailing?


It was instant. Was it unfailing? Perhaps not entirely: I'm prepared to accept that the sentence might be slightly ambiguous (most probably two hours in total, but just possibly four). I'm not prepared to accept that it could _only_ mean four.

For your other points, I think what I've said above gives my views. I'm quite convinced that Dawkins was using a very common (and, in my view, legitimate) construction. I don't consider it ungrammatical, nor do I think he was trying to be clever. At worst, the sentence is slightly ambiguous. But I'm quite happy to conclude that he meant two hours total, for the reasons I've given.

Ws


----------



## wandle

Wordsmyth said:


> No, _we_ are not saying that; _you_ are saying that.


I am not saying that, just pointing out the consequence of saying that the grammatical force of the introductory clause need not apply to the second 'for' clause individually.

My position is that the grammar of 'it would take {a} for {b} to {c}' does apply to the second clause individually and equally.


> I am suggesting that the function of the second "for" is to add clarity. It is neither a new "for", introducing a new argument, nor an error. It is a reiteration of the first "for".


The function of 'for' here is to introduce a purpose clause. It corresponds to the 'that' of the equivalent 'that' clause. If the second 'for' were introducing a parenthetical second clause which simply rephrased the first one, then that would be a reiteration. In Dawkins' sentence, however, it is introducing a new idea, that is, a second purpose.

Is the second 'for' subordinate to the conjunction 'and' or not? If it is, then it is co-ordinate to the first 'for' and, because it is introducing a new idea, that results in a second, fresh purpose clause in its own right. If it is not subordinate to 'and', then it is out of place and incoherent.


> You appear to be suggesting that ...
> "It takes two hours for the song to cross the Atlantic and for the sender to receive a reply" indicates a total of two hours (because "to receive" expresses a result, not a process) ...?!


That is not my sentence. However, if the second 'for' were omitted, then I would say that sentence ought to be seen as implying a total of two hours. Even so, in my estimation it is still, like Dawkins' sentence, lacking in clarity and I would not use it.


----------



## Glenfarclas

"It's good to exercise your body and your mind." -- the speaker means that each of these things is independently good.
"It feels good to tell a joke and actually have people laugh." -- the speaker means that only the conjunction of these things feels good.

There's such a thing in language as _common sense and intuition_.  It's hard for me to imagine that anyone with common sense and a native level of English could understand Dawkins to mean four hours total.  If he'd wanted to say that, he would just have said "four hours," or else have omitted "and for a reply to return" altogether.  Obviously.  As though anyone would ever say "It took me two hours to drive there and to find what I needed," and mean it took four hours.  Sheesh.


----------



## wandle

Unfortunately, none of the three sentences offered for comparison is an example of the construction 'it would take {a}  for {b} to {c}'.


----------



## srk

Glenfarclas said:
			
		

> There's such a thing in language as _common sense and intuition_.





> Sheesh


What does your intuition tell you about this example?  _It takes an hour for a train to travel from Heilbronn to Stuttgart and for a faster train to travel from Heilbronn to Heidelberg_. Mine tells me that each train is en route for an hour.  If one happens to start its journey when the other finishes, the total time taken will be two hours.  To me, this example is very much like the one in the OP.  You can’t know from my example whether the trains make their journey concurrently or one after another, and I don’t think you can know from the example in the OP whether or not the whale making the response waits a day before bothering to do so.  You might like to think that it’s a tight sequential process — there’s that intuition of yours — but I don’t think you know.



			
				wandle said:
			
		

> (responding to Glenfarclas in post #28) Unfortunately, none of the three sentences offered for comparison is an example of the construction 'it would take {a} for {b} to {c}'.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Glenfarclas said:


> There's such a thing in language as _common sense and intuition_.


 Yes indeed, Glen.

And, of course language, came first. Grammar then followed as a means of explaining observed structures of language. It does not dictate what _must _be understood; it explains the structure behind what _is_ understood. If a given grammatical principle fails to support a sufficiently accepted understanding (based perhaps on common sense), then the principle has to be revised or enlarged —  at least when, as in this case, an alternative interpretation is backed by perfectly valid reasoning. Otherwise it is not the sentence that is incoherent, but the grammatical principle.

Which is perhaps another way of saying ... Sheesh!

Ws
_[Edit: Added last line.]_​


----------



## wandle

I am struck by the repetition of the word 'must' in posts 26 and 31, as if someone had been using it objectionably, and I wonder what it refers to. The only time I have used it was when I said Dawkins must have meant two hours: but I gather we do not disagree on that.

