Q&A - PSLE English
-
Learning Partners:
Dear Learning Partners,Dear Teacher Aaron,
I'm really uncomfortable with the way this discussion is going. I have no desire to get into an argument with you but you seem to take opposing views very personally, and are eager to launch into a vehement rebuttal of anyone holding a view that differs from you.
I thought about letting this slide but in the interest of propagating correct knowledge which you yourself have espoused in an earlier post, let me share with you some thoughts I have about your last post.
What you posted
For Q1, as I've pointed out in my original response, I think it's really a matter of how strict you want to be in terms of applying grammatical rules. I totally agree that both versions are fine because there's no ambiguity in meaning (and my main test of grammatical correctness is meaning), but the big problem is that in the context of a test or examination where there is only one correct answer, which one should it be? That's where all the problems start.
You're overthinking things. In school, we follow the grammatical rules we teach the pupils, hence both answers are accepted. No question asked.
Re: the question about Peter washing the plates, I can assure you 100% that it would be marked wrong in school and in the PSLE if the past perfect tense is used.
I also take issue with your assertion that your 'main test of grammatical correctness is meaning', because grammar is grammar, and semantics are semantics. I don't see how you can use one as the yardstick of the other.If the grammar is wrong, it is wrong, no two-way about it.
You can't say, 'Oh your meaning is correct, so that makes your incorrect grammar right too.' So even if the meaning of the sentence is correct but the grammar wrong, then the sentence is still wrong grammatically.
What you posted
For Q2, again, I think both versions are grammatically fine, but the issue is to pick one, so which one should it be? For Q2, the argument for me is not strictly an issue of grammar, but an issue of clarity. Generally, I recommend introducing the noun before using a pronoun to refer to the noun because it's much clearer that the pronoun that follows is in all likelihood referring to the earlier noun. Take for example a modification of the sentence in Q2:
\"Much to her displeasure, Candice's proposal was rejected by Jane.\"
By putting the pronoun in front, we have a problem on our hands. Who was displeased? It's not evidently clear when there are two female nouns that come after. If I had put Candice's name in the introductory phrase, it would have been so much clearer:
\"Much to Candice's displeasure, her proposal was rejected by Jane.\"
In this segment, you said that if we don't put the name in front, there will be confusion. Why should there be? If you look at the context of the sentence, it's pretty clear that the displeased person would be the one whose proposal was rejected.
What you posted
The questions aside, I noticed the discussion of grammatical rules and the native speaker. My native-level proficiency in English is also not directly the result of having learnt lots of grammatical rules. I grew up a vociferous reader as well, but I became interested in grammatical rules because I was dissatisfied with the idea that if it sounds right, it must be right. Surely, as human beings with such a high level of intellectual capability, we are more than capable of explaining and rationalising things in ways more than just instinctively saying \"it sounds right\"?
I actually used the word 'vociferously' wrongly in this instance. Got confused when I was typing and wrote 'vociferously' when I meant 'voraciously'. Have already amended my post.
What you posted
Granted, grammatical rules pose their own problems. As rightfully pointed out, we set some rules, and then we bring in a dozen exceptions. However, at least we have a framework, as incomplete as that framework might be at the moment.
The native speaker argument in the field of linguistics is something I've never agreed with simply because who is considered a native speaker? The Brit, American, Australian, Singapore, Indian, New Zealander or Canadian? Do all of them universally agree on what is \"correct\" English? I guess not. In fact, among the members of each group, is there universal agreement (and I presume we can call all of them native speakers) on what's correct or wrong? I don't think so. I believe that having a system of rules serves English better.
When I refer to a 'native speaker', I mean someone who was brought up hearing, speaking, reading and writing the language as it is meant to be.
I agree that there are various groups of native speakers, but they are all bound by a common system of English rules, with minor differences in usage and vocabulary.
In other words, there is such a thing as universally accepted correct English; there may be geographical variances but generally, the broad rules are universally accepted.
And my preferred answers are based on the British standard, which is still the gold standard in the Singaporean system.
