Q&A - PSLE English

[sharonkhoo]

vk2kv:

I have another question.


Lara's parents did not allow her to go to the camp although she pleaded repeatedly.

Ans:

1. Despite the fact that Lara pleaded repeatedly, her parents did not allow her to go to the camp.
2. Despite her repeated pleas, Lara's parents did not allow her to go to the camp.

Kindly advise which is the correct answer and help to explain.
Thank you...

Both are OK grammatically. I would prefer 2 as it's briefer and more to the point. I don't like constructions with \"the fact that\" although sometimes it's unavoidable.

[sharonkhoo]

vk2kv:

Cindy was terrified to see the huge spider on her bag.


The sight of________________________________________.

Need help for the above mentioned question.
Thank you very much.

The sight of the huge spider on her bag terrified Cindy.

[TheWriter]

The sight of the huge spider on Cindy’s bag terrified her.


TheWriter

[sharonkhoo]

TheWriter:

The sight of the huge spider on Cindy's bag terrified her.


TheWriter

Is using the name first and pronoun later is preferred? I was wondering which to use.

[TheWriter]

slmkhoo:

TheWriter:

The sight of the huge spider on Cindy's bag terrified her.


TheWriter

Is using the name first and pronoun later is preferred? I was wondering which to use.

Purists might prefer it, but I wouldn't make a big fuss over it.

Oh and just to add, it has to do with 'antecedents'; means the pronoun usually refers to something earlier in the text (the antecedent). In this case, \"her\" would refer to Cindy.

TheWriter.

[Teacher Aaron]

PiggyLalala:

slmkhoo:

[quote=\"PiggyLalala\"]\"Why are the dishes not washed? \"Mother asked Peter.


Mother asked Peter ________________________________.

Need help for the above question. Thank you very much.

Mother asked Peter why the dishes were not washed.

Thank you, slmkhoo.The answer given is Mother asked Peter why the dishes had not been washed. Do you agree with the answer?[/quote]The given answer is not wrong. The given answer uses the past perfect tense-aspect, which is the one to use to differentiate the order in which two actions in the past occurred. For example:

He had arrived by the time we reached the airport.

Both actions were in the past, and his arrival occurred first. Hence, the use of the past perfect tense-aspect is appropriate in this case to distinguish the order in which both actions occurred.

Going by the same reasoning, the given answer isn't wrong in meaning.

Mother asked Peter why the dishes had not been washed.

At the point which Mother asked Peter, Peter had already committed the action of not washing the dishes. Hence, the use of the past perfect tense-aspect for the washing of the dishes is completely accurate as the asking occurred only after the non-washing of the dishes.

In a very strict grammatical sense, the simple past version is actually incorrect for this transformation question because two actions were involved, with one occurring before the other. The only strictly acceptable tense-aspect is the past perfect. Thus, the given answer is absolutely correct.

I'm actually very impressed by the setter. Even among competent users of English, few know the actual small difference in usage between the simple past and the past perfect tense-aspect forms, but this setter clearly does. Most users of English are probably fine with the simple past form since in terms of meaning, the difference is not huge, but an expert will instantly recognise how competent this setter is in his/her choice of the past perfect tense.

[Teacher Aaron]

TheWriter:

The sight of the huge spider on Cindy's bag terrified her.


TheWriter

This is the better answer. The other version, \"The sight of the huge spider on her bag terrified Cindy\", is generally not recommended. The reason is because all pronouns (which in this case is the word \"her\") are used to make reference to other nouns, so it is actually better that the nouns are identified before pronouns are used to refer to the nouns.

[vk2kv]

:thankyou: all....... slmkhoo, TheWriter and Teacher Aaron.

[Learning Partners]

Teacher Aaron:

The given answer is not wrong. The given answer uses the past perfect tense-aspect, which is the one to use to differentiate the order in which two actions in the past occurred. For example:

He had arrived by the time we reached the airport.

Both actions were in the past, and his arrival occurred first. Hence, the use of the past perfect tense-aspect is appropriate in this case to distinguish the order in which both actions occurred.

Going by the same reasoning, the given answer isn't wrong in meaning.

Mother asked Peter why the dishes had not been washed.

At the point which Mother asked Peter, Peter had already committed the action of not washing the dishes. Hence, the use of the past perfect tense-aspect for the washing of the dishes is completely accurate as the asking occurred only after the non-washing of the dishes.

In a very strict grammatical sense, the simple past version is actually incorrect for this transformation question because two actions were involved, with one occurring before the other. The only strictly acceptable tense-aspect is the past perfect. Thus, the given answer is absolutely correct.

I'm actually very impressed by the setter. Even among competent users of English, few know the actual small difference in usage between the simple past and the past perfect tense-aspect forms, but this setter clearly does. Most users of English are probably fine with the simple past form since in terms of meaning, the difference is not huge, but an expert will instantly recognise how competent this setter is in his/her choice of the past perfect tense.