As for grammatical theory, I only know of two ways to analyse the structure 'for [noun or pronoun] to [verb]': the traditional view, exemplified by the OED that it is a prepositional phrase equivalent to a clause, and the modern view found in Quirk _et al._ and Huddleston and Pullum that it is an actual clause. In either case, it is seen as performing the function of a clause. I would be interested to hear of any other view.


----------



## Wordsmyth

It may be worth noting at this point that, in this thread, Dawkins' sentence has been understood by *six* people as meaning 'two hours in total', and by only *three* people as probably meaning 'four hours in total'.

That shows that Dawkins' sentence was technically ambiguous. It does not show that six people misread it. It does show that the evoked grammatical principle is inadequate, as it fails to explain the majority understanding of the sentence. Grammar is a servant of language, not an absolute dictator.



wandle said:


> I am struck by the repetition of the word 'must' in posts 26 and 31, as if someone had been using it objectionably, and I wonder what it refers to.


It simply reflected your various statements about what _is_, and what something _does_, and what _the_ (not _a_) function is, and declarations such as "he has been misled into creating a parallel structure which _does not_ match his semantic intention".

I've understood your position to be that there is only _one_ correct interpretation of Dawkins' sentence, and that you don't accept the interpretation of six out of nine educated readers (hence my use of "must"); whereas my position is that I accept your suggestion (the minority view) as one possibility, but that there's also another grammatically justifiable possibility.



wandle said:


> As for grammatical theory, I only know of two ways to analyse the structure 'for [noun or pronoun] to [verb]': the traditional view, exemplified by the OED that it is a prepositional phrase equivalent to a clause, and the modern view found in Quirk _et al._ and Huddleston and Pullum that it is an actual clause. In either case, it is seen as perfornming the function of a clause. I would be interested to hear of any other view.


I haven't rejected either of those views. In my justification of the majority understanding, "for [noun or pronoun] to [verb]" is also (or is equivalent to) a non-finite clause. But as far as I can see, none of the sources you cite says that a second "for" _necessarily_ requires a repeated application of the period mentioned in the main clause. Nor can I see that any of them rules out the possibility that _"for (a) and for (b)"_ may simply be a re-expression of _"for (a) and (b)"_.

That's the principle I was putting in question, not the fact that those clauses are clauses.  If you can quote anything from any of those sources that supports that restrictive principle, I'd be interested to see it.

Ws


----------



## Glenfarclas

srk said:


> What does your intuition tell you about this example?  _It takes an hour for a train to travel from Heilbronn to Stuttgart and for a faster train to travel from Heilbronn to Heidelberg_. Mine tells me that each train is en route for an hour.



Easy:  no one would ever say that sentence.


----------



## wandle

I had thought we were all agreed long since that Dawkins meant two hours in total. The only issue is how well or badly he expressed himself. Certainly there is some ambiguity: that is clear from the fact that thoughtful people can disagree over it. 

My own approach, if I were writing a textbook, would be to avoid this 'for' construction altogether, just because it is imprecise and susceptible of illogicality. Dawkins' style is generally clear, logical and elegant, but he does employ a certain amount of colloquialism, as in the present case.

The grammar point I wish to make is summed up in the difference between these two sentences:
(a) _it would take time for the song to travel across the Atlantic Ocean and for a reply to return_;
(b) _it would take two hours for the song to travel across the Atlantic Ocean and for a reply to return.
_
In (a) no problem arises, because no difference results from reading the second purpose clause as a new argument applied to the function 'it would take time' (since the function is undefined). In (b), where the function has a definite value, two hours, if the second clause is seen as a new argument, the result is a total time of four hours; if not, the total is two.

When I first read the topic sentence, I asked myself, in effect, 'Would Dawkins have signalled a new clause by writing a second 'for' unless he intended it as a new argument?' and putting my faith in his clarity and logic, I confidently answered 'No'. I was so confident that I did not bother to do the calculation.

Once we do the calculation, taking the usual round figure of 3,000 miles for the distance between old England and New England (which Dawkins presumably had in mind) and the speed of sound in sea water as being roughly twice that in air at sea level, we see that the intended total must be around two hours.

The key grammar issue to my mind is this: since 'for' functions here as the introductory term of a clause, its role is that of a conjunction rather than a preposition. It is nominally a preposition but effectively a conjunction. As far as I know, reputable linguistic authorities are agreed on that.

