Test for English Users
John Dean
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1159035,00.html
<< ... In the department where I teach and where young Ms Truss honed her
punctuational skills, we interview applicants face to face. Among the
routine questions ("How many children had Lady Macbeth?", etc), our
interviewers will often slip in something on grammar.
Try the following.
1. Give me, quickly if you please, an example of an adverbial phrase.
2. When would you use a colon: when would you use a semi-colon?
3. What is the difference (in terms of sense) between the following: (a)
"The butler stole the necklace" (b) "It was the butler who stole the
necklace"?
The first two questions contain their own answers. In No 3 the first
sentence describes something happening, the second sentence records
something that has happened. One is descriptive, the other presuppositional.
The answers to such questions are, typically, lamentable. Hardly any
candidate can manage No 3 and only relatively few the first two. One
encounters applicants, smart as paint, with four As at A-level, who wouldn't
know a noun from a ninepin or a verb from a vole. It's not their fault: it's
the educational system that robs them of this knowledge.
Reading literature without knowing the parts of speech is like practising
brain surgery with your fingers. >>
I have to say that I don't think question two contains its own answer as
there is no sign of a semi-colon (I have copied & pasted direct from the
Guardian website - the article appears as it does in print)
And Q3 seems silly. 'In terms of sense' the two statements are pretty much
indistinguishable unless more context is given. Imagine a news conference :
Policeman - The butler stole the necklace
Reporter - It was the butler who stole the necklace?
Policeman - No, the butler stole the necklace
Reporter Why can't you say it was the butler who stole the necklace?
Policeman - Apparently, it doesn't mean the same thing.
Reporter - But the butler did it?
Policeman - Oh yes. No doubt there.
And the analogy 'Reading literature without knowing the parts of speech is
like practising brain surgery with your fingers' sounds like the product of
a fevered mind. *Analysing* literature might be difficult if you don't know
the difference between a noun and a verb, but *reading* (and understanding)
'Animal Farm', 'Pride and Prejudice' or 'Howl' *can* be done perfectly well
without knowing the first thing about parts of speech. Difficult tending to
impossible if English is learned as a foreign language, but hardly when you
learn it as native speech. Shirley?
--
John Dean
Oxford
Rolleston
>1. Give me, quickly if you please, an example of an adverbial phrase.
Presumably "quickly" is the adv. phrase. Can a single adverb
be an adverbial phrase, or do we need two or more?
>2. When would you use a colon: when would you use a semi-colon?
Is there something wrong with (2)?
Q. When would you use a colon?
A. Not at the end of a question.
>3. What is the difference (in terms of sense) between the following: (a)
>"The butler stole the necklace" (b) "It was the butler who stole the
>necklace"?
The only difference in sense, to my mind, is that (b) adds emphasis
to the subject. All sorts of hypotheses might flow from that.
R.
Rolleston
>John Dean wrote:
>>1. Give me, quickly if you please, an example of an adverbial phrase.
>
>Presumably "quickly" is the adv. phrase. Can a single adverb
>be an adverbial phrase, or do we need two or more?
Forget that! "quickly if you please" is probably the adv. phrase.
R.
Don Phillipson
"John Dean" <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote in message
news:c1vkb5$l5d$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> According to John Sutherland in today's Guardian
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1159035,00.html
> . . .
> "The butler stole the necklace" (b) "It was the butler who stole the
> And Q3 seems silly. 'In terms of sense' the two statements are pretty much
> indistinguishable unless more context is given.
I would differ only saying that no context is
needed. There is no difference in terms of
sense. (The difference is in rhetorical style.)
Unless intended to filter out students who have
the confidence to challenge nonsensical
questions, the question is silly.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
Harvey Van Sickle
-sni--
> 3. What is the difference (in terms of sense) between the
> following: (a) "The butler stole the necklace" (b) "It was the
> butler who stole the necklace"?
> The first two questions contain their own answers. In No 3 the
> first sentence describes something happening, the second sentence
> records something that has happened. One is descriptive, the other
> presuppositional.
-snip-
> Reading literature without knowing the parts of speech is like
> practising brain surgery with your fingers. >>
>
-snip-
> And Q3 seems silly. 'In terms of sense' the two statements are
> pretty much indistinguishable unless more context is given.
