Jump to content

How good are you at grammar?

bridge too far

By bridge too far,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted (edited)

I think you mean "How good is your grammar"...

 

97%, one wrong through being careless. Have been thinking whether it still really matters in the internet age, but maybe now accurately conveying what you meant is even more important.

Edited by buctootim
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted (edited)

Quite straightforward really. I don't agree with their use of who/whom. Modern English has superseded their archaic interpretation. I would use 'who' for subject and direct object (accusative) and 'whom' for indirect objects (dative).

Edit: I had a suspicion that they were using the North American interpretation and I've just noticed that it's a Canadian website.

Edited by Whitey Grandad
Link to comment
Share on other sites
buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
100%

 

 

The only question I had a slight hesitation with was the one involving that vs. which.

 

The one about 'which' and 'that'. I was always taught that 'which' should be used for people and 'that' for objects.

 

I think there must a difference between American and British English. That's the one I slipped up on and I know the 'which' / 'that' usage really well because my US boss picks me up on that 'error' all the time, when I think its correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fowllyd

Fowllyd

Posted
Posted
Maybe done the same as me.

 

41B12E0E-2F81-4538-960B-29321FBBF272-310-00000032918348BF_zps99687b8d.jpg

 

The whole thing was stupid tho. I never actually use the word "whom" for example, I just remember from school that I'm sposed to.

 

Got the same - as a linguist by education, I'd query this particular "technically incorrect" statement. Language changes (unless it's a dead language) and what was one regarded as incorrect may now be common parlance - I'd say that the construction "bored of" comes into that category. And, as the Bear comments, hardly anybody actually uses "whom" any more. Give it another generation or two and "whom" will be an archaism in the same way that "thou" is in most English dialects. I also think that there's a difference in the way that "that" and "which" are treated in British and US English; in spite of its spelling, this test is clearly US in origin, as the word "math" indicates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
Got the same - as a linguist by education, I'd query this particular "technically incorrect" statement. Language changes (unless it's a dead language) and what was one regarded as incorrect may now be common parlance - I'd say that the construction "bored of" comes into that category. And, as the Bear comments, hardly anybody actually uses "whom" any more. Give it another generation or two and "whom" will be an archaism in the same way that "thou" is in most English dialects. I also think that there's a difference in the way that "that" and "which" are treated in British and US English; in spite of its spelling, this test is clearly US in origin, as the word "math" indicates.

 

Yes, this is from a Canadian website and there are many differences between North American and British English usage. They say 'different than' for example.

 

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/who-or-whom

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hamilton Saint

Hamilton Saint

Posted
Posted
Yes, this is from a Canadian website and there are many differences between North American and British English usage. They say 'different than' for example.

 

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/who-or-whom

 

Canadian usage is a bit schizoid. Spelling often follows British forms, but idiom and syntax usually follow American style. It can be very confusing. The verb suffix -ise vs. -ize is a good example. and do you "fill out" a form, or "fill in" a form?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hamilton Saint

Hamilton Saint

Posted
Posted
There's no such thing as wrong and right as far as grammar is concerned.

 

Well, there are no absolutes, perhaps. But I would say there are "right" and "wrong" ways of doing things, relatively speaking - based on convention. For example, it's fair to say that it is "wrong" not to start a sentence with a capital letter, or not to end a sentence with a punctuation mark. Things evolve over time, but you do need to have a "temporary" standard - otherwise, it's chaos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SNSUN

SNSUN

Posted
Posted
Math class:- If I were actually in math class, I would say I was bored OF it. If I were talking about math class while not attending it, I would say I was bored BY it.

 

78% by the way. I never did like English lessons too much!! :)

 

I don't even know what Math is. I know what Maths is... :-D *Pedant alert*

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fowllyd

Fowllyd

Posted
Posted
There's no such thing as wrong and right as far as grammar is concerned.

 

Well, there are no absolutes, perhaps. But I would say there are "right" and "wrong" ways of doing things, relatively speaking - based on convention. For example, it's fair to say that it is "wrong" not to start a sentence with a capital letter, or not to end a sentence with a punctuation mark. Things evolve over time, but you do need to have a "temporary" standard - otherwise, it's chaos.

