Page "learned" Paragraph 556

It is clear that patterns of stress sometimes show construction unambiguously in the spoken language where without the help of context it would be ambiguous in the written.

Other examples follow.

`` I'll come by Tuesday.

I can't be happy long without drinking water ''.

In the first of these sentences if by is the complement of come and Tuesday is an adjunct of time equivalent to on Tuesday, there will be strong stress on by in the spoken language ; ;

but if a complement for come is implied and by Tuesday is a prepositional unit used as an adjunct, by will be unstressed or lightly stressed at most.

In the second sentence if drinking water is a gerundial clause and without drinking water is roughly equivalent in meaning to unless I drink water, there will be stronger stress on water than on drinking ; ;

but if drinking is a gerundial noun modifying water and without drinking water is equivalent to without water for drinking, there will be stronger stress on drinking than on water.

But the use of stress in comparison and contrast, for example, can undermine distinctions such as these.

And patterns of stress are not always unambiguous by any means.

In the Steiners have busy lives without visiting relatives only context can indicate whether visiting relatives is equivalent in meaning to paying visits to relatives or to relatives who are visiting them, and in I looked up the number and I looked up the chimney only the meanings of number and chimney make it clear that up is syntactically a second complement in the first sentence and a preposition followed by its object in the second.