-snip-
> And the analogy 'Reading literature without knowing the parts of
> speech is like practising brain surgery with your fingers' sounds
> like the product of a fevered mind. *Analysing* literature might
> be difficult if you don't know the difference between a noun and a
> verb, but *reading* (and understanding) 'Animal Farm', 'Pride and
> Prejudice' or 'Howl' *can* be done perfectly well without knowing
> the first thing about parts of speech.
I agree that Q3 seems silly,but as for his comment about "reading
literature", wasn't he using that in the UK sense of "studying
literature at university" rather than "reading a book"?
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 21 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs)
Django Cat
wrote:
> According to John Sutherland in today's Guardian
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1159035,00.html
>
If these students are going to write for the dear old Graun, a test of
spelling and basic subbing techniques would be a lot more appropriate.
> 2. When would you use a colon: when would you use a semi-colon?
>
>
> The first two questions contain their own answers.
I can only suppose that the smug twerp who set this question thinks we
should all be saying "but that colon should be a semicolon - the answer
should be" -
> 2. When would you use a colon:
"Not like that"
> when would you use a semi-colon?
"In the place of that colon we just got rid of"
I'd divide this into two sentences split by a full stop/period anyway.
But really, who knows? Makes one quite nostalgic to know the papers still
contain this sort of drivel.
D:C
John Dean
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 15:21:38 -0000, John Dean
> <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
>
>> According to John Sutherland in today's Guardian
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1159035,00.html
>>
>
> If these students are going to write for the dear old Graun, a test of
> spelling and basic subbing techniques would be a lot more appropriate.
He's talking about students at his University.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Donna Richoux
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 15:21:38 -0000, John Dean <john...@frag.lineone.net>
> wrote:
>
> > According to John Sutherland in today's Guardian
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1159035,00.html
> >
>
> If these students are going to write for the dear old Graun, a test of
> spelling and basic subbing techniques would be a lot more appropriate.
>
> > 2. When would you use a colon: when would you use a semi-colon?
> >
> > The first two questions contain their own answers.
>
> I can only suppose that the smug twerp who set this question thinks we
> should all be saying "but that colon should be a semicolon - the answer
> should be" -
>
> > 2. When would you use a colon:
>
> "Not like that"
>
> > when would you use a semi-colon?
>
> "In the place of that colon we just got rid of"
>
> I'd divide this into two sentences split by a full stop/period anyway.
Or a question mark. I agree. I bet there will be a letter or two to the
editor in tomorrow's paper.
I think Sutherland would blame it on typesetter error except there
aren't any typesetters any more.
The answers he gives about the butler/necklace question are worse.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
John Dean
> On 01 Mar 2004, John Dean wrote
>
>> practising brain surgery with your fingers. >>
>>
>
>> speech is like practising brain surgery with your fingers' sounds
>> like the product of a fevered mind.
>
> literature", wasn't he using that in the UK sense of "studying
> literature at university" rather than "reading a book"?
That's possible, though University courses usually have more specific
titles - 'English Lit', 'American Lit' etc.
The English Dept at UCL, where Sutherland is a Prof, don't seem to have a
degree course for undergraduates including 'literature ' in its name -
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/prospective-students/undergraduate-degrees/arts-and-humanities/english/index.shtml
( http://makeashorterlink.com/?B28A32397 )
And 'reading' in that sense seems to be passing out of favour. Even the
contestants on University Challenge rarely use it these days.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Rolleston
>> 2. When would you use a colon:
>
>"Not like that"
>
>> when would you use a semi-colon?
>
>"In the place of that colon we just got rid of"
Surely not!
That would give this:
2. When would you use a colon; when would you use a semi-colon?
To me even worse than the hideous original.
R.
Skitt
Hardly. I learned English as a foreign language, but don't expect me to
analyze sentences. I can't do it, but that does not prevent me from using
the language as well as most native speakers manage to do it. Maybe it's
some sort of Sprachgefühl.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Skitt
Well, the colon in the original is totally wrong. It only one sentence is
to be written, it can be done thus: "When would you use a colon, and when
would you use a semicolon?"
If two sentences are permissible, they both have to end with question marks.
Rolleston
>Rolleston wrote:
>> Django Cat wrote:
>
>>>> when would you use a semi-colon?
>>>
>>> "In the place of that colon we just got rid of"
>>
>>
>> 2. When would you use a colon; when would you use a semi-colon?
>>
>> To me even worse than the hideous original.
>
>Well, the colon in the original is totally wrong. It only one sentence is
>to be written, it can be done thus: "When would you use a colon, and when
>would you use a semicolon?"