Granted that 'for' works as a conjunction, and since the second purpose clause introduces a second case, different from the first, it follows that the second clause creates a new argument. Since in the topic sentence the time function has a defined value, the operation of applying argument to function a second time doubles that value.

Conclusion: the insertion of the second 'for' means that Dawkins, normally so lucid, has for once expressed himself, strictly speaking, illogically. No harm is done, though, since a simple calculation easily establishes his meaning.

All this and the present controversy supports in my mind the position I had long ago adopted, that it is better in written English to avoid this 'for' construction.


----------



## wandle

It is surprising to me, though, how emotively such an abstract issue seems to be felt: as if making a minor grammar point about a third party's expression were a personal remark towards another contributor. In a forum like this, everyone is free to exercise their reason and knowledge and share the result. It is an open field.

Of course anyone may make a mistake in fact or logic, professors included. The proper way to proceed in my view is (1) detach the question in your own mind from the personal element; (2) argue as clearly as you can, committing yourself to your judgement; (3) accept that others may disagree or prove you wrong; (4) learn as you go; and (5) as far as possible, do not suppose that others are arguing personally.

That is the spirit in which I have approached this thread and all others to which I have contributed.





wandle said:


> I am struck by the repetition of the word 'must' in posts 26 and 31, as if someone had been using it objectionably, and I wonder what it refers to.





Wordsmyth said:


> It simply reflected your various statements about what is, and what something does, and what the (not a) function is, and declarations such as "he has been misled into creating a parallel structure which does not match his semantic intention".


Well, changing an 'is' or a 'does' into a 'must' converts the simple statement of a view into the issuing of a command, as if others 'must' agree.

Clarity of argument does involve some definite statements. I always expect these will be understood as impersonal and answered in the same spirit. To regard them as if they were attempts at compulsion, or imposing anything on anyone in any way, does seem to me uncalled for.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Don't fall over in surprise, wandle, but I agree with almost everything in your #35. Just two points, though:


wandle said:


> _[...] _the operation of applying argument to function a second time doubles that value.


Yes, it does, *if *you apply the argument to the function a second time, which is indeed one valid interpretation. But if you don't apply the argument to the function a second time, then the value isn't doubled. Since the latter interpretation was the one adopted by six out of nine readers, and since it can be justified by reasoning (as I have done), then I don't see how it can sensibly be overlooked.


wandle said:


> Conclusion: the insertion of the second 'for' means that Dawkins, normally so lucid, has for once expressed himself, strictly speaking, illogically. No harm is done, though, since a simple calculation easily establishes his meaning.


I can agree with that conclusion, as long as the word "illogically" is replaced by "ambiguously".

All the following comments are effectively footnotes to clarify what I've really meant (and what you've apparently meant) by some of the comments made throughout this thread.


wandle said:


> It is surprising to me, though, how emotively such an abstract issue seems to be felt: as if making a minor grammar point about a third party's expression were a personal remark towards another contributor.


I haven't seen anyone doing that (unless you interpret "Sheesh" as emotive)
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. Maybe you're mistaking the calm exercise of reasoning for emotion ...? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





wandle said:


> accept that others may disagree or prove you wrong


 ... or even that they may agree with your suggestion as one possibility, but not the _only_ possibility. You may remember my ... 





Wordsmyth said:


> my position is that I accept your suggestion (the minority view) as one possibility, but that there's also another grammatically justifiable possibility


.


wandle said:


> Well, changing an 'is' or a 'does' into a 'must' converts the simple statement of a view into the issuing of a command, as if others 'must' agree.


My use of "must" wasn't intended to suggest any sense of command. I was using it in the sense given in the fifth definition in the WR dictionary: _used to express that logically there is a need for the action or state of the next verb to be true_. It was simply an expression of logical reasoning. It was no more a command than your "Consequently, we have to read the whole sentence as ..." However, noting that you had read a different meaning into it, I changed to using "necessarily", to avoid any further misunderstanding.

It seems that we also have different interpretations of "is", "does", etc. For me (and I take a simplified example to avoid quoting you at length), _"In my view, Dawkins is wrong"_ (or_ I think/believe/consider/_etc ...) expresses a view; whereas I take _"Dawkins is wrong"_ to be a statement of absolute fact. If you have meant all such statements in this thread as 'simple statements of a view' (and therefore not necessarily affirmations of fact), then I'll read them as being less adamant than they sounded at first (to me).

Hopefully that wraps it.

