Q&A - PSLE English

[Mum1113]

Thanks to both jamestancx997 and Ridcully for the explanation .

[jamestancx997]

Hey there Mustrum,


I’m going to have to disagree there. Tenses is not about formality at all, but about time. Time is the entire basis for the existence of tenses. The only context in which using different tenses adjusts the degree of formality/courtesy is with specific modals such as could/would. The linking "have" is not subject to this change.

Witness some translations of the bible:

1 Samuel 15:35: Until the day Samuel died, he did not go to see Saul again

1 Kings 10:7: But I did not believe these things until I came and saw with my own eyes

Formality is not really an issue – it’s to do with the context and usage.

Oh and from the koran as well:

Shura 42:14: And they did not become divided until after knowledge had come to them - out of jealous animosity between themselves…

[ridcully]

jamestancx997:

I'm going to have to disagree there. Tenses is not about formality at all, but about time. Time is the entire basis for the existence of tenses. The only context in which using different tenses adjusts the degree of formality/courtesy is with specific modals such as could/would. The linking \"have\" is not subject to this change.


Witness some translations of the bible:

1 Samuel 15:35: Until the day Samuel died, he did not go to see Saul again

1 Kings 10:7: But I did not believe these things until I came and saw with my own eyes

Formality is not really an issue -- it's to do with the context and usage.

Oh and from the koran as well:

Shura 42:14: And they did not become divided until after knowledge had come to them - out of jealous animosity between themselves...

I leave it to others to decide which was the more helpful reply to the original poster.

[KRR]

Can somebody explain why the answer for the following question is (4) and not (1).

Dora is looking forward to _____________ to her home country this December after a five-year stay in Singapore.
\t
\t(1) return (2) returns
\t(3) returned (4) returning

Thanks you very much for your help.
KRR

[ridcully]

KRR:

Can somebody explain why the answer for the following question is (4) and not (1).

Dora is looking forward to _____________ to her home country this December after a five-year stay in Singapore.
\t
\t(1) return (2) returns
\t(3) returned (4) returning

Thanks you very much for your help.
KRR

'Look forward to' is a phrasal verb: the preposition 'to' is part of the verb. Prepositions are followed by nouns so we normally use a gerund (an -ing verb acting as a noun); hence, we use 'returning'.

Some students misinterpret 'to' as belonging to 'return', that is 'return' is the infinitive 'to return'.

Rgds
R

[KRR]

Thank you very much R.


KRR

[Kloggy]

Dear ridcully,


Please advise on the following :

1) If she saw the mess, she (a) would have given (b) would give you an earful.
Is the answer (a) or (b) ? Pls also explain why.

2) Doctors have tried out various cures, but none of them (a) has worked (b) had worked.
Is the answer (a) or (b) ? Pls also explain the reason for the answer.

3) Although they have lost the game, not all ‘is’ lost.
In the above sentence, we use ‘is’ instead of ‘are’. What are the grammar rules here that determines it should be ‘is’ and not ‘are’.

4) The word ‘fascinated’ can be used with various prepositions. For example,
> The baby was fascinated with the toy clown (can we use ‘by’ here?)
> I was fascinated by her voice

How do you decide when to use which preposition ?
And can ‘fascinated’ be used with ‘in’ ? If yes, can explain in what way ?


Many thanks in advance.
Kloggy

[ridcully]

Kloggy:

1) If she saw the mess, she (a) would have given (b) would give you an earful.

Is the answer (a) or (b) ? Pls also explain why.

Ans is (b). This is known as the second conditional. Conditional sentences have two clauses: the if-condition clause and the main or result clause. When the if-clause is simple past [saw], then the main clause takes the form of ‘would + base verb’ [would give].

Ans (a) is third conditional. For the main clause to have the form ‘would have + past participle’, you would need the past perfect in the if-clause [had seen].

Kloggy:

2) Doctors have tried out various cures, but none of them (a) has worked (b) had worked.
Is the answer (a) or (b) ? Pls also explain the reason for the answer.

Ans (a). The main clause uses the present perfect ‘have tried out’ so verb consistency normally dictates we keep to the present perfect following ‘none’; this also helps to express the sentiment that the doctors have not given up trying because the present perfect frequently connects the past with the present.

Kloggy:

3) Although they have lost the game, not all 'is' lost.
In the above sentence, we use 'is' instead of 'are'. What are the grammar rules here that determines it should be 'is' and not 'are'.

A singular verb is used when 'all' means 'everything', and a plural verb is used when 'all' means 'everybody'.

