Q&A - PSLE English

[Mum1113]

Just one qn on SnT, kindly help thanks !


Qn: Only after he spoke, I realised he was not Chinese.
Is ds's answer acceptable and correct ? Until he spoke, I did not realise he was not Chinese.
Given answer : Until he spoke, I had not realised he was not Chinese.

[jamestancx997]

Short answer: yes. in most situations, no one can gainsay your daughter’s version and say it’s wrong. In a simple SnT question, divorced from context, either version is acceptable.


Long answer: they mean different things. It’s to do with where your voice is positioned, and what time frame you are talking about.

Your daughter’s version: if she is narrating, then the meaning is that at that very moment, the narrative "now", it is happening.

The given answer: if she is narrating, then the meaning is that at the moment she is speaking, in the narrative "now", the incident of the other guy speaking is substantially further back in the past.

For the Past Perfect, imagine how the sentence might continue.

* Until he spoke, I had not realized he was not Chinese. But then after that, I realized he was born in America.

Compare with:

* Until he spoke, I did not realize he was not Chinese. But now I realized he was born in America.

[ridcully]

Mum1113:

Qn: Only after he spoke, I realised he was not Chinese.

Is ds's answer acceptable and correct ? Until he spoke, I did not realise he was not Chinese.
Given answer : Until he spoke, I had not realised he was not Chinese.

Your ds's answer is informal English. However, in the PSLE you need to use formal Standard English. In formal Standard English, one of the uses of the past perfect to indicate a prior state; 'realise' is a state verb.

How far back in time the man was speaking is irrelevant - perfect tenses are often used when the time is unknown. What is relevant is that the mistaken belief that the man was Chinese was corrected when he spoke. The time conjunction 'until', not the perfect tense, tells us this.

Rgds
R

[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