"I spent money to buy something"
DJ
I have a question about the meaning of this sentence:
"I spent one hundred dollars to buy this skirt."
One (possible) scenario could be, say, a friend came to visit me. She
showed me a new skirt she just bought, and said "I spent one hundred
dollars to buy this skirt." ...
If you were me, would you feel this sentence seems to stop prematurely?
(Maybe it sounds like she'd trying to tell me her purpose of buying this
skirt, or something else)
Or it's just unremarkable and you'd just take it as it is, and simply
acknowledge the fact that she got a skirt? Maybe it sounds to you like
"I spent one hundred dollars on this skirt" and that's the end of this
complete sentence.
I hope I'm making myself clear...
Thanks,
--
DJ
Prai Jei
> Hi,
>
> I have a question about the meaning of this sentence:
>
> "I spent one hundred dollars to buy this skirt."
>
> One (possible) scenario could be, say, a friend came to visit me. She
> showed me a new skirt she just bought, and said "I spent one hundred
> dollars to buy this skirt." ...
In BrE such a statement (substituting a more appropriate currency unit)
would be taken as a rant against a price thought to be excessive.
--
ξ:) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Mark Brader
> I have a question about the meaning of this sentence:
> "I spent one hundred dollars to buy this skirt."
Nothing wrong with it. It suggests that the speaker thinks the
price was high.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Where is down special?" ... "Good."
m...@vex.net | "Do you refuse to answer my question?" "Don't know."
Peter
To me the sentence sounds stilted. More normal would be "this skirt
cost a hundred bucks".
tony cooper
If you heard this in conversation, or read it in a blog, the sentence
should not seem either remarkable or worthy of comment. People talk
that way.
If you heard or saw the sentence in some form that was edited or
prepared for distribution, you might wonder about the speaker.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
DJ
>> showed me a new skirt she just bought, and said "I spent one hundred
>> dollars to buy this skirt." ...
>>
>> If you were me, would you feel this sentence seems to stop
>> prematurely? (Maybe it sounds like she'd trying to tell me her
>> purpose of buying this skirt, or something else)
>>
>> Or it's just unremarkable and you'd just take it as it is, and simply
>> acknowledge the fact that she got a skirt? Maybe it sounds to you
>> like "I spent one hundred dollars on this skirt" and that's the end
>> of this complete sentence.
>>
Prai Jei wrote:
Mark Brader wrote:
Peter wrote:
Thanks you all. If I may push my luck a little(I promise this is the
last) and change it to:
"I spent twenty dollars to buy this skirt"
(or a price range that's normal--not too high, not too
low(I'd love a bargain too) )
Would this make a difference? (Say, simply unremarkable, or ...?)
--
DJ
alan
"Mark Brader" <m...@vex.net> wrote in message
news:aPadnTnJZrICGerU...@vex.net...
> D.J.:
>> I have a question about the meaning of this sentence:
>> "I spent one hundred dollars to buy this skirt."
>
> Nothing wrong with it. It suggests that the speaker thinks the
> price was high.
Perhaps *you* think the price was high. There's nothing in the sentence
that indicates the purchaser felt that the item was expensive.
In fact, there *is* something wrong with that sentence.
She spent a hundred dollars. OK. In order to do what? In order to buy a
skirt.
It's conceivable that she spent a hundred dollars for a membership to some
sort of buying club which gave her the privilege of buying that skirt for an
undisclosed sum.
Granted, that's probably not what was meant, but the sentence is very
sloppy.
DJ
tony cooper wrote:
> If you heard this in conversation, or read it in a blog, the sentence
> should not seem either remarkable or worthy of comment. People talk
> that way.
>
> If you heard or saw the sentence in some form that was edited or
> prepared for distribution, you might wonder about the speaker.
>
The last part is a good info. Thanks.
--
DJ
DJ
> Perhaps *you* think the price was high. There's nothing in the sentence
> that indicates the purchaser felt that the item was expensive.
>
> In fact, there *is* something wrong with that sentence.