 

By and large, I'd agree with the first of these statements (or should that be the former? According to some it should) more than I would with the second (or last, or latter).

 

What many people get confused about is what grammar actually is in the first place. Grammar, to a linguist, is something which enables you to create any possible sentence in the language it relates to. So it will consist of two parts - syntax and lexicon. Syntax is the rules, lexicon is the words. This type of grammar is descriptive, rather than prescriptive - it tells you how the language works, rather than seeking to tell you how you should use it.

 

English syntax has plenty of rules - as a couple of examples, adjectives precede the noun that they qualify (in French they mostly follow the noun); basic sentence structure is noun-phrase followed by verb-phrase ('Bit the man the dog' would be verb-phrase followed by noun-phrase, as an example of a different structure). As native speakers, we don't think of these things as grammar, simply because we know them instinctively - they're just how we speak and write (and there are, of course, different grammars for spoken and written language). But they are essential parts of English grammar.

 

In English (and this applies to many of the different versions of our language), grammar is often seen in a different way - hence the idea of how things 'should' be said or written. There are many reasons for this, and I haven't the slightest inclination to go into them here (for anyone who's interested, David Crystal's excellent book "The Stories of English" is a great read). However, it remains the case that much of what we think of as grammar is actually style - examples such as the that/which distinction in the test show this very clearly. Would you fail to understand a sentence where 'which' was used rather than 'that'? I doubt it. Would you struggle with a sentence like 'Bit the man the dog'? Not now I've typed it twice you won't, but you probably would if you heard it. To me, the phrase 'I highly doubt it' sounds wrong, because I wouldn't qualify a doubt with the adjective 'high' - I'd have a serious doubt but not a high doubt, so I'd seriously doubt something. But I couldn't possibly say that the construction itself is wrong; I can only say that I don't like it, which is a very different thing. If you try to impose rules according to how you think a language should be, then you end up in the world of the Academie Francaise, and that's really not a good place to be.

 

as a final nod to both ee cummings and hamilton saint the punctuation and capitalisation mentioned are undoubtedly useful how would you know where a sentence starts and ends without them however this is also a convention of written and not spoken language in the former we use written marks in the latter we use intonation and pauses and yes I do realise that this last paragraph reads just like something written by barry sanchez thus proving the value of punctuation if nothing else

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CHAPEL END CHARLIE

CHAPEL END CHARLIE

Posted
Posted

A miserable 81% I'm afraid.

 

This dismal failure however is as nothing compared to the wave of depression that swept over me last night when the 'The Joy of Logic' (BBC4 10pm) left me feeling both depressed and not a little baffled I must admit. Oh well, being aware of the irony is something I suppose.

 

I really must get around to swapping this knackered old brain for a better one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saintbletch

saintbletch

Posted
Posted
By and large, I'd agree with the first of these statements (or should that be the former? According to some it should) more than I would with the second (or last, or latter).

 

What many people get confused about is what grammar actually is in the first place. Grammar, to a linguist, is something which enables you to create any possible sentence in the language it relates to. So it will consist of two parts - syntax and lexicon. Syntax is the rules, lexicon is the words. This type of grammar is descriptive, rather than prescriptive - it tells you how the language works, rather than seeking to tell you how you should use it.

 

English syntax has plenty of rules - as a couple of examples, adjectives precede the noun that they qualify (in French they mostly follow the noun); basic sentence structure is noun-phrase followed by verb-phrase ('Bit the man the dog' would be verb-phrase followed by noun-phrase, as an example of a different structure). As native speakers, we don't think of these things as grammar, simply because we know them instinctively - they're just how we speak and write (and there are, of course, different grammars for spoken and written language). But they are essential parts of English grammar.