>
>If two sentences are permissible, they both have to end with question marks.
Sounds good to me, on the condition that there isn't some special
relationship between the two questions that demands something extra.
For example, is the second question (concerning the semi-colon)
supposed to be a response to the first (concerning the colon)?
In this case the first question would be rhetorical.
R.
Skitt
I can't see how that could be possible in this case.
> In this case the first question would be rhetorical.
Even then, rhetorical questions get question marks.
Addressing your special relationship concerns, if the two parts of the
sentence both contain questions, and if they can't be joined with a comma
and an "and", it would still be best to create two separate sentences, both
ending in question marks. There is no need to try to put two different
thoughts into a single sentence, especially if that presents a punctuation
problem.
Rolleston
>Rolleston wrote:
>> Skitt wrote:
>>> Rolleston wrote:
>>>> Django Cat wrote:
>
>>>>>> when would you use a semi-colon?
>>>>>
>>>>> "In the place of that colon we just got rid of"
>>>>
>>>> That would give this:
>>>>
>>>> 2. When would you use a colon; when would you use a semi-colon?
>>>>
>>>> To me even worse than the hideous original.
>>>
>>> Well, the colon in the original is totally wrong. It only one
>>> sentence is to be written, it can be done thus: "When would you use
>>> a colon, and when would you use a semicolon?"
>>>
>>> If two sentences are permissible, they both have to end with
>>> question marks.
>>
>> Sounds good to me, on the condition that there isn't some special
>> relationship between the two questions that demands something extra.
>>
>> For example, is the second question (concerning the semi-colon)
>> supposed to be a response to the first (concerning the colon)?
>
>I can't see how that could be possible in this case.
A colon is often used to add something of greater specificity to
what has gone before. In my possible interpretation the second
question is given as a more specific refinement of the first question.
In this scenario, question 2 is virtually the answer to a rhetorical
question 1. We may re-write it as follows:
Do you know when to use a colon?
Why not ask yourself first when you would use a semi-colon?
(And then you'll know the answer to my first question.)
A bit implausible? I'm just trying to exhaust the possibilities.
If all that was required was another question mark, and not
the colon, why didn't he use a question mark?
R.
Skitt
Yeah, but you are really stretching things beyond what I can imagine.
> If all that was required was another question mark, and not
> the colon, why didn't he use a question mark?
Because the sentence was intentionally written to be wrong and to suggest a
need for changing it. Either that, or the writer is not very good at
punctuation. Your guess.
Rolleston
>Because the sentence was intentionally written to be wrong and to suggest a
>need for changing it. Either that, or the writer is not very good at
>punctuation. Your guess.
I'm beginning to think he's a bit of a twit, actually. More of
a twit than I am. I know, I know, that's implausible too.
The old adverbial phrase things bothers.
"quickly if you please"
The "if you please" seems to be attached as a condition to the adverb
"quickly". I'm not sure how to analyze that sort of thing. Is there a
name for it?
R.
Skitt
> Skitt wrote:
Gosh, I'm the wrong one to ask. As I said in another post, I don't analyze
English -- I merely use it.
To my mind, the "quickly if you please" cries out for a comma after
"quickly". I have been accused of using too many commas, but I have plenty
of them, so I'm not worried.
Michael Nitabach
> According to John Sutherland in today's Guardian
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1159035,00.html
>
> << ... In the department where I teach and where young Ms Truss
> honed her punctuational skills, we interview applicants face to
> face.
I hope young Truss's punctuation skills are better than the ones
Sutherland exhibits in this sentence.
--
Mike Nitabach
Rolleston
>To my mind, the "quickly if you please" cries out for a comma after
>"quickly". I have been accused of using too many commas, but I have plenty
>of them, so I'm not worried.
I have a feeling that would change the
set of plausible meanings of the sentence.
Let's see what happens:
(4) Give me, quickly, if you please,
an example of an adverbial phrase.
Now, I imagine the original meant something like:
Give me an example of an adverbial phrase.
And be quick if you don't mind.
But (4) can now mean:
Quickly give me an example of an
adverbial phrase if you don't mind.
An altogether different kettle of pirhanas. We need
to emphasize that the speed of reply is optional, not
the reply. Actually, the if-condition may just be there
for politeness. The expectation may be that it will be
satisfied: nothing is really optional.
R.