Hi Teacher Aaron,

I beg to differ.

In school and in various grammatical texts, it is taught that when changing direct speech to reported speech, when the direct speech is in:

1. simple present tense, it should be changed to simple past tense;

2. in simple past tense, it should be changed to past perfect tense.

Why?

Look at the question:

Mother asked Peter, \"Why are the dishes not washed?\"

When Mother asked Peter, the dishes were still not washed. She was asking about a present event at the point of asking. Hence when we convert it to reported speech, using the simple past tense tells the reader that along the timeline, both the question and the event mentioned in the question (dishes not washed) are concurrent.


But if the question had been:

Mother asked Peter, \"Why were the dishes not washed?\"

Then when Mother asked Peter, she was asking about an event even further in the past than the point in time when the question was asked. Thus using the perfect past tense here is correct, because it clearly shows that the question is referring to an event even further in the past than the point in time when Mother was asking Peter.


In fact, if you see the contexts of both questions, you will see that using the simple past tense for reported speech when the simple present tense is used in direct speech, and using the past perfect tense in reported speech when the simple past tense is used in direct speech correspond to exactly your own analysis, i.e. 'two actions were involved, with one occurring before the other' for the latter.

But this obviously does not apply to the former because both question and event mentioned in question are concurrent.


In the original question asked by PiggyLalala, both the question and the event (dishes not washed) were concurrent.

So 'Mother asked Peter why the dishes had not been washed.' is incorrect.

[Teacher Aaron]

Learning Partners:

Teacher Aaron:

The given answer is not wrong. The given answer uses the past perfect tense-aspect, which is the one to use to differentiate the order in which two actions in the past occurred. For example:

He had arrived by the time we reached the airport.

Both actions were in the past, and his arrival occurred first. Hence, the use of the past perfect tense-aspect is appropriate in this case to distinguish the order in which both actions occurred.

Going by the same reasoning, the given answer isn't wrong in meaning.

Mother asked Peter why the dishes had not been washed.

At the point which Mother asked Peter, Peter had already committed the action of not washing the dishes. Hence, the use of the past perfect tense-aspect for the washing of the dishes is completely accurate as the asking occurred only after the non-washing of the dishes.

In a very strict grammatical sense, the simple past version is actually incorrect for this transformation question because two actions were involved, with one occurring before the other. The only strictly acceptable tense-aspect is the past perfect. Thus, the given answer is absolutely correct.

I'm actually very impressed by the setter. Even among competent users of English, few know the actual small difference in usage between the simple past and the past perfect tense-aspect forms, but this setter clearly does. Most users of English are probably fine with the simple past form since in terms of meaning, the difference is not huge, but an expert will instantly recognise how competent this setter is in his/her choice of the past perfect tense.

Hi Teacher Aaron,

I beg to differ.

In school and in various grammatical texts, it is taught that when changing direct speech to reported speech, when the direct speech is in:

1. simple present tense, it should be changed to simple past tense;

2. in simple past tense, it should be changed to past perfect tense.

Why?

Look at the question:

Mother asked Peter, \"Why are the dishes not washed?\"

When Mother asked Peter, the dishes were still not washed. She was asking about a present event at the point of asking. Hence when we convert it to reported speech, using the simple past tense tells the reader that along the timeline, both the question and the event mentioned in the question (dishes not washed) are concurrent.


But if the question had been:

Mother asked Peter, \"Why were the dishes not washed?\"

Then when Mother asked Peter, she was asking about an event even further in the past than the point in time when the question was asked. Thus using the perfect past tense here is correct, because it clearly shows that the question is referring to an event even further in the past than the point in time when Mother was asking Peter.


In fact, if you see the contexts of both questions, you will see that using the simple past tense for reported speech when the simple present tense is used in direct speech, and using the past perfect tense in reported speech when the simple past tense is used in direct speech correspond to exactly your own analysis, i.e. 'two actions were involved, with one occurring before the other' for the latter.

But this obviously does not apply to the former because both question and event mentioned in question are concurrent.


In the original question asked by PiggyLalala, both the question and the event (dishes not washed) were concurrent.

So 'Mother asked Peter why the dishes had not been washed.' is incorrect.

Hi Learning Partners,

You've given me a lot of food for thought, and I think the difference in opinion is whether Mother was questioning Peter about the state of the dishes, or was Mother questioning Peter about him not doing the dishes.

You appear to take the former position, and your entire post is absolutely spot on from that position. I took the latter position because I read the question as a passive. Since Mother was talking to Peter, there was no need for her to include the subject in her question to Peter. As such, Peter did not do any washing prior to Mother's question.

I agree whole-heartedly that the general rules you outlined to change direct to reported speech are sound, just that this example appears to be a contestable exception to me.

Thank you for taking the time to rationalise your position. I look forward to your inputs when we have such future cases. I really appreciate your time and effort, and it's a pleasure to be able to have a grammatical discussion.