Q&A - PSLE English

[iRabbit]

Sentence structure.


1. The books were read by them with interest.

Or

2. The books were read wih interest by them.

Which sentence is better or are they the same? Tq.

[ChiefKiasu]

FQW:

Sentence structure.


1. The books were read by them with interest.

Or

2. The books were read wih interest by them.

Which sentence is better or are they the same? Tq.

I would prefer (1), but with a comma, ie:
\"The books were read by them, with interest\"

Though I can't really say (2) is wrong either. Goodness.

Why must English be so complicated?
Why English so complicated wan? (Singaporean-preferred )

[Nebbermind]

ChiefKiasu:

FQW:

Sentence structure.


1. The books were read by them with interest.

Or

2. The books were read wih interest by them.

Which sentence is better or are they the same? Tq.

I would prefer (1), but with a comma, ie:
\"The books were read by them, with interest\"

Though I can't really say (2) is wrong either. Goodness.

Why must English be so complicated?
Why English so complicated wan? (Singaporean-preferred )

perhaps it's coz we are trying to convey a message in too few words. Donch you find them very strange sounding....like direct translation from another language.

[Fried chicken]

FQW:

Sentence structure.


1. The books were read by them with interest.

Or

2. The books were read wih interest by them.

Which sentence is better or are they the same? Tq.

I don't like either of them. Are there certain rules on how the sentence should be written? For example, do they have to be passive-voice sentences (as in both cases above) or can they be active voice? Eg: they read the books with interest.

If I had to choose one, I think I would probably go for the second one, although I can't really tell you why lol. I don't think either are technically wrong.

[XXXX]

Fried chicken:

I don't like either of them. Are there certain rules on how the sentence should be written? For example, do they have to be passive-voice sentences (as in both cases above) or can they be active voice? Eg: they read the books with interest.

Absolutely, active voice is so much better.

In all these cases, the examiner is trying to trip people up - usually the forced and stilted version is \"grammatically correct\".

But in many cases it's a lot of BS (sorry).

Language is more robust than [something requiring - edit, see!] pedantic and petty rules - it is certainly not owned by the grammarians; rather it is organic and owned by the people(s) who speak it. Shakespeare often broke \"the rules\". English is complicated - it's a wonderfully rich, subtle and nuanced language, but it doesn't need to be made even more complicated by a certain class of pedant. /rant

[Fried chicken]

XXXX:

Fried chicken:

I don't like either of them. Are there certain rules on how the sentence should be written? For example, do they have to be passive-voice sentences (as in both cases above) or can they be active voice? Eg: they read the books with interest.

Absolutely, active voice is so much better.

In all these cases, the examiner is trying to trip people up - usually the forced and stilted version is \"grammatically correct\".

But in many cases it's a lot of BS (sorry).

Language is more robust than pedantic and petty rules - it is certainly not owned by the grammarians; rather it is organic and owned by the people(s) who speak it. Shakespeare often broke \"the rules\". English is complicated - it's a wonderfully rich, subtle and nuanced language, but it doesn't need to be made even more complicated by a certain class of pedant. /rant

Agree completely. :goodpost:

[iRabbit]

Fried chicken:

FQW:

Sentence structure.


1. The books were read by them with interest.

Or

2. The books were read wih interest by them.

Which sentence is better or are they the same? Tq.

I don't like either of them. Are there certain rules on how the sentence should be written? For example, do they have to be passive-voice sentences (as in both cases above) or can they be active voice? Eg: they read the books with interest.

If I had to choose one, I think I would probably go for the second one, although I can't really tell you why lol. I don't think either are technically wrong.

Actually my query was from a PSLE assessment book on Synthesis Transformation from Casco.

The question was to change from active to passive sentence.

Qn: Many people read the article with interest.

DS wrote: The article was read by many people with interest.

The \"model\" answer given was: The article was read with interest by many people.

Just now we were arguing which one is the 'better' answer. From the replies here, it looks like six of one half a dozen of the other.