What you posted
However, having rules doesn't mean blindly applying them. The overall guiding principle is still meaning. We apply the rules in such a way that it results in meaningful sentences. And, rules are much better for teaching than just pure \"gut feel\". Rules set boundaries and make learning a whole lot more structured and less intimidating because they introduce the concepts of right and wrong. Follow the rules and you are right; break the rules and you are wrong. For beginners, you need to set rules for them until they reach a certain level of mastery.
Are you aware of the contradiction in your own argument? Here you talk about the importance of rules and yet earlier on you implied grammatical rules were not important because your 'main test of grammatical correctness is meaning', the implicit gist of your sentence being that you're ready to break grammatical rules to convey the correct meaning.
But what should be taught to pupils is: Convey the correct meaning in grammatically correct sentences.
We are trying to help twelve-year-olds to prepare for the PSLE. It is imperative that we stress to them what the rules are and exhort them to adhere to the rules. The PSLE is not the time to be creative with grammar.
What you posted
I think far too many primary school teachers are using the \"gut feel\" method, which results in English competency among Singaporeans dropping with successive generations. The language ability of children is not at a level to make decisions on right and wrong in English based on \"gut feel\", the tool of the native speaker. They need guidance, and that's where grammatical rules come into play.
Am I being overly sensitive or are you playing the man when you wrote the first sentence?
And your last two sentences again reinforce the point I made in the prior segment: that if you're teaching primary school pupils, it is irresponsible to tell them that it is okay to break grammar rules for clarity's sake, to aid the meaning of the sentence, etc.
The teacher has to teach the correct thing and if there are exceptions, teach the exceptions too.
As I mentioned right at the start, I'm not attacking you or anyone. But if I see some confusion over certain questions, I thought the right thing to do would be to speak up, when I know something about it.
I thought long and hard before I wrote my previous post and this one because I'm really not interested in getting into an argument with you. I'm not targeting you or anyone else. All I want to do is to help anyone who has a question before the PSLE.
We're digressing from the point of the topic, and I would like a stop to this so that people who have genuine issues they need help with can post their questions, and we can get back to helping them.
You're the one getting personal, not me. How is that I'm taking it personally when I'm explaining my position? I can understand such a conclusion if I am not responding to the content, but I've been sticking to the content all the time. You mean that anyone who replies thoughtfully is taking \"opposing views very personally, and are eager to launch into a vehement rebuttal of anyone holding a view that differs\"? That's being terribly narrow-minded.
Besides, that I chose to post a lengthy reply doesn't mean I'm eager to rebut people; it's my way of going out of the way to ensure that I've been as clear as possible. That you choose to interpret one way and not the other says more about you than me.
If we are going to discuss contradiction, you've already contradicted yourself previously saying that you made your judgement based on the sentence sounding right to you as a \"native speaker\", and then you started analysing using grammatical rules. You were unclear about whether you want to use intuition or rules, but I didn't want to pick on that because I didn't think it was necessary to get personal, but ironically, it seems to be lost on you that you've contradicted yourself initially and are now taking moral high ground on contradiction.
I don't think I've contradicted myself in any way. Grammar is about meaning, and grammatical rules are a structured way in which we teach meaning. It's not grammatically right because the rules said so; it's grammatically right because by following the rules, the sentence becomes meaningful. So the fundamental test is still meaning; if somebody teaches a rule to me that results in the meaning becoming strange or unintelligible, then that rule has to be called into question.
I've used the word \"vociferously\" because I was subconsciously influenced by you. I accepted that you're an expert in English and wasn't as careful in reading your posts as I normally would, so I made the same mistake.
Also, I don't think you are not reading my post in the right spirit. What I tell my students is that they can break the rules only when they are proficient. Twelve-year olds generally are not, so I tell them they still have to follow the rules, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be told that English grammar is a whole lot more flexible, just that it isn't time for them to get creative as yet.
Back to the issue of the following sentence:
\"Much to her displeasure, Candice's proposal was rejected by Jane.\"
I think it is lost on you that the sentence was constructed in the passive. If we convert it back to the active, it would be the following:
\"Much to her displeasure, Jane rejected Candice's proposal.\"
The true subject performing the only verb (reject) in the sentence is Jane. So, who's the one who's displeased? You claim \"[i]f you look at the context of the sentence, it's pretty clear that the displeased person would be the one whose proposal was rejected.\" Well, who's anyone to say that only the one whose proposal was rejected would be displeased? It is an emotional response to think that the one whose proposal was rejected is the only one who would be displeased.
