Grammaticaly correct sentences (or not...)
myname
as part of the writing of a program that will check grammar,
we have to use a set of correct and incorrect sentences:
1) Two first class honors Carl wants among his senior sophister students
this year
2) It is a picnic that Mel wants Val to try to enjoy
3) It is a picnic that Mel thinks is going to be enjoyed by Mel
4) It is a picnic that Mel thinks are going to be enjoyed by Mel
5) It is a picnic that Mel thinks that is going to be enjoyed by Mel
6) Mel thinks a picnic is going to be enjoyed by Mel
7) Mel thinks that a picnic is going to be enjoyed by Mel
8) To Mel Leslie seems to want to give a book
9) It is Mel that Leslie seems to want to give a book to
10) It is a book that Leslie seems to want to give to Mel
But in fact, I have doubts. It seems to me that
(considering grammatical aspects only) :
Correct sentences : 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10
Incorrect sentences : 4
Big doubts : 1 (incorrect that way, but correct as part of a larger sentence
?), 8
What's your opinion ?
Thanks !
Molly Mockford
<47e78939$0$860$ba4a...@news.orange.fr>:
>Hello,
>
>as part of the writing of a program that will check grammar,
>we have to use a set of correct and incorrect sentences:
>
>1) Two first class honors Carl wants among his senior sophister students
>this year
>2) It is a picnic that Mel wants Val to try to enjoy
>3) It is a picnic that Mel thinks is going to be enjoyed by Mel
>4) It is a picnic that Mel thinks are going to be enjoyed by Mel
>5) It is a picnic that Mel thinks that is going to be enjoyed by Mel
>6) Mel thinks a picnic is going to be enjoyed by Mel
>7) Mel thinks that a picnic is going to be enjoyed by Mel
>8) To Mel Leslie seems to want to give a book
>9) It is Mel that Leslie seems to want to give a book to
>10) It is a book that Leslie seems to want to give to Mel
1. Incorrect order - try "Carl wants two first class honours among his
senior sophister students this year".
2. Clumsy, but grammatically correct
3. Incorrect duplication of "Mel" - try "It is a picnic that Mel thinks
s/he is going to enjoy"
4. Incorrect - "are" is wrong
5. Incorrect - second "that" is wrong
6. Incorrect duplication of "Mel" - try "Mel thinks a picnic is going to
be enjoyable"
7. Incorrect duplication of "Mel" - try "Mel thinks that a picnic is
going to be enjoyable"
8. Incorrect order - try "Leslie seems to want to give a book to Mel"
9. Incorrect order - try "It is Mel to whom Leslie seems to want to give
a book"
10. Grammatically correct.
Hope this helps!
--
Molly Mockford
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)
Ildhund
news:iWF1jtAS...@molly.mockford...
> At 11:58:04 on Mon, 24 Mar 2008, myname <lsl...@sdfmsflmk.com> wrote in
> <47e78939$0$860$ba4a...@news.orange.fr>:
>
> 9. Incorrect order - try "It is Mel to whom Leslie seems to want to give a
> book"
I would say that your correction of no. 9 is the sort of language up with
which Churchill refused to put.
--
Noel
Tony Mountifield
I thought it was not the language or the grammar, but the insubordination of
being corrected about it, up with which Churchill refused to put.
Cheers
Tony
--
Tony Mountifield
Work: to...@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: to...@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org
Einde O'Callaghan
> In article <fs86pc$5j0$1...@registered.motzarella.org>,
> Ildhund <jn...@removemsn.com> wrote:
>> "Molly Mockford" <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote in message
>> news:iWF1jtAS...@molly.mockford...
>>> At 11:58:04 on Mon, 24 Mar 2008, myname <lsl...@sdfmsflmk.com> wrote in
>>> <47e78939$0$860$ba4a...@news.orange.fr>:
>>>
>>>> 9) It is Mel that Leslie seems to want to give a book to
>>> 9. Incorrect order - try "It is Mel to whom Leslie seems to want to give a
>>> book"
>> I would say that your correction of no. 9 is the sort of language up with
>> which Churchill refused to put.
>
> I thought it was not the language or the grammar, but the insubordination of
> being corrected about it, up with which Churchill refused to put.
>
of a sentence he had written which he had ended with a preposition.
Don't forget that he regarded himself as somewhat of a prose stylist.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
myname
"Molly Mockford" <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> a écrit dans le message
de news: iWF1jtAS...@molly.mockford...
Thanks a lot !
About sentences 3, 6 and 7 (duplication of Mel), if we were to use
another name (Leslie), they would be correct, wouldn't they ?
3) It is a picnic that Mel thinks is going to be enjoyed by Leslie
6) Mel thinks a picnic is going to be enjoyed by Leslie
7) Mel thinks that a picnic is going to be enjoyed by Leslie
Paul
magazine a few years ago where he had ruthlessly and meticulously set
out to decimate all existing grammar softwares by ripping them apart
and showing them for what they really were - junk. I hope you'll
take that extra caution not to let someone like him find fault with
yours, even though that would be next to asking for the impossible!
Best of everything.
To me it seems that sentence 1 will become o.k if you could begin it
"Carl wants....."
Sentence 3 seems a little contrived to me though it may be declared
sound by a grammarian.
Sentence 5 is downright crazy and certainly wrong. You can never use
'that' twice within that sentence structure. Sentence 8 does not
convey the meanings conveyed by sentence 9 or 10 and therefore is
wrong.
All the above is half-baked stuff.
Now let's wait for the real pundits.....
Paul
> "Molly Mockford" <nospamnob...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:iWF1jtAS...@molly.mockford...