Django Cat
only the terminally stupid/illiterate would be unable to see the point of
his questions. I'm off to watch the Shopping Channel...
Rolleston
Those prices can be really hard to read.
R.
Don Phillipson
news:8e9740pbj35pkkjum...@4ax.com...
> The old adverbial phrase things bothers.
>
> "quickly if you please"
>
> The "if you please" seems to be attached as a condition to the adverb
> "quickly". I'm not sure how to analyze that sort of thing. Is there a
> name for it?
We have no reason to suppose these
words are "attached as a condition."
They are merely an interjection,
grammatically identical with simple "please."
Rolleston
>"Rolleston" <roll...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
>news:8e9740pbj35pkkjum...@4ax.com...
>
>> The old adverbial phrase things bothers.
>>
>> "quickly if you please"
>>
>> The "if you please" seems to be attached as a condition to the adverb
>> "quickly". I'm not sure how to analyze that sort of thing. Is there a
>> name for it?
>
>We have no reason to suppose these
>words are "attached as a condition."
>They are merely an interjection,
>grammatically identical with simple "please."
But isn't "please" itself really a contraction of
something like "if it pleases you" or "if you please"?
And isn't "please" always, properly speaking, conditional? So:
"please" = "on the condition that you accept it what I propose"
You do say grammatically identical, whereas
I have been blathering on about meaning.
R.
Michael West
I'd have to agree. I think the rule (if it is that) about
dependant clauses following a semi-colon applies here.
Possibly the author was thinking of the other "rule",
according to which semi-colons may be used to separate
items in a list. That seems *not* to apply in this case because
there is no introduction to the list, as for example:
These are the things you need to know: when to
use a colon; when to use a semi-colon; when to refrain
from overly clever examples of "correct" punctuation.
--
Michael West
John O'Flaherty
<john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
>According to John Sutherland in today's Guardian
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1159035,00.html
>
><< ...
>3. What is the difference (in terms of sense) between the following: (a)
>"The butler stole the necklace" (b) "It was the butler who stole the
>necklace"?
>
>The first two questions contain their own answers. In No 3 the first
>sentence describes something happening, the second sentence records
>something that has happened. One is descriptive, the other presuppositional.
>
>... >>
>
>I have to say that I don't think question two contains its own answer as
>there is no sign of a semi-colon (I have copied & pasted direct from the
>Guardian website - the article appears as it does in print)
>
>And Q3 seems silly. 'In terms of sense' the two statements are pretty much
>indistinguishable unless more context is given. Imagine a news conference :
>
>Policeman - The butler stole the necklace
>Reporter - It was the butler who stole the necklace?
>Policeman - No, the butler stole the necklace
>Reporter Why can't you say it was the butler who stole the necklace?
>Policeman - Apparently, it doesn't mean the same thing.
>Reporter - But the butler did it?
>Policeman - Oh yes. No doubt there.
As to #3, though there is overlap, there is a difference in sense,
which in itself is context. The second statement sounds like the
answer to an established question. The first is more like spontaneous
new information.
Imagine a house with a butler, a husband and a wife.
a: The wife says, "The butler stole the necklace."
The husband responds, "Oh, no! Call the police."
The only presupposition is that the husband knows which necklace is
referred to, not that he knows it was stolen.
b: The wife says, "It was the butler who stole the necklace."
The husband answers, "What necklace? I didn't know one was missing."
The presupposition was that the hearer knew of the theft of the
necklace.
--
john
John Dean
Though in your examples, the husband's answer to 'a' would fit neatly into
'b' and his answer to 'b' would fit neatly into 'a'.
--
John Dean
Oxford
John O'Flaherty
<john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
You're right, they would. They're not good examples, I guess; still, I
think the comments about differing presupposition are valid.
--
john
Donna Richoux
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 13:01:34 -0000, "John Dean"
> <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
>
> >John O'Flaherty wrote:
> >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 15:21:38 -0000, "John Dean"
> >> <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> According to John Sutherland in today's Guardian
> >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1159035,00.html
> >>>
> >>> << ...
> >>> 3. What is the difference (in terms of sense) between the following:
> >>> (a) "The butler stole the necklace" (b) "It was the butler who stole
> >>> the necklace"?
[snip discussion]
> >> As to #3, though there is overlap, there is a difference in sense,
> >> which in itself is context. The second statement sounds like the
> >> answer to an established question. The first is more like spontaneous
> >> new information.
