# did not marry him because [ambiguous?]



## junjun

"She did not marry him because he was rich."

I learned in school that this sentence means "she married him, but the reason she did so was not that he was rich," but I have been wondering if this sentence could never be interpreted in a different way.
I mean, if there is a woman who believes in honest poverty and refuses to marry a rich man, can't the same sentence be used?
Is that just impossible or is it possible depending on the context?


----------



## modulus

She did not marry him because he was rich. 
This implies that she did *not* marry him.

She did not marry him just because he was rich. 
This implies that she married him.

She did not marry him because he was rich, but because ...
This implies that she married him.


----------



## LordRM

junjun said:


> "She did not marry him because he was rich."
> 
> I learned in school that this sentence means "she married him, but the reason she did so was not that he was rich," but I have been wondering if this sentence could never be interpreted in a different way.



In the right context, this sentence could have either meaning.

For example: "She did not marry him because he was rich; she married him because of his personality."
This means that she did marry him, for a different reason. Tone of voice might be used to emphasize the meaning -- the words *rich* and *personality* could be stressed to emphasize the contrast between the two.

But: "She did not marry him because he was rich; she wanted someone more humble."
This means that she didn't marry him.

So, the sentence by itself is definitely ambiguous. The context could make it go either way.


----------



## junjun

Thank you both for your explanations!


----------



## Cagey

In addition to the excellent explanations of your particular sentence above, see the usage note under our dictionary's definition of because:


> *usage*:
> When *because* follows a negative construction the meaning can be ambiguous. In the sentence _he did not go because he was ill_,  for example, it is not clear whether it means either ‘the reason he did  not go was that he was ill’ or ‘being ill wasn't the reason for him  going; there was another reason’. Use a comma when the first  interpretation is intended (_he did not go, because he was ill_), or avoid using *because* after a negative altogether.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

So you're right, Junjun, it could mean both.  And we don't need a _but because clause_ for it to have the second meaning you suggest.  In speech we would use intonation to distinguish between the two.


----------



## junjun

Thank you, Cagey, for telling me about the usage note.
 I think this is the best answer to my question. 
 And I should have checked the dictionary beforehand, shouldn't I? 
Sorry about that, everyone.
And Thomas, I am not sure if I understand the second sentence of your post correctly, but thanks anyway.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

junjun said:


> Thank you, Cagey, for telling me about the usage note.
> I think this is the best answer to my question.
> And I should have checked the dictionary beforehand, shouldn't I?
> Sorry about that, everyone.
> And Thomas, I am not sure if I understand the second sentence of your post correctly, but thanks anyway.


I'm sorry not to have been clear. I meant that the way we say the sentence, raising and lowering the voice and putting the stress on different words, would indicate which of the two meanings we wished to project.


----------



## junjun

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm sorry not to have been clear. I meant that the way we say the sentence, raising and lowering the voice and putting the stress on different words, would indicate which of the two meanings we wished to project.



Thanks for your explanation, but actually, you are talking about the third sentence now. 
I meant the second sentence.(And we don't need a _but because clause_ for it to have the second meaning you suggest.)
My guess is that you meant to say "just because clause"  but you mistyped a little. 
And perhaps you are mistaking  				 				 					 						 	*modulus*'s post for mine?
Or maybe it's just that my English is not good enough to understand yours.
I don't know.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I'm sorry. I don't think I was very clear at all. I wasn't so much quoting anyone as saying that a supplementary clause proffering an alternative explanation wasn't necessary for us to understand the meaning you learnt in school, Junjun, particularly in speech, where intonation would make the meaning clear.

I don't agree with Modulus's statement that _She did not marry him because he was rich_ implies that she didn't marry him. I agree with you that it can mean either a. she married him for some reason other than his wealth, or b. she didn't marry him, on account of his wealth. 

To avoid this ambiguity in writing one can add words, like _just_, here and there.


----------



## modulus

Thomas Tompion said:


> I don't agree with Modulus's statement that _She did not marry him because he was rich_ implies that she didn't marry him.