>
> She spent a hundred dollars. OK. In order to do what? In order to buy a
> skirt.
> It's conceivable that she spent a hundred dollars for a membership to
> some sort of buying club which gave her the privilege of buying that
> skirt for an undisclosed sum.
Yup, this is what I wanted to know.
(and it seems like some people feel this way and some don't...(?) )
> Granted, that's probably not what was meant, but the sentence is very
> sloppy.
--
DJ
Robert Bannister
I still think "$20 on this skirt" is more usual. The sentence, to me,
suggests that she did something that enabled her to buy the skirt and
that the actual price is not mentioned. Compare "I pawned my ring to buy
this skirt".
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
Good point. We hear many oddities in conversation without even noticing
them; it's only when they're in print, we get picky.
--
Rob Bannister
Peter
I think the original sentence is odd, and I would interpret it to mean
that the skirt cost $20, but I'd never phrase it that way. I can see
what you mean.
But does "I spent $20 on this skirt" mean that the skirt cost $20, or
that the cleaning cost was $20?
What about "I spent $20 on this girl"? Does that mean the girl cost
$20, or you used $20 for something related to the girl?
Skitt
> What about "I spent $20 on this girl"? Does that mean the girl cost
> $20, or you used $20 for something related to the girl?
I'll never tell ...
--
Skitt (AmE)
Leslie Danks
[...]
[concerning: "I spent 'x' dollars to buy this skirt."]
> I still think "$20 on this skirt" is more usual. The sentence, to me,
> suggests that she did something that enabled her to buy the skirt and
> that the actual price is not mentioned. Compare "I pawned my ring to buy
> this skirt".
I agree. I don't think I've ever heard the construction "I spent 'x' dollars
to buy this skirt" in the sense of that being the price of the skirt (and I
have certainly never said it). OTOH, "I spent $20 dollars buying this
skirt" does sound OK to me.
--
Les (BrE)
DJ
Now I know I'm not way off. I don't say it that way and won't (under
that context that is), but it got me thinking when I first saw it.
(And many thanks to the pointer about when it's in print)
--
DJ
John Varela
wrote:
"I spent a hundred dollars on this skirt" would be more natural in
AmE and would remove the ambiguity.
--
John Varela
Trade OLD lamps for NEW for email
Default User
> "I spent a hundred dollars on this skirt" would be more natural in
> AmE and would remove the ambiguity.
But arguably introducing other ambiguities, as there's no indication
that the cost was related to purchasing it. Cleaning or repair are
other possible ways to spend money on a garment.
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
Skitt
> "alan" wrote:
>> "Mark Brader" wrote:
>>> D.J.:
>>>> I have a question about the meaning of this sentence:
>>>> "I spent one hundred dollars to buy this skirt."
>>>
>>> Nothing wrong with it. It suggests that the speaker thinks the
>>> price was high.
>>
>> Perhaps *you* think the price was high. There's nothing in the
>> sentence that indicates the purchaser felt that the item was
>> expensive.
>>
>> In fact, there *is* something wrong with that sentence.
>>
>> She spent a hundred dollars. OK. In order to do what? In order to
>> buy a skirt.
>> It's conceivable that she spent a hundred dollars for a membership
>> to some sort of buying club which gave her the privilege of buying
>> that skirt for an undisclosed sum.
>> Granted, that's probably not what was meant, but the sentence is very
>> sloppy.
>
> "I spent a hundred dollars on this skirt" would be more natural in
> AmE and would remove the ambiguity.
I'd say, "I paid a hundred dollars for this skirt." Not that I would do
that, of course.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Evan Kirshenbaum
> John Varela wrote:
>> "I spent a hundred dollars on this skirt" would be more natural in
>> AmE and would remove the ambiguity.
>
> I'd say, "I paid a hundred dollars for this skirt." Not that I would
> do that, of course.