 

In English (and this applies to many of the different versions of our language), grammar is often seen in a different way - hence the idea of how things 'should' be said or written. There are many reasons for this, and I haven't the slightest inclination to go into them here (for anyone who's interested, David Crystal's excellent book "The Stories of English" is a great read). However, it remains the case that much of what we think of as grammar is actually style - examples such as the that/which distinction in the test show this very clearly. Would you fail to understand a sentence where 'which' was used rather than 'that'? I doubt it. Would you struggle with a sentence like 'Bit the man the dog'? Not now I've typed it twice you won't, but you probably would if you heard it. To me, the phrase 'I highly doubt it' sounds wrong, because I wouldn't qualify a doubt with the adjective 'high' - I'd have a serious doubt but not a high doubt, so I'd seriously doubt something. But I couldn't possibly say that the construction itself is wrong; I can only say that I don't like it, which is a very different thing. If you try to impose rules according to how you think a language should be, then you end up in the world of the Academie Francaise, and that's really not a good place to be.

 

as a final nod to both ee cummings and hamilton saint the punctuation and capitalisation mentioned are undoubtedly useful how would you know where a sentence starts and ends without them however this is also a convention of written and not spoken language in the former we use written marks in the latter we use intonation and pauses and yes I do realise that this last paragraph reads just like something written by barry sanchez thus proving the value of punctuation if nothing else

 

Whilst reading that I got a lexical lob on, found myself with a syntactic semi and realised that I'd suffered a grammatical engorgement!

 

A great contribution.

 

To support your final paragraph and to show the value of punctuation, see the final chapter of Ulysses by James Joyce. 60+ pages, two full stops and no other punctuation. Not for the faint hearted.

 

I'll check out "The Stories of English". On a similar topic I can recommend Mark Forsyth's books on the evolution of the English language.

 

I got 97%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hamilton Saint

Hamilton Saint

Posted
Posted (edited)
By and large, I'd agree with the first of these statements (or should that be the former? According to some it should) more than I would with the second (or last, or latter).

 

What many people get confused about is what grammar actually is in the first place. Grammar, to a linguist, is something which enables you to create any possible sentence in the language it relates to. So it will consist of two parts - syntax and lexicon. Syntax is the rules, lexicon is the words. This type of grammar is descriptive, rather than prescriptive - it tells you how the language works, rather than seeking to tell you how you should use it.

 

English syntax has plenty of rules - as a couple of examples, adjectives precede the noun that they qualify (in French they mostly follow the noun); basic sentence structure is noun-phrase followed by verb-phrase ('Bit the man the dog' would be verb-phrase followed by noun-phrase, as an example of a different structure). As native speakers, we don't think of these things as grammar, simply because we know them instinctively - they're just how we speak and write (and there are, of course, different grammars for spoken and written language). But they are essential parts of English grammar.

 

In English (and this applies to many of the different versions of our language), grammar is often seen in a different way - hence the idea of how things 'should' be said or written. There are many reasons for this, and I haven't the slightest inclination to go into them here (for anyone who's interested, David Crystal's excellent book "The Stories of English" is a great read). However, it remains the case that much of what we think of as grammar is actually style - examples such as the that/which distinction in the test show this very clearly. Would you fail to understand a sentence where 'which' was used rather than 'that'? I doubt it. Would you struggle with a sentence like 'Bit the man the dog'? Not now I've typed it twice you won't, but you probably would if you heard it. To me, the phrase 'I highly doubt it' sounds wrong, because I wouldn't qualify a doubt with the adjective 'high' - I'd have a serious doubt but not a high doubt, so I'd seriously doubt something. But I couldn't possibly say that the construction itself is wrong; I can only say that I don't like it, which is a very different thing. If you try to impose rules according to how you think a language should be, then you end up in the world of the Academie Francaise, and that's really not a good place to be.

 

as a final nod to both ee cummings and hamilton saint the punctuation and capitalisation mentioned are undoubtedly useful how would you know where a sentence starts and ends without them however this is also a convention of written and not spoken language in the former we use written marks in the latter we use intonation and pauses and yes I do realise that this last paragraph reads just like something written by barry sanchez thus proving the value of punctuation if nothing else

 