I was simply reading it as:
_She did not marry him, because he was rich. 
_
Without further context, that's how I interpret that statement even if a comma is not there.


----------



## junjun

Thomas Tompion said:


> I don't agree with Modulus's statement that _She did not marry him because he was rich_ implies that she didn't marry him.  I agree with you that it can mean either a. she married him for some reason other than his wealth, or b. she didn't marry him on account of his wealth.
> 
> To avoid this ambiguity in writing one can add words, like _just_, here and there.



Actually, I was a little skeptical about that part of Modulus's statement.
Now everything seems clear to me.
Thank you very much, Thomas!


----------



## wandle

> usage:
> When because follows a negative construction the meaning can be ambiguous. In the sentence he did not go because he was ill, for example, it is not clear whether it means either ‘the reason he did not go was that he was ill’ or ‘being ill wasn't the reason for him going; there was another reason’. Use a comma when the first interpretation is intended (he did not go, because he was ill), or avoid using because after a negative altogether.


Rather than put a comma after the main clause, one can, for the first interpretation, put the whole subordinate clause first: 'Because he was ill, he did not go'.


----------



## junjun

modulus said:


> I was simply reading it as:
> _She did not marry him, because he was rich.
> _
> Without further context, that's how I interpret that statement even if a comma is not there.



So, you are saying that, depending on the context, it can be interpreted either way, right?
When my teacher showed me this sentence, there was no context attached.
But I guess the common belief (or may I say "knowledge"?) that women tend to choose rich men worked as a context. 
Of course, this is not perfect as a context though, because this belief is not necessarily a truth.
If you think that way, I believe you could say that the sentence in question is ambiguous.
What do you think about this?


----------



## junjun

wandle said:


> Rather than put a comma after the main clause, one can, for the first interpretation, put the whole subordinate clause first: 'Because he was ill, he did not go'.



That is a good thing to know, too. 
Thank you.


----------



## Sankaku_Neko

This thread has been added to a previous thread.  Please scroll up to read from the top. Cagey, moderator. 

Hello, everyone.

I'm an English language learner in Japan.  I have some quetions regarding the following sentence.

(A) She didn't marry him because he is rich.

I think that Sentence (A) can be interpreted in two ways.  (1) She didn't marry him.  (2) She married him.

Is Sentence (A) a natural sentence for native English speakers?  If Sentence (A) is a natural sentence, in which of the two ways is Sentence (A) interpreted?  If Sentence (A) is not a natural sentence, how should Sentence (A) be corrected to clearfy what Sentence (A) describes?

I would appreciate it if anyone could answer my questions.
Thanks in advance.


----------



## Copyright

The problem with questions like this is that they are asked outside context. With context, you would know who you are talking about and you would know whether she married him or not.

So (A) is quite a natural sentence and we would know whether she married him or not because we would know the people, or the storyteller would give us more information.

If you had to have no context and you wanted to make the meaning clear, you would do something like this:

_She didn't marry him because he was rich, but because he was kind.
She didn't marry him because he was rich – she hates rich people._


----------



## Sankaku_Neko

Thanks for your helps, Copyright.

I should add more information to (A) to make the meaning clear.  In other words, without any context, (A) has two meanings, doesn't it?  To make the meaning clear, can I say the following sentences?

(1) She didn't marry him, because he is rich.
(2) She married him not because he is rich.


----------



## Copyright

Sankaku_Neko said:


> I should add more information to (A) to make the meaning clear.  In other words, without any context, (A) has two meanings, doesn't it?


Yes. 


> To make the meaning clear, can I say the following sentences?
> 
> (1) She didn't marry him, because he is rich.
> (2) She married him not because he is rich.


I'm not a fan of either of those – it sounds like you're having to pay for every word and you want to save money. 

I would suggest using the language, or at least punctuation, to make things clear:

(1a) She didn't marry him – _because he is rich_. (Your first sentence is something that is culturally or socially unexpected, so you need to make it plainer than you have with just a comma. A comma might be technically correct, but you need more explanation or you need to make it plainer, in my opinion.)