Besides, if we really want to split hairs, in the passive form, the true subject is the proposal, not Candice, and the word \"Candice's\" is merely performing the role of an adjective and isn't essential to the sentence. Thus, in the original version you proposed \"Much to her displeasure, Candice's proposal was rejected by her supervisor\", I could very well replace \"Candice's\" with \"the\", and then whose displeasure is it?
Anyway, I agree that this is not the place to engage in arcane grammatical discussions. I only chose to do so because it appeared to me that you wanted one, and I thought that it was great to have a discussion with someone who obviously knows a lot about grammar too. I apparently misunderstood, and I acknowledge that mistake. However, your previous post has been a revelation, and this is the last time I'll respond directly to you. -
jetsetter:
Hahaha. I don't normally explain in such detail, but someone disagreed, so out of respect for that person, I took the effort to explain, that's all.Aiyo! We're <1 wk away from PSLE and parents just want a simple, straight-fwd and digestible answer, not convoluted descriptive linguistics right?
I take Teacher Aaron's \"meaning\" to refer to ASPECT, which WILL impact on TENSE. They are inextricably linked and part of Syntax.
Dun flame me! :siam: -
Teacher Aaron:
Dear Learning Partners,Learning Partners:
Dear Teacher Aaron,
I'm really uncomfortable with the way this discussion is going. I have no desire to get into an argument with you but you seem to take opposing views very personally, and are eager to launch into a vehement rebuttal of anyone holding a view that differs from you.
I thought about letting this slide but in the interest of propagating correct knowledge which you yourself have espoused in an earlier post, let me share with you some thoughts I have about your last post.
What you posted
For Q1, as I've pointed out in my original response, I think it's really a matter of how strict you want to be in terms of applying grammatical rules. I totally agree that both versions are fine because there's no ambiguity in meaning (and my main test of grammatical correctness is meaning), but the big problem is that in the context of a test or examination where there is only one correct answer, which one should it be? That's where all the problems start.
You're overthinking things. In school, we follow the grammatical rules we teach the pupils, hence both answers are accepted. No question asked.
Re: the question about Peter washing the plates, I can assure you 100% that it would be marked wrong in school and in the PSLE if the past perfect tense is used.
I also take issue with your assertion that your 'main test of grammatical correctness is meaning', because grammar is grammar, and semantics are semantics. I don't see how you can use one as the yardstick of the other.If the grammar is wrong, it is wrong, no two-way about it.
You can't say, 'Oh your meaning is correct, so that makes your incorrect grammar right too.' So even if the meaning of the sentence is correct but the grammar wrong, then the sentence is still wrong grammatically.
What you posted
For Q2, again, I think both versions are grammatically fine, but the issue is to pick one, so which one should it be? For Q2, the argument for me is not strictly an issue of grammar, but an issue of clarity. Generally, I recommend introducing the noun before using a pronoun to refer to the noun because it's much clearer that the pronoun that follows is in all likelihood referring to the earlier noun. Take for example a modification of the sentence in Q2:
\"Much to her displeasure, Candice's proposal was rejected by Jane.\"
By putting the pronoun in front, we have a problem on our hands. Who was displeased? It's not evidently clear when there are two female nouns that come after. If I had put Candice's name in the introductory phrase, it would have been so much clearer:
\"Much to Candice's displeasure, her proposal was rejected by Jane.\"
In this segment, you said that if we don't put the name in front, there will be confusion. Why should there be? If you look at the context of the sentence, it's pretty clear that the displeased person would be the one whose proposal was rejected.
What you posted
The questions aside, I noticed the discussion of grammatical rules and the native speaker. My native-level proficiency in English is also not directly the result of having learnt lots of grammatical rules. I grew up a vociferous reader as well, but I became interested in grammatical rules because I was dissatisfied with the idea that if it sounds right, it must be right. Surely, as human beings with such a high level of intellectual capability, we are more than capable of explaining and rationalising things in ways more than just instinctively saying \"it sounds right\"?