> >>
> >> Imagine a house with a butler, a husband and a wife.
> >>
> >> a: The wife says, "The butler stole the necklace."
> >> The husband responds, "Oh, no! Call the police."
> >> The only presupposition is that the husband knows which necklace is
> >> referred to, not that he knows it was stolen.
> >>
> >> b: The wife says, "It was the butler who stole the necklace."
> >> The husband answers, "What necklace? I didn't know one was missing."
> >> The presupposition was that the hearer knew of the theft of the
> >> necklace.
> >
> >Though in your examples, the husband's answer to 'a' would fit neatly into
> >'b' and his answer to 'b' would fit neatly into 'a'.
>
> You're right, they would. They're not good examples, I guess; still, I
> think the comments about differing presupposition are valid.
I don't think you described the differences quite right, but I do agree
there *could* be differences. "The butler stole the necklace" could be
the answer to three different questions:
Who stole the necklace? The butler stole the necklace.
What did the butler do? The butler stole the necklace.
What did the butler steal? The butler stole the necklace.
But the other format doesn't work in all three places. You have to
change it:
Who stole the necklace? It was the butler who stole the necklace.
What did the butler do? What the butler did was steal the necklace.
What did the butler steal? What the butler stole was the necklace.
I suppose there are other possibilities, like "It was stealing the
necklace that the butler did" but that starts to sound really odd.
Irish-y.
The questions have the same number of presuppositions each time, so I
don't see counting presuppositions as relevant.
John O'Flaherty
wrote:
What I meant by presupposition wasn't the factual stuff you mentioned.
It is the state of understanding of the speaker and hearer. The longer
form is a continuation of an existing discourse, implying some
understanding between speaker and hearer that this is not wholly new
material. It assumes that it's understood that a necklace was stolen,
and the question of who stole it has been raised. The shorter form
doesn't carry those implications, even though it could easily be used
in the same situation.
--
john
Peter Moylan
>Try the following.
>
>1. Give me, quickly if you please, an example of an adverbial phrase.
Give me quickly, if you please, better punctuation.
>2. When would you use a colon:
After a question written in Greek.
> when would you use a semi-colon?
In question 3.
>3. What is the difference (in terms of sense) between the following: (a)
>"The butler stole the necklace" (b) "It was the butler who stole the
>necklace"?
--
Peter Moylan Peter....@newcastle.edu.au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)
Rolleston
>John Dean infrared:
>
>>Try the following.
>>
>>1. Give me, quickly if you please, an example of an adverbial phrase.
>
>Give me quickly, if you please, better punctuation.
But that may not mean the same thing. I don't want to bore you by
repeating myself, but it all depends on how we interpret "please".
Does it modify the sentence as a whole or just some part of it?
I interpret "quickly please" in the original as a milder request
within the stronger "Give me an example of an adverbial phrase."
I can't give any particularly good argument for my interpretation.
I can see your sentence might very well be based on a better
reading of the original (if different).
I wonder how other people interpret the original.
Cheers,
R.
Freddy
"John Dean" <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote in message
news:c1vkb5$l5d$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> According to John Sutherland in today's Guardian
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1159035,00.html
>
> routine questions ("How many children had Lady Macbeth?", etc), our
> interviewers will often slip in something on grammar.
>
>
> 1. Give me, quickly if you please, an example of an adverbial phrase.
>
>
> 3. What is the difference (in terms of sense) between the following: (a)
> "The butler stole the necklace" (b) "It was the butler who stole the
> necklace"?
>
> sentence describes something happening, the second sentence records
> something that has happened. One is descriptive, the other
presuppositional.
>
> candidate can manage No 3 and only relatively few the first two. One
> encounters applicants, smart as paint, with four As at A-level, who
wouldn't
> know a noun from a ninepin or a verb from a vole. It's not their fault:
it's
> the educational system that robs them of this knowledge.
>
> Reading literature without knowing the parts of speech is like practising
> brain surgery with your fingers. >>
>
> there is no sign of a semi-colon (I have copied & pasted direct from the
> Guardian website - the article appears as it does in print)
>
> And Q3 seems silly. 'In terms of sense' the two statements are pretty much
> indistinguishable unless more context is given. Imagine a news conference
:
Surely 'It was the butler who stole the necklace' distinguishes the butler
from one who didn't steal the necklace.
e.g. 'Who was that at the door?' It was the butler who stole the necklace.
>