(2a) She didn't marry him for his money. (That would be better. If you want to use the "not because" construction, I would refer you to my original example – in other words, you need more explanation: if she didn't marry him for his money, what did she marry him for?)


----------



## Andygc

Sankaku_Neko said:


> To make the meaning clear, can I say the following sentences?


Saying them slightly differently doesn't make it clear. You can't hear a comma.


Copyright said:


> The problem with questions like this is that they are asked outside context.


 There's no point trying to make a sentence that has two meanings clearer by fiddling around with it in isolation. English is a context-dependent language. We routinely use sentences that are capable of two meanings and rely on context to define the meaning. Your sentence is a typical example. It is a natural English sentence, and revising it makes it into an unnatural sentence.

"She married him not because he is rich." just isn't English. It might have been 400 years ago, when it would also have been capable of the same two meanings.


----------



## Sankaku_Neko

Copyright said:


> I'm not a fan of either of those – it sounds like you're having to pay for every word and you want to save money.


I couldn't understand this sentence.  However, reading it many times caused me to understand its meaning to laugh out laud.  That's right!  I want to save money.  I have asked the questions because I want to understand the grammatical rules included in (A) rather than the meaning.  Though I agree that (A) should be added more information to clearfy the meaning, it is not my purpose.



Copyright said:


> (1a) She didn't marry him – _because he is rich_. (Your first sentence is something that is culturally or socially unexpected, so you need to make it plainer than you have with just a comma. A comma might be technically correct, but you need more explanation or you need to make it plainer, in my opinion.)


I like (1a) because it looks like (1).  But, since I have never studied punctuation, I can't understand differences between a hyphen and a comma.  I study punctuation.



Copyright said:


> (2a) She didn't marry him for his money. (That would be better. If you want to use the "not because" construction, I would refer you to my original example – in other words, you need more explanation: if she didn't marry him for his money, what did she marry him for?)


(2a) sounds to me as if it has two meanings also.  (2a) have the only meaning for native speakers, doesn't it?  In consideration of Copyright's advice and my purpose, can I describe the following sentence?

(2b) She married him not because he was rich but because he was kind.

Andygc teach me that (A) is natural and that the others (1, 2, 1a, and 2a) are unnatural, doesn't it?  Particularly, (2) sounds like an ancient man says it, doesn't it?  But, in other words, (2) is grammatically correct, isn't it?

All sentences may have some meanings in not only English but also all languages.  But, that’s the very reason why every sentence should be described to clearfy the meaning if the sentence is unnatural a little, in my opinion.  Is (2b) grammatically incorrect or unnatural?


----------



## Sankaku_Neko

Teachers and reference books for the study of English have taught me the manner that English text should be understand from the former in order.  Why isn't this manner applied to (A) in the case where she married him?


----------



## Sankaku_Neko

Wow!  Much information have been added to my questions.
Thank you, wordreference.com.


----------



## Sankaku_Neko

> *usage*:
> When *because* follows a negative construction the meaning can be ambiguous. In the sentence _he did not go because he was ill_, for example, it is not clear whether it means either ‘the reason he did not go was that he was ill’ or ‘being ill wasn't the reason for him going; there was another reason’. Use a comma when the first interpretation is intended (_he did not go, because he was ill_), or avoid using *because* after a negative altogether.


This is the explanation by COD.

In consideration of the information given by everyone, the sentence of "She didn't marry him because he was rich" is ambiguous, but interpreted as "She married him" rather than "She didn't marry him."  If I intend to describe "She didn't marry him", I should put a comma or the like before "because", or put the because clause before "She didn't marry him."


----------



## Copyright

What's a COD?

And the comma may make a difference in written meaning, but only to someone who knows the same rule.


----------



## Sankaku_Neko

COD is The Concise Oxford Dictionary.