Kloggy:

4) The word 'fascinated' can be used with various prepositions. For example,
> The baby was fascinated with the toy clown (can we use 'by' here?)
> I was fascinated by her voice
How do you decide when to use which preposition ?
And can 'fascinated' be used with 'in' ? If yes, can explain in what way ?

I am curious as to your motive in choosing ‘fascinated’. Are you deliberately testing the breadth of my knowledge? I might need help from Mr James to explain this one.

Prepositional usage is a bit of a minefield at the best of times, especially with ‘fascinated’. I would say that you could use both ‘with’ and ‘by’, although I usually see ‘with’ used in formal writing despite weighty dictionaries frequently showing examples using ‘by’.

My preference is ‘with’ when referring to the object of fascination, and ‘by’ when referring to the agent causing the fascination.

Is this really a taught P6 concept?

Rgds
R

[Kloggy]

ridcully:

Kloggy:

1) If she saw the mess, she (a) would have given (b) would give you an earful.

Is the answer (a) or (b) ? Pls also explain why.

Ans is (b). This is known as the second conditional. Conditional sentences have two clauses: the if-condition clause and the main or result clause. When the if-clause is simple past [saw], then the main clause takes the form of ‘would + base verb’ [would give].

Ans (a) is third conditional. For the main clause to have the form ‘would have + past participle’, you would need the past perfect in the if-clause [had seen].

Kloggy:

2) Doctors have tried out various cures, but none of them (a) has worked (b) had worked.
Is the answer (a) or (b) ? Pls also explain the reason for the answer.

Ans (a). The main clause uses the present perfect ‘have tried out’ so verb consistency normally dictates we keep to the present perfect following ‘none’; this also helps to express the sentiment that the doctors have not given up trying because the present perfect frequently connects the past with the present.

Kloggy:

3) Although they have lost the game, not all 'is' lost.
In the above sentence, we use 'is' instead of 'are'. What are the grammar rules here that determines it should be 'is' and not 'are'.

A singular verb is used when 'all' means 'everything', and a plural verb is used when 'all' means 'everybody'.

Kloggy:

4) The word 'fascinated' can be used with various prepositions. For example,
> The baby was fascinated with the toy clown (can we use 'by' here?)
> I was fascinated by her voice
How do you decide when to use which preposition ?
And can 'fascinated' be used with 'in' ? If yes, can explain in what way ?

I am curious as to your motive in choosing ‘fascinated’. Are you deliberately testing the breadth of my knowledge? I might need help from Mr James to explain this one.

Prepositional usage is a bit of a minefield at the best of times, especially with ‘fascinated’. I would say that you could use both ‘with’ and ‘by’, although I usually see ‘with’ used in formal writing despite weighty dictionaries frequently showing examples using ‘by’.

My preference is ‘with’ when referring to the object of fascination, and ‘by’ when referring to the agent causing the fascination.

Is this really a taught P6 concept?

Rgds
R

Dear Ridcully,

Thank you very much for your reply, much appreciated. I'm being challenged by my P6 DD on the answers, questioning me why it is this way and not that way. While my years of use of English 'tells' me what is the right answer, I'm at a loss when challenged with 'why' ..... you are my 'saving grace'.

As for the 'fascinated' question, it was one of the question we came across in an assessment book. The sentence given was
'The baby was fascinated ______ the toy clown' & my DD used 'by' but the correct answer given is 'with' (which I tend to agree). My DD challenged me on this and we looked up the dictionary, which suggests the prepositions normally used are 'by', 'with' and 'in'. This therefore brings us to wonder when to use what.

How I wish the schools explains and teach these grammar rules instead of just letting the students 'catch on' through practices ....

[ridcully]

Kloggy:

As for the 'fascinated' question, it was one of the question we came across in an assessment book. The sentence given was

'The baby was fascinated ______ the toy clown' & my DD used 'by' but the correct answer given is 'with' (which I tend to agree). My DD challenged me on this and we looked up the dictionary, which suggests the prepositions normally used are 'by', 'with' and 'in'. This therefore brings us to wonder when to use what.

Fair enough.

In 'The baby was fascinated ______ the toy clown' the preposition 'with' would be the preferred answer because the toy clown is an object of fascination.

In 'The baby was fascinated by Uncle Ridcully's impersonation of SpongeBob' we use 'by' because Uncle Ridcully is an agent causing the fascination.

Kloggy:

How I wish the schools explains and teach these grammar rules instead of just letting the students 'catch on' through practices ....

Absolutely. I am afraid that, at least in my experience, many teachers are simply not competent to teach grammar, and those who are competent are not eloquent enough to express the rules succinctly.

:celebrate:
R