This is talking about a promise to meet at a certain place. However, is it grammatically correct? Is it badly phrased? It seems that it can be misinterpreted to mean that at a certain place a promise was made to meet, rather than promising to meet at a certain place later.
|
It is grammatical (as far as it goes - I assume you're using it as part of a longer sentence!). It is also potentially ambiguous, as you say - it could be interpreted to mean the place where we made the promise rather than the place where the meeting will take place. However, it is more likely to be interpreted the way you want; moreover in context it is unlikely to cause much confusion, especially if there are more cues in the sentence to indicate which meaning is intended, for example:
This is very unlikely to be interpreted as the place where we made our agreement. |
|||
|
|
If confusion reigns due to misunderstanding of that phrase, try changing it a little so that it retains it romantic taste while being absolutely clear:
There can be no ambiguity about the above. |
|||||||||||
|
|
To remove any ambiguity (although I agree with @psmears that the sentence is unlikely to be misinterpreted) you could use meeting place or meeting point.
However, the place that we promised to meet has some poetic vein to it that is lost in the above example. |
|||||||||||
|
|
For a rather archaic, but unambiguous option you could use tryst or trysting place. |
|||
|
|
|
Yes, there is ambiguity from the possibilities that you could be discussing the content of the promise or the situation of the promise's making. I think that while mildly ambiguous your phrase would be clearly understood, and that if you were intending to refer to your location at the time of promising, you would use additional words to distinguish this meaning. It's like if you said "I kissed her in the belfry", someone could ask "what part of the body is that?" But it would be only as a joke because your meaning was clearly understood as the most likely. |
||||
|
|