> the comma may make a difference in written meaning, but only to someone who knows the same rule.
Doesn't some persons know the rule of the comma?


----------



## Copyright

Sankaku_Neko said:


> Doesn't some persons know the rule of the comma?


You would be surprised at what some people don't know – punctuation and grammatical niceties are only the beginning. 

I'm sorry but I have to ask: do you think the "rule of the comma" is universal knowledge – that everyone knows the difference between the two sentences below?

_She didn't marry him because he is rich.
She didn't marry him, because he is rich._


----------



## Sankaku_Neko

Yes, I do.  I have believed that the "rule of the comma" is universal knowledge, but it isn't.
I try to describe English sentences without commas.


----------



## velisarius

Sankaku_Neko said:


> Teachers and reference books for the study of English have taught me the manner that English text should be understand from the former in order.  Why isn't this manner applied to (A) in the case where she married him?



I think you mean here that one normally reads cause and effect into a sentence like: 
_She didn't X because Y
Because Y, she didn't X_
- so that Y will always be the reason that she does X.

I think that would be the way one normally reads such a sentence:
_She didn't jump in the water because _(the reason being that)_ she couldn't swim.
_
In the OP sentence however, this normal reading of the sentence seem to be illogical so we search for any other meaning. The other possible (and more logical) meaning is "She didn't X on account of Y (but for some other reason)".


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Andygc said:


> [...]
> 
> "She married him not because he is rich." just isn't English.


Hello Andy.

Do you really stand by this?  It seems to me to be something one might easily say or write in the right context.  It may well not be appropriate in whatever context you were thinking of, but I'm not clear what that may have been.

Here are some similar examples from the British Corpus:

This is not because Africans are illogical, irresponsible or short-sighted._ New Internationalist._
‘Elonex supplies this sort of thing,’ says Mr Spiro, ‘but not because it's a big revenue earner._ Accountancy._ London: Institute of Chartered Accountants, 1992

If you were saying that it was usual to add the real reason - _She married him, not because he is rich, but because she enjoyed being with him _- I would agree entirely.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I'm interested in this business of the order of the clauses altering cause and effect.

Consider these three sentences:

(X) Because he is rich, she didn't marry him - she didn't marry him; his wealth put her off.

(A) She didn't marry him because he is rich - ambiguous.

(1) She didn't marry him, because he is rich - ambiguous still, but less so than (A).

_I use this, apparently eccentric, labeling for the sentences because sentences (A) and (1) have already been given those labels in this thread._


----------



## Sankaku_Neko

velisarius said:


> In the OP sentence however, this normal reading of the sentence seem to be illogical so we search for any other meaning. The other possible (and more logical) meaning is "She didn't X on account of Y (but for some other reason)".


Hi, velisarius*.*

Though I said that the "normal reading" isn't applied to OP sentence (A?), you think that the "normal reading" is applied to (A).  Then, since the normal reading of (A) seems to be illogical, you interpret (A) as "She didn't marry him on account of his money."  I don't understand this flow of thought, but I must accept it because native speakers do so.



Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm interested in this business of the order of the clauses altering cause and effect.
> 
> Consider these three sentences:
> 
> (X) Because he is rich, she didn't marry him - she didn't marry him; his wealth put her off.
> 
> (A) She didn't marry him because he is rich - ambiguous.
> 
> (1) She didn't marry him, because he is rich - ambiguous still, but less so than (A).
> 
> _I use this, apparently eccentric, labeling for the sentences because sentences (A) and (1) have already been given those labels in this thread._


Hi, Thomas Tompion.

I can understand that (A) is ambiguous, but I can't understand that (1) is ambiguous.  (1) has the only meaning, doesn't it?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Sankaku_Neko said:


> [...]I can understand that (A) is ambiguous, but I can't understand that (1) is ambiguous.  (1) has the only meaning, doesn't it?


I think you don't see that this might mean that her reason for marrying him had nothing to do with his wealth, because you take commas more seriously than do many English people.

I still haven't got over your thinking there was some universal "rule of the comma".