Ws
_[Edit: Formatting]_​


----------



## wandle

Well, as mentioned, the key point in my view is that 'for' functions here as a conjunction. Granted that that is its function and that in both cases it introduces a purpose clause, and that each clause expresses a different purpose, then it follows that in the second clause it is doing a new job, not reiterating the previous one. I see no escape from that conclusion.


----------



## Wordsmyth

As you like. I'm sticking with the 67% of us who have escaped (or were never locked in).

Ws


----------



## siares

I myself intend no escape, mostly because I can't bear even an illustrative idea of two probably pet whales, one docked at New York and one at Porto.
Many thanks to everybody for your answers, I've learned a lot.


----------



## srk

“In order for” is a wordy but popular substitution for “for” as a conjunction.  If this substitution is made in the sentence in the OP it becomes _The speed of sound in water is such that it would take nearly two hours in order for the song to travel across the Atlantic Ocean and in order for a reply to return_.  I think it is much harder to read this version as meaning that the total time taken is two hours.  I don’t think that this substitution can have made any change to the original meaning.   It is just that the phrase “in order for” is much more obtrusive than the single word “for” and cannot be mistaken for a preposition on casual reading.

Grammar didn't help us determine the intended meaning in the OP.  That took a map, some physics, and a calculator, but it was worth a try.


----------



## wandle

wandle said:


> Well, as mentioned, the key point in my view is that 'for' functions here as a conjunction. Granted that that is its function and that in both cases it introduces a purpose clause, and that each clause expresses a different purpose, then it follows that in the second clause it is doing a new job, not reiterating the previous one. I see no escape from that conclusion.





Wordsmyth said:


> As you like. I'm sticking with the 67% of us who have escaped (or were never locked in).Ws


There are only three contributors who have addressed the point that 'for' in this case functions as a conjunction.
Two out of three (myself and srk) agree: so that proportion, for what it is worth, is the other way round.


wandle said:


> It is surprising to me, though, how emotively such an abstract issue seems to be felt





Wordsmyth said:


> I haven't seen anyone doing that (unless you interpret "Sheesh" as emotive). Maybe you're mistaking the calm exercise of reasoning for emotion ...?


If I have mistakenly attributed any emotion, I apologise. What has given me that impression is not the reasoning but the putting of words in my mouth: writing 'must' instead of 'is' or 'does' and 'Dawkins is wrong' instead of: 





wandle said:


> he has been misled into creating a parallel structure which does not match his semantic intention.


The quotation tools here are so easy to use (just select text and click), why go to the trouble of writing something the other person did not actually say?


----------



## Glenfarclas

wandle said:


> Granted that 'for' works as a conjunction, and since the second purpose clause introduces a second case, different from the first, it follows that the second clause creates a new argument.



Grant that a tail is a leg, and a cat has five legs.

I'm not sure what you think you've proved, but "for" is not a conjunction here (which is why the following clause has an infinitive), and even if it were, the subsequent repetition of "for" has absolutely no bearing on the interpretation of the sentence.


----------



## Wordsmyth

@wandle: You may care to heed your own advice:


wandle said:


> (3) accept that others may disagree or prove you wrong; (4) learn as you go


However, if it helps you to understand, I'll answer your points briefly:


wandle said:


> There are only three contributors who have addressed the point that 'for' in this case functions as a conjunction.
> Two out of three (myself and srk) agree: so that proportion, for what it is worth, is the other way round.


 The OP's question was *not *about whether "for" is a conjunction. It was about whether readers would understand Dawkins' sentence as meaning two hours each way or two hours in total. Six out of nine people understood it as two hours in total.

You said "then it follows that in the second clause it is doing a new job, not reiterating the previous one. I see no escape from that conclusion". For six people (the majority) to have understood 'two hours in total', they obviously had escaped (or never reached) your conclusion.



wandle said:


> If I have mistakenly attributed any emotion, I apologise. What has given me that impression is not the reasoning but the putting of words in my mouth: writing 'must' instead of 'is' or 'does' and 'Dawkins is wrong' _[...]_ The quotation tools here are so easy to use (just select text and click), why go to the trouble of writing something the other person did not actually say?


 Please re-read my posts. At *no *point did I say that you said those things. I was using *my* own words to express *my *view of your position. I've already explained my perfectly correct use of "must". As for why I used a simplified example, I've already explained that too:


Wordsmyth said:


> For me (and I take a simplified example to avoid quoting you at length) ...


