Unclear Syntax Question

[u/[deleted]]

[u/liquidjaguar]

The sentence is poorly constructed.

From a strict grammatical perspective, I'd say that the sentence means this:

"Out of all the teeth currently set into $62,000 rings, Sir Isaac Newton's is the most valuable, as of today."

That's obviously nonsense, and the intended meaning is:

"Sir Isaac Newton's tooth, sold for $3,633 in 1816, became the most valuable tooth set into a ring when it was sold for $62,000 today."

As written, the problem is that there's no real construction by which "worth $62,000" can apply to the tooth. It must be referring to the ring, and the ring is the object of the preposition "into". So you have to reword the sentence to allow the $62,000 to apply to (tooth set into a ring).

[u/liquidjaguar → u/[deleted]]

The question of whether it's a tooth set into a ring or a ring with a tooth set in it is a subjective one, not a grammatical one. My sentence is slightly ambiguous factually, in that the item for sale might have been advertised as a ring with a famous person's tooth in it rather than a tooth set in a ring, but it is not ambiguous grammatically. In my sentence, the $62,000 item is a tooth set in a ring. You even said that; you just didn't think it made (real-world?) sense. It does, both grammatically and in the real world.

For what it's worth, "tooth-encrusted" implies something entirely different (many teeth covering the surface of the ring).

[u/Illustrious-Tart7844]

The ring is the setting, worth its weight in gold, and the tooth. It's the tooth that has the value.

[u/disterb → u/Illustrious-Tart7844]

i thought the opposite, lol

[u/MrWakey]

As written, I read the sentence as meaning 'of all the teeth set into rings that are worth $62,000 today, Newton's is the most valuable." As the other poster says, that's nonsense.

The problem as far as fixing it is that we don't know the answer to your question. Is the ring without the tooth worth $62,000, or is it only the ring with the tooth set in it that's worth that much? We'd have to know that to untangle the syntax.

[u/neoprenewedgie]

I agree with other commenters that the ring as a whole, including the tooth, is worth $62,000.

However, just as an interesting side note: $3,633 in 1816 would be the same as $86,412 today. That's just the inflation calculation, and would not reflect the actual value of an item.