I actually used the word 'vociferously' wrongly in this instance. Got confused when I was typing and wrote 'vociferously' when I meant 'voraciously'. Have already amended my post.
What you posted
Granted, grammatical rules pose their own problems. As rightfully pointed out, we set some rules, and then we bring in a dozen exceptions. However, at least we have a framework, as incomplete as that framework might be at the moment.
The native speaker argument in the field of linguistics is something I've never agreed with simply because who is considered a native speaker? The Brit, American, Australian, Singapore, Indian, New Zealander or Canadian? Do all of them universally agree on what is \"correct\" English? I guess not. In fact, among the members of each group, is there universal agreement (and I presume we can call all of them native speakers) on what's correct or wrong? I don't think so. I believe that having a system of rules serves English better.
When I refer to a 'native speaker', I mean someone who was brought up hearing, speaking, reading and writing the language as it is meant to be.
I agree that there are various groups of native speakers, but they are all bound by a common system of English rules, with minor differences in usage and vocabulary.
In other words, there is such a thing as universally accepted correct English; there may be geographical variances but generally, the broad rules are universally accepted.
And my preferred answers are based on the British standard, which is still the gold standard in the Singaporean system.
What you posted
However, having rules doesn't mean blindly applying them. The overall guiding principle is still meaning. We apply the rules in such a way that it results in meaningful sentences. And, rules are much better for teaching than just pure \"gut feel\". Rules set boundaries and make learning a whole lot more structured and less intimidating because they introduce the concepts of right and wrong. Follow the rules and you are right; break the rules and you are wrong. For beginners, you need to set rules for them until they reach a certain level of mastery.
Are you aware of the contradiction in your own argument? Here you talk about the importance of rules and yet earlier on you implied grammatical rules were not important because your 'main test of grammatical correctness is meaning', the implicit gist of your sentence being that you're ready to break grammatical rules to convey the correct meaning.
But what should be taught to pupils is: Convey the correct meaning in grammatically correct sentences.
We are trying to help twelve-year-olds to prepare for the PSLE. It is imperative that we stress to them what the rules are and exhort them to adhere to the rules. The PSLE is not the time to be creative with grammar.
What you posted
I think far too many primary school teachers are using the \"gut feel\" method, which results in English competency among Singaporeans dropping with successive generations. The language ability of children is not at a level to make decisions on right and wrong in English based on \"gut feel\", the tool of the native speaker. They need guidance, and that's where grammatical rules come into play.
Am I being overly sensitive or are you playing the man when you wrote the first sentence?
And your last two sentences again reinforce the point I made in the prior segment: that if you're teaching primary school pupils, it is irresponsible to tell them that it is okay to break grammar rules for clarity's sake, to aid the meaning of the sentence, etc.
The teacher has to teach the correct thing and if there are exceptions, teach the exceptions too.
As I mentioned right at the start, I'm not attacking you or anyone. But if I see some confusion over certain questions, I thought the right thing to do would be to speak up, when I know something about it.
I thought long and hard before I wrote my previous post and this one because I'm really not interested in getting into an argument with you. I'm not targeting you or anyone else. All I want to do is to help anyone who has a question before the PSLE.
We're digressing from the point of the topic, and I would like a stop to this so that people who have genuine issues they need help with can post their questions, and we can get back to helping them.
You're the one getting personal, not me. How is that I'm taking it personally when I'm explaining my position? I can understand such a conclusion if I am not responding to the content, but I've been sticking to the content all the time. You mean that anyone who replies thoughtfully is taking \"opposing views very personally, and are eager to launch into a vehement rebuttal of anyone holding a view that differs\"? That's being terribly narrow-minded.
Besides, that I chose to post a lengthy reply doesn't mean I'm eager to rebut people; it's my way of going out of the way to ensure that I've been as clear as possible. That you choose to interpret one way and not the other says more about you than me.
If we are going to discuss contradiction, you've already contradicted yourself previously saying that you made your judgement based on the sentence sounding right to you as a \"native speaker\", and then you started analysing using grammatical rules. You were unclear about whether you want to use intuition or rules, but I didn't want to pick on that because I didn't think it was necessary to get personal, but ironically, it seems to be lost on you that you've contradicted yourself initially and are now taking moral high ground on contradiction.
