Author Topic: Two simple sentences that create semantic conundrums  (Read 3991 times)

Joe Carillo

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4646
  • Karma: +202/-2
    • View Profile
    • Email
Two simple sentences that create semantic conundrums
« on: May 01, 2015, 02:53:57 PM »
Question by Baklis, Forum member, sent to my Personal Messages box (April 30, 2015):

Hello Sir, I just want to know the difference between “being” and “having been” in the two sentences below:

“Being a teacher, she likes children.”
and
“Having been a teacher, she likes children.”

Thank you.

My reply to Baklis:

The difference between the sentences “Being a teacher, she likes children” and “Having been a teacher, she likes children” is clear-cut but the sense of both has a logical peculiarity that defies a simple, straightforward explanation.

In “Being a teacher, she likes children,” the use of the present tense “being” in the participial modifying phrase “being a teacher” indicates that the subject “she” is at present a teacher. However, the main clause “she likes children” makes an implication—but it’s not a certainty—that teachers typically like children, and that the teacher in this particular instance is such a teacher who likes children. This implication makes the logic of the statement debatable even if its grammar is airtight.

On the other hand, the use of the perfect gerund “having been” in “Having been a teacher, she likes children” indicates that the subject “she” used to be teacher but ceased to be teacher sometime in the indefinite past. Like the first sentence, however, the main clause of this second sentence makes the implication—and it’s likewise not a certainty—that teachers typically like children, and that the teacher in this particular instance liked children when she was still teaching and that she still likes children even now. The second sentence also has the further implication that the experience of being a teacher or of having been a teacher imbues a liking for children, but the logic of that second implication is not made clear. Thus, even if the grammar of the second sentence is airtight like that of the first sentence, those two unsupported implications make the logic of the second statement even more debatable than that of the first statement.


Indeed, the two simple sentences you presented can be considered as semantic conundrums, which mean statements that raise a question or problem that only has a conjectural answer.

RELATED READING:
“Teaching Our Children to Think Logically”
« Last Edit: April 24, 2017, 11:51:06 AM by Joe Carillo »

Baklis

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Two simple sentences that create semantic conundrums
« Reply #1 on: May 01, 2015, 09:41:31 PM »
Sir, if we'll going to consider the two participial phrases only, what are their particular use or implication on a sentence?

Joe Carillo

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4646
  • Karma: +202/-2
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Two simple sentences that create semantic conundrums
« Reply #2 on: May 02, 2015, 10:33:50 AM »
If we are going to consider only the participial phrase in the two sentences that you presented, here's what each of those two phrases will denote:

1. “being a teacher" - this present progressive participial phrase means the current continuing state of teacherhood, meaning that one is a teacher by profession and is practicing it at present; and

2. "having been a teacher" - this past perfect progressive participial phrase means that one used to be teacher but ceased to be teacher sometime in the indefinite past, and has not been a teacher again up to the moment of speaking.