Interesting post! I agree with some of this; however, my use of the word "right" or "wrong" has to do with the rules that govern conventional use of the language. If you decide not to follow the convention, you might create uncertainty about your meaning. What you write might be ambiguous. Ambiguity indicates "wrong" syntax; certainty indicates "correct" syntax. Take your example - "bit the man the dog". As you say, the conventional approach to English syntax is to begin with the noun phrase, and then follow that with the verb phrase. And if you have a transitive verb, the verb phrase is followed by a direct object. Your example ("bit the man the dog") is ambiguous because of the order of the words - which is inconsistent with regular English syntax. Regular syntax would be "The man bit the dog". The man is the subject; bit is the transitive verb; and dog is the direct object. Your "wrong" syntax makes your example ambiguous: did the man bite the dog, or did the dog bite the man? If you need certainty, you should follow conventiona syntax. The dog bit the man means the man was bitten. The man bit the dog means the dog was bitten. Bit the man the dog is uncertain because of the irregular syntax. "Wrong" grammar is not a moral or legal issue; it is an issue of clarity and efficiency.

 

Remember this from your study of ambiguity in English class? What is the problem with the following sentence? A piano is for sale by an elderly lady with ornately carved legs. Do the carved legs belong to the piano or the woman? You indicate that by the order of the words - the syntax. If the sentence is ambiguous, then it is "wrong", in the sense that it doesn't do a "proper" job of making the meaning clear.

 

To reiterate: there are no absolutes; these things are relative. But judgments of "wrong" and "right" are based on syntactical conventions.

Edited by Hamilton Saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fowllyd

Fowllyd

Posted
Posted
Whilst reading that I got a lexical lob on, found myself with a syntactic semi and realised that I'd suffered a grammatical engorgement!

 

A great contribution.

 

To support your final paragraph and to show the value of punctuation, see the final chapter of Ulysses by James Joyce. 60+ pages, two full stops and no other punctuation. Not for the faint hearted.

 

I'll check out "The Stories of English". On a similar topic I can recommend Mark Forsyth's books on the evolution of the English language.

 

I got 97%.

 

Yes, Molly Bloom's monologue was very much in my mind when I wrote that final paragraph! I'll check out Mark Forsyth's books; many thanks for the recommendation.

 

Interesting post! I agree with some of this; however, my use of the word "right" or "wrong" has to do with the rules that govern conventional use of the language. If you decide not to follow the convention, you might create uncertainty about your meaning. What you write might be ambiguous. Ambiguity indicates "wrong" syntax; certainty indicates "correct" syntax. Take your example - "bit the man the dog". As you say, the conventional approach to English syntax is to begin with the noun phrase, and then follow that with the verb phrase. And if you have a transitive verb, the verb phrase is followed by a direct object. Your example ("bit the man the dog") is ambiguous because of the order of the words - which is inconsistent with regular English syntax. Regular syntax would be "The man bit the dog". The man is the subject; bit is the transitive verb; and dog is the direct object. Your "wrong" syntax makes your example ambiguous: did the man bite the dog, or did the dog bite the man? If you need certainty, you should follow conventiona syntax. The dog bit the man means the man was bitten. The man bit the dog means the dog was bitten. Bit the man the dog is uncertain because of the irregular syntax. "Wrong" grammar is not a moral or legal issue; it is an issue of clarity and efficiency.

 

Remember this from your study of ambiguity in English class? What is the problem with the following sentence? A piano is for sale by an elderly lady with ornately carved legs. Do the carved legs belong to the piano or the woman? You indicate that by the order of the words - the syntax. If the sentence is ambiguous, then it is "wrong", in the sense that it doesn't do a "proper" job of making the meaning clear.

 

To reiterate: there are no absolutes; these things are relative. But judgments of "wrong" and "right" are based on syntactical conventions.

 

I wouldn't disagree - and I do realise that your previous post wasn't an attempt to impose values of rightness and wrongness. One could, in fact, make a strong case that the syntactic rules of any language are in essence convention rather than anything else. If followed, they will produce comprehensible sentences. But nobody actually makes these rules (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that we all do); they are merely observed and documented.

 

There have, of course, been attempts to create rules for the English language (mostly stemming from the work of a few individuals a couple of hundred years ago) - examples such as not splitting infinitives and not ending a sentence with a preposition come to mind. These came about as a result of an attempt to impose Latin syntax on English, something which, given the very different nature of the two languages, couldn't possibly work. And yet they came to be regarded as valid rules of English for many years, and to some they still are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...