My point did not solely concern the one instance you've mentioned ("he has been misled ..."), but the multitude of instances where you used what sounded to me like firm declarations of fact. Had I quoted all those instances, the post would have been ridiculously and unnecessarily long. Therefore I used a simplified example with the same structure.

I think enough has been said to clarify what we each meant in our _ways_ of presenting the case. Let's focus on the case itself. I'd say Glen has hit the nail pretty much on the head:


Glenfarclas said:


> the subsequent repetition of "for" has absolutely no bearing on the interpretation of the sentence.


... or at least I'd say that the repetition of "for" cannot be used as a reliable criterion in interpreting the sentence. That seems to have been proved by the fact that six people interpreted it one way, and three another.

End of story, as far as I can see.

Ws


----------



## wandle

Wordsmyth said:


> I take a simplified example to avoid quoting you at length


There is nothing wrong in a fair summary of what someone has said. However, I do object to the substitution of stronger words in place of those I have used, and to a manufactured quotation in inverted commas, which a casual reader might take as a representation of my words. 


Wordsmyth said:


> Grammar is a servant of language, not an absolute dictator.





Wordsmyth said:


> I take _"Dawkins is wrong"_ to be a statement of absolute fact


These comments are apparently aimed at me. However, I have not offered or dictated anything as 'absolute fact' (whatever that may be). On the other hand, when someone did claim to make an absolute statement, you endorsed it.


Wordsmyth said:


> I'd say Glen has hit the nail pretty much on the head:





Glenfarclas said:


> the subsequent repetition of "for" has absolutely no bearing on the interpretation of the sentence.





Wordsmyth said:


> The OP's question was *not *about whether "for" is a conjunction. It was about whether readers would understand Dawkins' sentence as meaning two hours each way or two hours in total.


I have not said 'for' is a conjunction, but that it functions as one in this case. That point is crucial to the issue of whether Dawkins' sentence ought to be construed in strict grammar as implying four hours in total. In colloquial language it can easily happen that the intended meaning is at variance with a strict reading of the words used. Disparity of that kind may be quite entertaining and is in my view always worth attending to for a clear view of grammar.

Here I must admit a mistake I made earlier when I said that the speed of sound in sea water was twice that in air at sea level (if that were true, the minimum time for Dawkins' north Atlantic cetacean antiphony would indeed be about four hours): in fact it is four times as fast.

Does 'for' function as a conjunction here? The two analyses of the topic construction that I am aware of are (a) that it is a prepositional phrase equivalent to a clause and (b) that it is an actual clause. In either case, 'for' is the introductory term  which links the expression to the sentence and gives it its essential syntactical meaning. That seems to me to describe the role of a conjunction.


----------



## Wordsmyth

wandle said:


> I do object to the substitution of stronger words in place of those I have used, and to a manufactured quotation in inverted commas, which a casual reader might take as a representation of my words.


 Wandle, I've already said that they were *not* in place of words you used. Inverted commas are not reserved for your words only. Had I meant them as a representation of your words, I would have said so. My post #44 has already made all that quite clear. Let's not flog a dead horse.


wandle said:


> These comments are apparently aimed at me.


 They were *not* 'aimed' at you. They were in support of a general case I was making, so that _all_ readers of this thread (including you) can see that there are different points of view.

As I said before ... 





Wordsmyth said:


> I think enough has been said to clarify what we each meant in our _ways_ of presenting the case.


 ... so please let's not go round in circles.



wandle said:


> That point is crucial to the issue of whether Dawkins' sentence ought to be construed in strict grammar as implying four hours in total.


 Once again, the OP's question wasn't about strict grammar, or even how the sentence ought to be construed. It was about how it is construed at first reading:


SuprunP said:


> Would you be so kind as to tell me whether it is immediately clear to you that it takes sound two hours to travel in one direction and another two to come back?


That question seems to have been answered, the majority opinion being "No". (Your side-issue of grammatical analysis also seems to me to have been fully exhausted.)

Ws


----------



## Enquiring Mind

Amazing that this has evolved into such a long thread, For my money, it's a two-hour return trip. But it's Richard Dawkins, so God only knows.


----------



## siares

In my, perhaps slightly absolutist view, a forum member is not able to tell with any certainty which sentence uttered by another forum member reflects what intention. Not that I don't love a good game of guesses. 

I, personally, would love to see an 'agree to disagree' icon. Or even better, a nonsensical compromise 'three hours' icon. What do you think?

#3hrs


----------