I don't think I've contradicted myself in any way. Grammar is about meaning, and grammatical rules are a structured way in which we teach meaning. It's not grammatically right because the rules said so; it's grammatically right because by following the rules, the sentence becomes meaningful. So the fundamental test is still meaning; if somebody teaches a rule to me that results in the meaning becoming strange or unintelligible, then that rule has to be called into question.
I've used the word \"vociferously\" because I was subconsciously influenced by you. I accepted that you're an expert in English and wasn't as careful in reading your posts as I normally would, so I made the same mistake.
Also, I don't think you are not reading my post in the right spirit. What I tell my students is that they can break the rules only when they are proficient. Twelve-year olds generally are not, so I tell them they still have to follow the rules, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be told that English grammar is a whole lot more flexible, just that it isn't time for them to get creative as yet.
Back to the issue of the following sentence:
\"Much to her displeasure, Candice's proposal was rejected by Jane.\"
I think it is lost on you that the sentence was constructed in the passive. If we convert it back to the active, it would be the following:
\"Much to her displeasure, Jane rejected Candice's proposal.\"
The true subject performing the only verb (reject) in the sentence is Jane. So, who's the one who's displeased? You claim \"[i]f you look at the context of the sentence, it's pretty clear that the displeased person would be the one whose proposal was rejected.\" Well, who's anyone to say that only the one whose proposal was rejected would be displeased? It is an emotional response to think that the one whose proposal was rejected is the only one who would be displeased.
Besides, if we really want to split hairs, in the passive form, the true subject is the proposal, not Candice, and the word \"Candice's\" is merely performing the role of an adjective and isn't essential to the sentence. Thus, in the original version you proposed \"Much to her displeasure, Candice's proposal was rejected by her supervisor\", I could very well replace \"Candice's\" with \"the\", and then whose displeasure is it?
Anyway, I agree that this is not the place to engage in arcane grammatical discussions. I only chose to do so because it appeared to me that you wanted one, and I thought that it was great to have a discussion with someone who obviously knows a lot about grammar too. I apparently misunderstood, and I acknowledge that mistake. However, your previous post has been a revelation, and this is the last time I'll respond directly to you.
Dear Teacher Aaron,
I understand you won't be answering to this but let me clarify some issues.
I never contradicted myself. I used the information about native speakers and 'gut feel' to explain why I didn't chime in when the discussion about to put name before pronoun or vice versa first started.
I'm the first to admit I'm no expert when it comes to linguistics. Hence, even though it troubled me (I felt that slmkhoo's original answer was the better one but he or she would have gone away from the discussion thinking that he or she was wrong), I kept quiet. I gave the opposing view the benefit of the doubt because I could not pinpoint the reason why it should not be so.
So please don't go away thinking I was advocating 'gut feel' as a good method of instruction. No, I was using it to explain why I kept quiet during the original discussion.
Until I saw Sharon's post and I realised that the rationale she gave supported what I felt (the name should appear in the main clause), then I voiced up my opinion.
Regarding the Candice's proposal question, let me quote you again:
Back to the issue of the following sentence:
\"Much to her displeasure, Candice's proposal was rejected by Jane.\"
I think it is lost on you that the sentence was constructed in the passive. If we convert it back to the active, it would be the following:
\"Much to her displeasure, Jane rejected Candice's proposal.\"
The true subject performing the only verb (reject) in the sentence is Jane. So, who's the one who's displeased? You claim \"[i]f you look at the context of the sentence, it's pretty clear that the displeased person would be the one whose proposal was rejected.\" Well, who's anyone to say that only the one whose proposal was rejected would be displeased? It is an emotional response to think that the one whose proposal was rejected is the only one who would be displeased.
Besides, if we really want to split hairs, in the passive form, the true subject is the proposal, not Candice, and the word \"Candice's\" is merely performing the role of an adjective and isn't essential to the sentence. Thus, in the original version you proposed \"Much to her displeasure, Candice's proposal was rejected by her supervisor\", I could very well replace \"Candice's\" with \"the\", and then whose displeasure is it?