Well, not *that* skirt. It does nothing for your legs.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |"You can't prove it *isn't* so!" is
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |as good as Q.E.D. in folk logic--as
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |though it were necessary to submit
|a piece of the moon to chemical
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |analysis before you could be sure
(650)857-7572 |that it was not made of green
|cheese.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Bergen Evans
Stephen
> "Skitt" <skit...@comcast.net> writes:
> > John Varela wrote:
> >> "I spent a hundred dollars on this skirt" would be more natural in
> >> AmE and would remove the ambiguity.
>
> > I'd say, "I paid a hundred dollars for this skirt." Not that I would
> > do that, of course.
>
> Well, not *that* skirt. It does nothing for your legs.
>
> --
> Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
> HP Laboratories |"You can't prove it *isn't* so!" is
> 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |as good as Q.E.D. in folk logic--as
> Palo Alto, CA 94304 |though it were necessary to submit
> |a piece of the moon to chemical
> (650)857-7572 |that it was not made of green
> |cheese.
> http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Bergen Evans
Stephen
>
> - Show quoted text -
I spent thirty dollars ___ the skirt. (A) buy (B) to buy (C) bought
(D) buying
The answer is option D. Is option B also acceptable?
Lew
> I spent thirty dollars ___ the skirt. (A) buy (B) to buy (C) bought
> (D) buying
>
> The answer is option D. Is option B also acceptable?
Sort of. Someone else upthread (and I'm too lazy just now to look up who)
pointed out that "option B" could mean that one spent thirty dollars just to
qualify oneself to buy it. It's conceivable that the speaker of "B" actually
had to spend some additional unspecified amount for the price of the skirt itself.
"E) on" would be even better if the intent is to describe the price of the skirt.
Usually the "to buy" construct would apply to prerequisites:
"I waited on the queue six hours to buy tickets, then I spent sixty quid
apiece on them!"
--
Lew
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Stephen wrote:
>> I spent thirty dollars ___ the skirt. (A) buy (B) to buy (C) bought
>> (D) buying
>> The answer is option D. Is option B also acceptable?
>
> Sort of. Someone else upthread (and I'm too lazy just now to look up
> who) pointed out that "option B" could mean that one spent thirty
> dollars just to qualify oneself to buy it. It's conceivable that the
> speaker of "B" actually had to spend some additional unspecified
> amount for the price of the skirt itself.
I get that more for (D) than for (B). It would also cover cases in
which I got a parking ticket or got into an accident and had to repair
my car. Or if I got lost and wound up having to pay tolls to cross
and recross a bridge. Or if I had to bribe somebody. Or if I had to
pay for alterations or shipping.
> "E) on" would be even better if the intent is to describe the price
> of the skirt.
I think I can get the non-price costs there, too.
> Usually the "to buy" construct would apply to prerequisites:
> "I waited on the queue six hours to buy tickets, then I spent sixty
> quid apiece on them!"
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If a bus station is where a bus
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |stops, and a train station is where
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |a train stops, what does that say
|about a workstation?
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
tony cooper
I really can't figure out what these text books are trying to teach.
(B) and (D) are acceptable, but the normal structure of that sentence
is "I spent thirty dollars on that skirt". Or, even, "I spent thirty
dollars for that skirt". That's the way an American would deliver
that sentence.
If the intent is to teach conversational AmE, almost every example I
see from these texts fail miserably.
If the intent is to teach the usage of the forms of "buy", then the
question should be "I (A) buy (B) to buy (C) bought (D) buying that
skirt for thirty dollars" with the correct answer as (C).
From the examples I see, whoever is being taught is often taught that
the wrong answer is right, or taught to speak in ways that don't
resemble normal spoken AmE.
DJ
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:51:24 -0500, Lew <no...@lewscanon.com> wrote:
>
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> I spent thirty dollars ___ the skirt. (A) buy (B) to buy (C) bought
>>> (D) buying
>>>
>>> The answer is option D. Is option B also acceptable?
....
> From the examples I see, whoever is being taught is often taught that
> the wrong answer is right, or taught to speak in ways that don't
> resemble normal spoken AmE.
