Does it make you feel better if we translate it as "the waiter is standing on her dress"? Because that's an alternate translation, it just depends on context.
I'm pretty sure EVERY English native speaker would feel better if it were "is standing on the dress", because that is easy to imagine without too much "back story". For "stands on the dress" we need some context like "every time he sees her" or something like that. I don't mind absurd sentences, but they need a context for us to relate to them.
I like to read translations like this as stage directions for a play. "The waiter walks in. He stands on her dress. He realizes what he's doing and apologizes."
Of course. Personally, when Duo gives me sentences like this one, I translate it in the present progressive form ("is standing") rather than "stands", because most of the scenarios that I imagine only make sense with "is standing". However, we should still know that this is how you would say "the waiter STANDS on her dress" for such a scenario in which there is the context of "every time he sees her", for example. Does that make sense?
I think this may be an example of a dangling participle, because the "her" is an unexpected switch in subject. There was no clue that there were two people in this sentence until the sudden reference to a second person's possession near the end of the sentence. I confess I wasn't an English major, so I may have the wrong rule here.
No "dangling" participles here, just limited context (still 7 months later)! :-)
Also, when speakers (or writers) use personal pronouns and pronominal suffixes/clitics to refer to someone or something (i.e., a referential participant or entity), there's a tacit assumption that that someone or something is (cognitively) accessible and identifiable to the hearer. This is central to the many linguistic discussions and explanations of definiteness. http://www.glossary.sil.org/term/definiteness
The use of a pronoun without first introducing the female participant must have surprised you a bit; but, even though that's admittedly a bit odd, at least a restaurant situation is not too hard to imagine. Most of us probably have some background knowledge of "going to a restaurant" and the sorts of expectations that entails (sometimes called a "schema"). We can easily make sense of this by assuming a waiter is stepping on the dress of a female customer. (He's still doing so 7 months later!)
It looks like you're still going strong with you studies. Keep up the good work!
Is the waitress naked, while she stands on her dress? A Waiter is a male, waitresses are females.
Are using inclusive language? Waiter in English refers to a man, waitress is female
Well, Hebrew being a very gendered language, the non-binary Jews are having a hard time gaining track with wild proposals like this: הַמֶּלְצָרֶה עוֹמֶ֫דֶה עַל הַשִּׁמְלָה שֶׁלֶּה the waiter/-ress stands on their dress, making the vowel /e/ to the marker of the genderqueer.