I stand by what I say. If we look at the context of the sentence, when we have a sentence like:
'Much to her displeasure, Candice's proposal was rejected by Jane.',
from context, it is still obvious that Candice is the one was displeased.
If the sentence should read:
'Much to her displeasure, her proposal was rejected by Jane.',
then it is still the unnamed 'her' who was displeased.
This boils down to a question of reading ability. Anyone who gets confused by the above sentences needs to be taught to understand what he or she is reading; we should not be changing the rules of grammar or convention to suit the individual.
If, according to you, it is also possible that Jane is displeased with the proposal, then the sentence to depict Jane's displeasure should be:
'With displeasure, Jane rejected Candice's proposal.'
What I'm trying to illustrate is that it is possible to convey the correct meaning without sacrificing grammatical rules. We should explore that option first before blithely saying that grammatical rules should be done away with in the interest of 'meaning'. -
jetsetter:
Aiyo! We're <1 wk away from PSLE and parents just want a simple, straight-fwd and digestible answer, not convoluted descriptive linguistics right?
I take Teacher Aaron's \"meaning\" to refer to ASPECT, which WILL impact on TENSE. They are inextricably linked and part of Syntax.
Dun flame me! :siam:
Hi jetsetter,
I agree that aspect will impact on tense, that is the meaning of a sentence will affect the tense, but it still does not mean that to get the right meaning, we have to use the wrong tense, right?
It's just that it's only a week away from the PSLE and it's very frustrating to see parents and pupils being needlessly confused.
Reported speech is one of the components in PSLE English that, if mastered, will lead to full marks. It's not like vocab, where you can't guarantee what words will come out. If you master the rules of reported speech, barring careless mistakes, you'll score full marks for that question.
And the rules are simple, one of which is:
[list]- simple present tense in speech becomes simple past tense in reported speech
[/list]Don't need to overthink the question.
If Mum asked Peter if the dishes were washed, she was asking about the dishes, not why Peter had not washed them.
It's called reported speech (because you just report what was said), not interpretative speech. -
Hi I have got 2 question tags to clarify. Hope someone can share some light.
1. Jane dislikes chocolate, ( doesnt or does )she?
2. Harry barely do housework, (doesnt or does) he?
TIA -
marstolive:
1. Does. Dislike is a negative that means not like, so the tag should be the opposite.Hi I have got 2 question tags to clarify. Hope someone can share some light.
1. Jane dislikes chocolate, ( doesnt or does )she?
2. Harry barely do housework, (doesnt or does) he?
TIA
2. Does. \"Barely does\" (it shouldn't be \"do\") is treated as a negative because the adverb \"barely\" is a semi-negative and in practice, when a semi-negative adverb appears alongside a verb, together they are treated as a negative, so the question tag takes the opposite, which is the positive. -
Learning Partners:
Dear Teacher Aaron,
I understand you won't be answering to this but let me clarify some issues.
I never contradicted myself. I used the information about native speakers and 'gut feel' to explain why I didn't chime in when the discussion about to put name before pronoun or vice versa first started.
I'm the first to admit I'm no expert when it comes to linguistics. Hence, even though it troubled me (I felt that slmkhoo's original answer was the better one but he or she would have gone away from the discussion thinking that he or she was wrong), I kept quiet. I gave the opposing view the benefit of the doubt because I could not pinpoint the reason why it should not be so.
So please don't go away thinking I was advocating 'gut feel' as a good method of instruction. No, I was using it to explain why I kept quiet during the original discussion.
Until I saw Sharon's post and I realised that the rationale she gave supported what I felt (the name should appear in the main clause), then I voiced up my opinion.
Regarding the Candice's proposal question, let me quote you again:
Back to the issue of the following sentence:
\"Much to her displeasure, Candice's proposal was rejected by Jane.\"
I think it is lost on you that the sentence was constructed in the passive. If we convert it back to the active, it would be the following:
\"Much to her displeasure, Jane rejected Candice's proposal.\"
The true subject performing the only verb (reject) in the sentence is Jane. So, who's the one who's displeased? You claim \"[i]f you look at the context of the sentence, it's pretty clear that the displeased person would be the one whose proposal was rejected.\" Well, who's anyone to say that only the one whose proposal was rejected would be displeased? It is an emotional response to think that the one whose proposal was rejected is the only one who would be displeased.