>
I hope this thread could at least knock some sense out of
Stephen. He is the person presented this test question in
another forum (and how I got curious about this usage).
When someone else mentioned the sentence with "to buy"
could mean something else, this Stephen said "No American
speakers think so". His source? A ONE-LINE comment from
ONE native speaker in an ESL/EFL website -- "It is to me".
All he cares is if a sentence is "acceptable"--let context
be damned.
I surely hope Stephen isn't going to teach his students that.
--
DJ
Barbara Bailey
> tony cooper wrote:
>> Lew wrote:
>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>> I spent thirty dollars ___ the skirt. (A) buy (B) to buy (C) bought
>>>> (D) buying
>>>>
>>>> The answer is option D. Is option B also acceptable?
>> From the examples I see, whoever is being taught is often taught that
>> the wrong answer is right, or taught to speak in ways that don't
>> resemble normal spoken AmE.
> I hope this thread could at least knock some sense out of
> Stephen. He is the person presented this test question in
> another forum (and how I got curious about this usage).
>
> When someone else mentioned the sentence with "to buy"
> could mean something else, this Stephen said "No American
> speakers think so". His source? A ONE-LINE comment from
> ONE native speaker in an ESL/EFL website -- "It is to me".
> All he cares is if a sentence is "acceptable"--let context
> be damned.
>
> I surely hope Stephen isn't going to teach his students that.
I've finaly sorted out the only situation in which I would say "I spent
thirty dollars to buy this skirt." and it's an odd one. I would use that
construction only if I was referring to an additional cost *beyond the
purchase price* of the skirt. That is, if I had to, for example, take the
train to Chicago to buy it and the train cost me thirty dollars. Then I
might say "I spent thirty dollars to buy this skirt." That is the only
circumstance that I would use that construction in; otherwise I would say
"This skirt cost thirty dollars.", "I spent thirty dollars on this skirt."
or "This skirt was thirty dollars."
tony cooper
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:51:24 -0500, Lew <no...@lewscanon.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>> I spent thirty dollars ___ the skirt. (A) buy (B) to buy (C) bought
>>>> (D) buying
>>>>
>>>> The answer is option D. Is option B also acceptable?
>....
>....
>> From the examples I see, whoever is being taught is often taught that
>> the wrong answer is right, or taught to speak in ways that don't
>> resemble normal spoken AmE.
>>
>
>I hope this thread could at least knock some sense out of
>Stephen.
I dunno what you had in mind when you typed that statement, but it
seems that you feel that Stephen can't spare any sense. Surely, you
meant "knock some sense *into* Stephen".
> He is the person presented this test question in
>another forum (and how I got curious about this usage).
>
>When someone else mentioned the sentence with "to buy"
>could mean something else, this Stephen said "No American
>speakers think so". His source? A ONE-LINE comment from
>ONE native speaker in an ESL/EFL website -- "It is to me".
>All he cares is if a sentence is "acceptable"--let context
>be damned.
>
>I surely hope Stephen isn't going to teach his students that.
--
tony cooper
This goes to the point of my question about what is being taught. If
the exercise is to teach the use of buy/bought/to buy/have bought,
it's acceptable to use sentences that are grammatically correct but
would not always be the natural choice in phrasing. If the exercise
is to teach conversational English, then the sentences should be
formed in normal conversational manner. Of course, I would prefer to
see a grammatically correct version that is also conversationally
natural.
I don't get the impression, though, that the writers of questions have
the slightest idea of what is conversationally natural in English.
Discussions about whether or not the cost represents the cost of skirt
or the cost of acquiring the skirt including train fare are, in my
opinion, completely irrelevant. The lesson is not about eliminating
ambiguity. The lesson is either about the right choice of the form of
the word or about how to use the right choice of the word in
conversational English.
DJ
> I dunno what you had in mind when you typed that statement, but it
> seems that you feel that Stephen can't spare any sense. Surely, you
> meant "knock some sense *into* Stephen".