I don't think I'm the first to suggest this to you in this thread.


----------



## Sankaku_Neko

I think that (1) is not ambiguous but incomplete.  Though (1) should be added further information to make the meaning clearer, this doesn't imply that the structure of (1) is ambiguous.  The structure of (1) is not ambiguous, and the meaning of (1) is ambiguous.

I found advice on the "She did not marry him because he was rich" structure, in English grammar books in Japan.  The books suggests to rewrite (A) as follows.

(1c) Because he was rich, She didn't marry him. (as mentioned in this thread)
(2c) She married him, but it wasn't because he was rich.
(2c') It wasn't because he was rich that she married him.

I think that (1c) is used to answer the question of "What did she do?" and that (2c) and (2c') are used to answer the question of "Why did she marry him?".

Of course, (2c) and (2c') requires futher explanation still.


----------



## Sankaku_Neko

I have thought about sentences having subordinate clauses.  When combining "I think" with "He is not smart", do native English speakers prefer "I don't think that he is smart" over "I think that he is not smart"?  If they do so, this preference might affect "She didn't marry him because he was rich".

If I can divide "I don't think that he is smart" into "I think" and "He is not smart", I could divide "She didn't marry him because he was rich" into "She married him" and "because he wasn't rich".  If so, I can understand that "She didn't marry him because he was rich" is interpreted as "She married him".


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I give up.

I've no idea what anyone might mean who distinguishes between ambiguity of structure and ambiguity of meaning.  I can see how ambiguity of meaning might derive from a choice of structure, but ambiguity as I use the word is concerned with meaning, and, as it stands, (1) remains ambiguous, despite the comma.

Also it's hard to discuss with someone who describes an entirely self-sufficient  sentence as 'incomplete'.  If you add or subtract things from it, it becomes a different sentence.

It's also a bit hard when non-natives ask questions here and then contradict the natives' more or less carefully-considered answers.

Maybe I should be used to that now.


----------



## Sankaku_Neko

I'm sorry for my poor English.  My understanding of commas is wrong perfectly.  I must study English harder.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Sankaku_Neko said:


> I'm sorry for my poor English.  My understanding of commas is wrong perfectly.  I must study English harder.


Don't be disheartened by our difficulties in understanding you, but bald contradiction in a discussion rarely gets the best out of other people, in my experience.


----------



## velisarius

Sankaku_Neko said:


> I have thought about sentences having subordinate clauses.  When combining "I think" with "He is not smart", do native English speakers prefer "I don't think that he is smart" over "I think that he is not smart"?  If they do so, this preference might affect "She didn't marry him because he was rich".
> 
> If I can divide "I don't think that he is smart" into "I think" and "He is not smart", I could divide "She didn't marry him because he was rich" into "She married him" and "because he wasn't rich".  If so, I can understand that "She didn't marry him because he was rich" is interpreted as "She married him".



Yes, (a) "I don't think that he is smart" would be preferred over (b)"I think that he is not smart.
I suspect that equivalent sentences would be:
(a') She didn't marry him because he was rich - (b') She married him because he wasn't rich.
Unlike (a) and (b), they do not seem to have the same meaning.

I admit that this is making my brain hurt, so I'm not sure whether that is what you meant.


----------



## Andygc

Thomas Tompion said:


> Do you really stand by this?


Yes. Your example using "is not" is not comparable since the post-fixed "not" is the normal negation of "to be". The currently normal negation of "to marry" is "to do" + "not" + "marry". My post referred to the OP's proposal that "She married him not because he is rich." could be a replacement for "She did not marry him because he was rich." and thereby clarify the intended meaning. We don't say "She married him not." as a complete sentence or clause to substitute for "she did not marry." Shakespeare and the translators of the King James Bible might have been perfectly happy with it, but we don't do that now, except poetically. Hence my "just isn't English".

There's the perfectly valid use in "She married him, not for money, but for love." but the "not" there is not negating "married".