Thanks to all for your replies.

[Fried chicken]

FQW:

Fried chicken:

[quote=\"FQW\"]Sentence structure.


1. The books were read by them with interest.

Or

2. The books were read wih interest by them.

Which sentence is better or are they the same? Tq.

I don't like either of them. Are there certain rules on how the sentence should be written? For example, do they have to be passive-voice sentences (as in both cases above) or can they be active voice? Eg: they read the books with interest.

If I had to choose one, I think I would probably go for the second one, although I can't really tell you why lol. I don't think either are technically wrong.

Actually my query was from a PSLE assessment book on Synthesis Transformation from Casco.

The question was to change from active to passive sentence.

Qn: Many people read the article with interest.

DS wrote: The article was read by many people with interest.

The \"model\" answer given was: The article was read with interest by many people.

Just now we were arguing which one is the 'better' answer. From the replies here, it looks like six of one half a dozen of the other.

Thanks to all for your replies. [/quote]The model answer is better. To me, your DS' answer could be slightly ambiguous - 'read by many people with interest' could mean 'vested interest'. The ambiguity disappears when you put a comma before 'with interest', but 'with interest' then becomes a non-restrictive clause. However, because the fact that they read it with interest is an important part of the sentence, it therefore shouldn't be a non-restrictive clause. '...was read with interest' retains the idea of the sentence and shouldnt be separated. Therefore the model answer is better.

But this is just my opinion. And not a good explanation, and it may also not be right, so take it with a grain of salt. I am not a teacher lol.

[XXXX]

Fried chicken:

FQW:

Actually my query was from a PSLE assessment book on Synthesis Transformation from Casco.

The question was to change from active to passive sentence.

Qn: Many people read the article with interest.

DS wrote: The article was read by many people with interest.

The \"model\" answer given was: The article was read with interest by many people.

Just now we were arguing which one is the 'better' answer. From the replies here, it looks like six of one half a dozen of the other.

Thanks to all for your replies.

The model answer is better. To me, your DS' answer could be slightly ambiguous - 'read by many people with interest' could mean 'vested interest'. The model answer doesn't have that ambiguity and is more easily understood.

But this is just my opinion. I am not a teacher lol.

Yes, it's not a toss up - the model answer is definitely better in that case. The \"with interest\" goes with the passive \"was read\", not hanging ambiguously at the end. This just goes to show that context is everything.

[CreativeHorizons]

XXXX:

ngl2010:

Hi. Anybody can help in these Synthesis and Transformation problems?


1. Jared had injured his elbow during practice. Jared won the tennis match.
Answer 1: Jared won the tennis match despite injuring his elbow during practice.
Answer 2: Jared won the tennis match despite the fact that he had injured his elbow during practice.
Which answer is correct?

2. The Prefect Master said, \"This year the NE Show will be at the Padang.\"
Answer 1: The Prefect Master announced that the NE Show would be at the Padang that year.
Answer 2: The Prefect Master announced that that year the NE Show would be at the Padang.
Which answer is correct?

TIA

Good grief! What are the rules you are meant to be applying here? Both answers to both questions are not incorrect but I prefer answer 1 in both cases, but cannot explain why (except they sound more fluent to my ear).

Please provide the rule set and let's see if we can apply it.

One of the fundamental transformation/synthesis rules is to maintain the verb forms. As far as possible, the order of words should also be maintained.

Question 1:
The original first sentence in question 1 contains the verb form \"had injured\", with \"had\" as a helping verb. Thus it is advisable to retain the helping verb in the synthesised sentence (\"having injured\").

Jared won the tennis match despite having injured his elbow during practice.

Answer 2 to question 1 is also correct.


Question 2:
Usually words are given to help the students do the transformation/synthesis. If the verb \"announced\" is not given as part of the beginning words, then there is no reason why \"said\" should not be retained. Assuming that the verb \"announced\" is given as the guiding verb, and following the above rule about word order, then answer 2 is the more acceptable answer.