>
Ooops. Yes. *into*
Thanks!
--
DJ
I constantly make this "xxx out of xxx" mistakes, grrr
DJ
> I've finaly sorted out the only situation ...
I must say thank you for this extra effort you put.
--
DJ
John Varela
<defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> John Varela wrote:
>
> > "I spent a hundred dollars on this skirt" would be more natural in
> > AmE and would remove the ambiguity.
>
> But arguably introducing other ambiguities, as there's no indication
> that the cost was related to purchasing it. Cleaning or repair are
> other possible ways to spend money on a garment.
In most conversations context would make the meaning clear, but "I
paid a hundred dollars for this skirt" removes all doubt. (However,
I'm sure someone will contort an
ambiguity out of even that.)
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
> I don't get the impression, though, that the writers of questions have
> the slightest idea of what is conversationally natural in English.
I have the strong impression that "face-saving" is often involved in
these cases. Just as, we are informed, pilots from a few cultures won't
"do a go-round" if they don't like an approach for any reason or no
tangible reason, so an item-writer may have difficulty in admitting that
what he wrote was less than perfect, or in asking for help.
--
Mike.
Mark Brader
>>> I have a question about the meaning of this sentence:
Mark Brader:
>> Nothing wrong with it. It suggests that the speaker thinks the
>> price was high.
"Alan":
> Perhaps *you* think the price was high.
Me? I haven't seen the skirt.
> There's nothing in the sentence that indicates the purchaser felt
> that the item was expensive.
The choice of wording does. "This skirt cost a hundred dollars"
or "The price of this skirt was a hundred dollars" or "I paid
a hundred dollars for this skirt" would be neutral. Spelling out
"one hundred" puts a bit of emphasis on the number, and coupling it
with "I spent" emphasizes the cost to the speaker. In other words,
the speaker thought the price was high.
--
Mark Brader /"\ ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
m...@vex.net \ / AGAINST HTML MAIL
Toronto X AND NEWS
/ \
My text in this article is in the public domain.
alan
> D.J.:
>>>> I have a question about the meaning of this sentence:
>>>> "I spent one hundred dollars to buy this skirt."
>
> Mark Brader:
>>> Nothing wrong with it. It suggests that the speaker thinks the
>>> price was high.
>
> "Alan":
>> Perhaps *you* think the price was high.
>
> Me? I haven't seen the skirt.
>
>> There's nothing in the sentence that indicates the purchaser felt
>> that the item was expensive.
>
> The choice of wording does. "This skirt cost a hundred dollars"
> or "The price of this skirt was a hundred dollars" or "I paid
> a hundred dollars for this skirt" would be neutral. Spelling out
> "one hundred" puts a bit of emphasis on the number, and coupling it
> with "I spent" emphasizes the cost to the speaker. In other words,
> the speaker thought the price was high.
A unique interpretation
Chuck Riggs
>tony cooper wrote:
>
>> I dunno what you had in mind when you typed that statement, but it
>> seems that you feel that Stephen can't spare any sense. Surely, you
>> meant "knock some sense *into* Stephen".
>>
>
>Ooops. Yes. *into*
>
>Thanks!
Don't worry. Unlike Coop's "Mom and potato pie", which was meant to be
funny but which could confuse learners, it was a mere typo, not really
worth mentioning, IMO.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
Mark Brader
>> ... In other words, the speaker thought the price was high.
"Alan":
> A unique interpretation
No, I'm not the only person in the thread to say so.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "I don't have *any* minions any more."
m...@vex.net -- Clive Feather
alan
> Mark Brader:
>>> ... In other words, the speaker thought the price was high.
>
> "Alan":
>> A unique interpretation
>
> No, I'm not the only person in the thread to say so.
> --
> Mark Brader, Toronto
You're right, it's not unique --- of the 20 or so opinions given, you and
Prai Jei seem to be the only ones interpreting it that way.
Mike Lyle
Has that flavour for me, too.
--
Mike.