----------



## Sankaku_Neko

Sankaku_Neko said:


> If I can divide "I don't think that he is smart" into "I think" and "He is not smart", I could divide "She didn't marry him because he was rich" into "She married him" and "because he wasn't rich".  If so, I can understand that "She didn't marry him because he was rich" is interpreted as "She married him".


I made a mistake.  "She didn't marry him because he was rich" should be divided into "She married him" and "(it was) not because he was rich" rather than "(it was) because he wasn't rich".  It is abvious that "he wasn't rich" isn't "he was rich".


----------



## PaulQ

Looking at the original question, this seems to be the best advice:


Copyright said:


> The problem with questions like this is that they are asked outside context. With context, you would know who you are talking about and you would know whether she married him or not.


 That is, if the sentence came up in conversation or a narrative, it would not be ambiguous.


----------



## Sankaku_Neko

Hi, PaulQ.
I have understand that context make the meaning of (A) clear, but


Sankaku_Neko said:


> I have asked the questions because I want to understand the grammatical rules included in (A) rather than the meaning.  Though I agree that (A) should be added more information to clearfy the meaning, it is not my purpose.


For this reason, we (only I?) now have discussed about the sentence without context.


----------



## Andygc

I think we are having difficulty in understanding what you are trying to achieve. What grammatical rules? 
"She didn't marry him because he was rich"
She - subject
did not marry - negated verb
him - object
because he was rich - dependent clause

When you talk of dividing the sentence you are exploring the meaning, not the grammatical structure.


----------



## Sankaku_Neko

Andygc said:


> I think we are having difficulty in understanding what you are trying to achieve. What grammatical rules?


I have already been satisfied thanks to everyone.

In this case, the grammatical rules to me are, for example, the effect of the "not" (not marry? not because? not rich?), and the effect of the comma (whether the comma dams up the effect of the "not" or not).  I understand the former but don't understand the latter.  So, I must study about commas and punctuation.

Thanks a lot.


----------



## PaulQ

The grammar rules do not help. The example is grammatical. Grammar and ambiguity are not directly related. If I say  "Me wented to cinema", the grammar is poor but it is unambiguous that I went to the cinema.

If I say, "David gave him his book." you cannot know if David gave John David's book or returned John's book to John, yet, grammatically, it is perfect.

You are looking not at grammar, but at semantics and the semantics are ambiguous.


----------



## Silver

This thread has been added to a previous thread. Please scroll up to read from the top. Cagey, moderator. 


Hi,

Here's a sentence I put down many years ago. It was definitely written by Chinese.

Daisy doesn't marry him *because he's rich*.

According to the translation of it, it means "Daisy has already married him, but not for the reason that he is rich". Then I asked a BE friend privately and he said he would say:

Daisy isn't going to marry him/isn't marrying him *because he's rich. *(This means because he's rich, Daisy isn't going to marry him.)
Daisy won't marry him *because he's rich.* (So is this one.)

Did I understand correctly?

How to express "Daisy marry him not out of the reason that he's rich"?

Thanks a lot
*
*


----------



## heypresto

You can avoid any ambiguity by saying the more natural 'Daisy isn't marrying him for his money.'




It was definitely written by Chinese. 
It was definitely written by *a* Chinese *person*.


----------



## velisarius

It's a variation on an ambiguous sentence that students like to puzzle over: _She did not marry him because he was rich._

< Joined with previous thread.  Thank you.  Cagey, moderator >


----------



## velisarius

_Daisy doesn't marry him *because he's rich*.
_
The present tense suggests to me that someone is recounting the plot of a novel or movie.

The ambiguity is there but I think I would need a comma in (2), which shows how perverse Daisy is: _ 

1 Daisy doesn't marry the young man her parents have chosen for her because he is rich; she marries him because she respects her parents.

2 Daisy's parents have chosen a handsome young husband for her. Daisy doesn't marry him*,* because he is rich: She prefers to marry a less wealthy man who will respect her and not be able to dominate her so easily._


----------

