Steffi Lewis asked whether this sentence (which, as she says, is attributed to Chico Marx) is well analyzed: Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
I answered as follows (with apologies to syntacticians for the casual low-class nontechnical description):
In the sensical version of the sentence, "time" is a noun phrase and "flies like an arrow" is a verb phrase (with "like an arrow" an adverbial modifier of the verb "flies"), while "fruit flies" is a noun phrase and "like a banana" is a verb phrase (with "a banana" as the object of the verb "like"). In the nonsensical version of the sentence, you just reverse those two analyses.
The system I was typing the response on uses a spell-checker, which objected to sensical — and I can't really blame it for that, because I sort of made it up…although I got three hits for it when I googled it just now, so (as I already knew) I'm obviously not the only person to make up that word, and besides, I find that there's an obsolete word sensical in the Oxford English Dictionary. Anyway, the spell-checker's complaint about sensical didn't bother me. But it also objected to analyses, and this seems very weird. I assume it wanted analysis instead; but can someone more expert in spell-checking than I am tell me why on earth the spell-checker wouldn't be trained to recognize the plural? What did it expect, analysises? — Maybe it did: I just googled that, and got 76,100 hits for it. But at least Google asked if I meant to google analyses instead, and for analyses I got 68,000,000 hits. So if Google knows about analyses, why doesn't the spell-checker? (I am sorry to have to report that that the Language Log spell-checker is also objecting to analyses, which it has underlined in red on every occurrence in my draft of this post. The shame!) (It doesn't like analysises either. So I conclude that spell-checkers don't want you to have more than one analysis.)