Q&A - PSLE English

[carol73]

hi


By the time they reached the beach, it ______ drizzling
1)had started, 2)has started, 3)will be starting, 4)was started

pls advise how do we know when to use had started and has started

thanks

[WhiZland_HG]

carol73:

hi


By the time they reached the beach, it ______ drizzling
1)had started, 2)has started, 3)will be starting, 4)was started

pls advise how do we know when to use had started and has started

thanks

Hi, normally i told students to eliminate first.
Option 4 will be eliminated -- was starting instead of was started.
Option 3 will then be eliminated -- question is in past tense ( reached )
Option 2 is also eliminated -- has is not past tense.

so answer would be option 1.

Regards,
Whizland Hougang

[carol73]

thanks,


so why is this correct, I have eaten my dinner, and not I had eaten my dinner, since it is also past?

[WhiZland_HG]

carol73:

thanks,


so why is this correct, I have eaten my dinner, and not I had eaten my dinner, since it is also past?

Hi,
Because there's no other words in the sentence which suggest a past tense. Unlike in the previous question where 'reached' suggests us to use past tense.

Regards

[AtoZ]

WhiZland_HG:

carol73:

thanks,


so why is this correct, I have eaten my dinner, and not I had eaten my dinner, since it is also past?

Hi,
Because there's no other words in the sentence which suggest a past tense. Unlike in the previous question where 'reached' suggests us to use past tense.

Regards

Hi whizland_sg, can pm me your contact too? Thanks!

[jetsetter]

carol73:

thanks,


so why is this correct, I have eaten my dinner, and not I had eaten my dinner, since it is also past?

You're right. Both occurred in the PAST, temporally speaking. That is what we called the ASPECT. Aspect is not the same as TENSE.

\"I have eaten my dinner\" - present perfect tense. This action occurred relatively close to the time of speaking, i.e. the Present, but it's an action over and done with.

\"I had eaten my dinner\" - past perfect tense; syntacticians called it a past in the past. This means speaker is referring to an action t hat occurred further away in the past in relation to the time of speaking, i.e. the Present.

[TheWriter]

jetsetter:

carol73:

thanks,


so why is this correct, I have eaten my dinner, and not I had eaten my dinner, since it is also past?

You're right. Both occurred in the PAST, temporally speaking. That is what we called the ASPECT. Aspect is not the same as TENSE.

\"I have eaten my dinner\" - present perfect tense. This action occurred relatively close to the time of speaking, i.e. the Present, but it's an action over and done with.

\"I had eaten my dinner\" - past perfect tense; syntacticians called it a past in the past. This means speaker is referring to an action t hat occurred further away in the past in relation to the time of speaking, i.e. the Present.

Props to Jetsetter for explaining the actual grammatical rules at work. Both sentence would be correct depending on the context. Normally as test-setters we will have one or the other in mind and add the context to make it fuller.

For example, if I wanted to test present perfect, I would set it as \"I have eaten my dinner and will not be able to join you at the hawker centre later.\"

If pluperfect, then it would be \"I had eaten my dinner at grandma's house before I came over.\"

I would tell students to look at the bold words as contextual clues, but technically for the latter, the clue is a second, prior event (\"being at grandma's house\"), or what Jetsetter refers to as \"past in the past\".

Explanation of pluperfect for younger kids

Many grammatical rules, like the above, sound very abstract and will not be easy to explain to kids. I'm assuming the question was asked so that mummies can try to explain it to their DC and hopefully they will get the idea.

Past Perfect Tense/Pluperfect - Let's say you want to talk about something that has happened, e.g. a birthday party last weekend. At this point, DC should be able to say we have to use past tense.

Now, at this birthday party, 2 things happened.

A) The birthday girl, Betty, wanted to blow the candles.
B) Before that happened, Amy dropped the cake.

To talk about the past event within a past tense recount, there's no such thing as \"past past tense\". Enter past perfect tense.