Besides, if we really want to split hairs, in the passive form, the true subject is the proposal, not Candice, and the word \"Candice's\" is merely performing the role of an adjective and isn't essential to the sentence. Thus, in the original version you proposed \"Much to her displeasure, Candice's proposal was rejected by her supervisor\", I could very well replace \"Candice's\" with \"the\", and then whose displeasure is it?
I stand by what I say. If we look at the context of the sentence, when we have a sentence like:
'Much to her displeasure, Candice's proposal was rejected by Jane.',
from context, it is still obvious that Candice is the one was displeased.
If the sentence should read:
'Much to her displeasure, her proposal was rejected by Jane.',
then it is still the unnamed 'her' who was displeased.
This boils down to a question of reading ability. Anyone who gets confused by the above sentences needs to be taught to understand what he or she is reading; we should not be changing the rules of grammar or convention to suit the individual.
If, according to you, it is also possible that Jane is displeased with the proposal, then the sentence to depict Jane's displeasure should be:
'With displeasure, Jane rejected Candice's proposal.'
What I'm trying to illustrate is that it is possible to convey the correct meaning without sacrificing grammatical rules. We should explore that option first before blithely saying that grammatical rules should be done away with in the interest of 'meaning'.
Dear Learning Partners,
The person I will not respond to is the one who casts unwarranted aspersions. I'm more than happy to respond to a reasonable person.
My reply is going to be brief.
I am in agreement with the points you've made. I see where you are coming from, and I appreciate the time and effort to explain your position. That we come from different perspectives and derive different conclusions based on our respective perspectives doesn't in any way make you better than me or vice-versa. I've been looking forward to all your thoughtful responses because you've challenged my points of view with very valid arguments, until your previous reply which led me to the view that you were engaging in ad-hominem. Your reply above clearly shows otherwise, so I will revise my view and I will still continue to look forward to what you have to say about English and grammar.
P.S. If you are the first to admit you're no expert in linguistics, I would like to be a close second because I honestly don't think I'm one either. -
Teacher Aaron:
Thanks Teacher Aaron for replying.
1. Does. Dislike is a negative that means not like, so the tag should be the opposite.marstolive:
Hi I have got 2 question tags to clarify. Hope someone can share some light.
1. Jane dislikes chocolate, ( doesnt or does )she?
2. Harry barely do housework, (doesnt or does) he?
TIA
2. Does. \"Barely does\" (it shouldn't be \"do\") is treated as a negative because the adverb \"barely\" is a semi-negative and in practice, when a semi-negative adverb appears alongside a verb, together they are treated as a negative, so the question tag takes the
opposite, which is the positive.
Dd 's sch teacher explained tt for q1 dislike = does dislike and hence questions tag should be doesnt.
So we are pretty confused why it is so. Isnt no1 similar to no2. Any second opinion? -
Hi Teacher Aaron and Learning Partner
Must clarify first, "me no tutor" My nick stands for "a tutor for my own kids till 2001". Hope you can correct me if I am wrong. I pick up grammar on my own because of my kids some ten over years ago. Have forgotten many things due to lack of practice. However, I remembered some guideline like if we restructure a sentence as,
"Much to Candice’s displeasure, her proposal was rejected."
the reason for doing so is to give more emphasis to the second part of the sentence. That is, in the opinion of the writer, the fact that the proposal is rejected is of more important than the displeasure. The more important info is placed last so that the reader will remember better. With regard to the name, it should be introduced first for clarity. So we put the name Candice in the first part because we don’t want the reader to go wondering who is ‘her’. Not sure if my reasoning is valid.
If the displeasure is more important, the sentence will be :
Candice’s proposal was rejected, much to her displeasure. -
Hi, ps help…Many tks n God Bless:)
The poor _______ given household rebates on electrical bill last month.
(1) is (2) are (3) was (4) were
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login