By adding \"had + past participle of the verb\", you can now talk about a past event (cake dropping) before another past event (blowing candles).

The sentence will be: \"Amy had dropped the cake before Betty had a chance to blow the candles during the birthday party.\"

I keep bolding \"before\" to give an idea of past in the past, i.e. talking about something that happened earlier, and then adding a detail that happened \"earlier-er\".

Hope this helps!

TheWriter

[TheWriter]

jetsetter:

carol73:

thanks,


so why is this correct, I have eaten my dinner, and not I had eaten my dinner, since it is also past?

You're right. Both occurred in the PAST, temporally speaking. That is what we called the ASPECT. Aspect is not the same as TENSE.

\"I have eaten my dinner\" - present perfect tense. This action occurred relatively close to the time of speaking, i.e. the Present, but it's an action over and done with.

\"I had eaten my dinner\" - past perfect tense; syntacticians called it a past in the past. This means speaker is referring to an action t hat occurred further away in the past in relation to the time of speaking, i.e. the Present.

Props to Jetsetter for explaining the actual grammatical rules at work. Both sentence would be correct depending on the context. Normally as test-setters we will have one or the other in mind and add the context to make it fuller.

For example, if I wanted to test present perfect, I would set it as \"I have eaten my dinner and will not be able to join you at the hawker centre later.\"

If pluperfect, then it would be \"I had eaten my dinner at grandma's house before I came over.\"

I would tell students to look at the bold words as contextual clues, but technically for the latter, the clue is a second, prior event (\"being at grandma's house\"), or what Jetsetter refers to as \"past in the past\".

Explanation of pluperfect for younger kids

Many grammatical rules, like the above, sound very abstract and will not be easy to explain to kids. I'm assuming the question was asked so that mummies can try to explain it to their DC and hopefully they will get the idea.

Past Perfect Tense/Pluperfect - Let's say you want to talk about something that has happened, e.g. a birthday party last weekend. At this point, DC should be able to say we have to use past tense.

Now, at this birthday party, 2 things happened.

A) The birthday girl, Betty, wanted to blow the candles.
B) Before that happened, Amy dropped the cake.

To talk about the past event within a past tense recount, there's no such thing as \"past past tense\". Enter past perfect tense.

By adding \"had + past participle of the verb\", you can now talk about a past event (cake dropping) before another past event (blowing candles).

The sentence will be: \"Amy had dropped the cake before Betty had a chance to blow the candles during the birthday party.\"

I keep bolding \"before\" to give an idea of past in the past, i.e. talking about something that happened earlier, and then adding a detail that happened \"earlier-er\".

Hope this helps!

TheWriter

[Jamesbond]

Leaves …are green contain chlorophyll.


The answer should be "which" or "that"?

[jetsetter]

Jamesbond:

Leaves ...........are green contain chlorophyll.


The answer should be \"which\" or \"that\"?

Eh, what's the given answer ah?

\"that\" can be used with inanimate as well as animate objects, but \"which\" can only be used with inanimate objects/non-restrictive relative clauses. By right, both are acceptable cos \"leaves\" = inanimate.

But if you are forced to pick one, I'd pick \"that\".

a) Leaves which are green contain chlorophyll.

If you choose \"which\", you risk converting \"which are green\" into a relative clause that qualifies the Subject \"Leaves\", hence altering the hypothesis to: All leaves are green and they contain chlorophyll.

Cannot seem to see the meaning? Please insert commas: \"Leaves, which are green, contain chlorophyll\". See the risk in thwarting the meaning?

b) Leaves that are green contain chlorophyll.

But not all leaves are green. IMO, \"that\" is a lower-risk option. Becos by tagging \"that\" to \"Leaves\", you're carving a subset out of \"Leaves\", meaning only the green type of \"Leaves\" contain chlorophyll. Non-green ones don't, am I scientifically correct?

But I understand purple/red/orange/yellow leaves also contain chlorophyll....hahaha! :?