>
> > At 11:58:04 on Mon, 24 Mar 2008, myname <lslf...@sdfmsflmk.com> wrote in
> > <47e78939$0$860$ba4ac...@news.orange.fr>:
>
> >>9) It is Mel that Leslie seems to want to give a book to
> > 9. Incorrect order - try "It is Mel to whom Leslie seems to want to give a
> > book"
>
> I would say that your correction of no. 9 is the sort of language up with
> which Churchill refused to put.
> --
> Noel
Churchill might have given us a foot-in-the-mouth response!
Molly Mockford
<47e7abff$0$869$ba4a...@news.orange.fr>:
>About sentences 3, 6 and 7 (duplication of Mel), if we were to use
>another name (Leslie), they would be correct, wouldn't they ?
>
>3) It is a picnic that Mel thinks is going to be enjoyed by Leslie
>6) Mel thinks a picnic is going to be enjoyed by Leslie
>7) Mel thinks that a picnic is going to be enjoyed by Leslie
Yes, they would all be grammatically correct, although they are not
"natural" English. As a rule of thumb, the passive voice is best
avoided(!). "Natural" English would incline towards:
3) It is a picnic that Mel thinks Leslie is going to enjoy
5) Mel thinks Leslie is going to enjoy a picnic
7) Mel thinks that Leslie is going to enjoy a picnic
One particular difference between the three sentences is that, although
they all refer to "a picnic", the first one clearly refers to a
*specific* picnic; the other two refer to Leslie enjoying any possible
picnic, but not a specific one. What makes the difference is the "It
is" at the start of the first sentence; this indicates that a
particular picnic ("it") is the subject of the sentence.
John Hall
myname <lsl...@sdfmsflmk.com> writes:
>1) Two first class honors Carl wants among his senior sophister students
>this year
In addition to points that others have made, I think that it is usual to
hyphenate "first-class".
--
John Hall
"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts;
but if he will be content to begin with doubts,
he shall end in certainties." Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
Paul
> In addition to points that others have made, I think that it is usual to
> hyphenate "first-class".
> --
> John Hall
Are you really, really sure? Just as e.e.cummings (the American poet)
had an incurable distrust of the capitals, I tend to believe that
genneXt distrusts the hyphenated compound word. I think 'first class'
is hyphenated only in very rare adjectival positions such as 'a first-
class mind.' Hyphenation, I think, as language is used today, is
more the exception than the rule.
John Briggs
> John Hall wrote:
>>
>> In addition to points that others have made, I think that it is
>> usual to hyphenate "first-class".
>
> had an incurable distrust of the capitals, I tend to believe that
> genneXt distrusts the hyphenated compound word. I think 'first class'
> is hyphenated only in very rare adjectival positions such as 'a first-
> class mind.' Hyphenation, I think, as language is used today, is
> more the exception than the rule.
You have snipped the sentence, presumably so that we wouldn't notice that
"first-class honors" is just one of those 'rare' adjectival positions.
--
John Briggs
Ildhund
news:73800b8e-5288-4c52...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> I remember reading a language column by William Sapphire in an Indian
> magazine a few years ago where he had ruthlessly and meticulously set
Please define "decimate."
--
Noel
sprocket
> Are you really, really sure? Just as e.e.cummings (the American poet)
> had an incurable distrust of the capitals,
Poetic stylistic posing, like Shaw's attempts at spelling reform. Good
poet though.
> I tend to believe that
> genneXt distrusts the hyphenated compound word.
What's genneXt when it's at home?
> I think 'first class'
> is hyphenated only in very rare adjectival positions such as 'a first-
> class mind.' Hyphenation, I think, as language is used today, is
> more the exception than the rule.
That's a half-baked idea. Note that you never hear of lophenation.
JS
sprocket
> I remember reading a language column by William Sapphire in an Indian
> magazine a few years ago where he had ruthlessly and meticulously set
> out to decimate all existing grammar softwares...
I suspect it was William Safire. Look up 'decimate', I don't think you
meant what it means. 'Software' doesn't have a plural; you can use the
circumlocution 'software packages' though.
JS
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
I sympathise JS, but in some parts of the world and in some
fields of activity "software" does indeed have the plural
"softwares" meaning "software packages" or "item of software".
The singular "a software" is also used.
Googling for "a software for" gives 102,000 results. The
examples below are of formal rather than casual use of "a
software":
WGAViewer: A Software for Genomic Annotation of Whole Genome
Association Studies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18256235
The authors are at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina,
USA.
Getting Pajek: A software for large network analysis
http://www.ccsr.ac.uk/methods/publications/snacourse/pajek.html
The creator of the software appears to be Vladimir Batagelj
of the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
NET-SYNTHESIS: a software for synthesis, inference and ...
http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/24/2/293
The authors of the article are all at US universities.
Climatica : a software for the climatic information
management
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EMS05/00365/EMS05-A-00365.pdf
cosis.net - Copernicus Online Service + Information System
Providing Public Information and Services for registered
Individuals and Organizations affiliated with Solar, Earth,
Planetary and Space Sciences; Astrophysics, Microgravity and
Life Sciences; or Radio Sciences.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)
Paul
too, but Peter zoomed in with what turned out to be a rescue
operation! ( should that be hyphenated? I'm not sure - rescue
apparently seems to work as an adjectival.)
I had used 'decimate' in the figurative sense to mean 'to rip apart',
'to destroy' or 'to severely criticise'. Is this objected to? "My
nephew, having failed his matriculation, spends his time in systematic
decimation of the piscean population in the rivulets around his
village homestead" is a line I remember from a letter from an old
friend. Of course, here the sense was literal. (I wouldn't go so far
as to say he was an authority on UK English).
"Note that you never hear of lophenation" went right above my head.
(Almost like 'one flew over the cuckoo's head.) 'Was it supposed to be
loafenation?
Hyphenation question too is conceded, but, as something of curiosity
value, find a quote from the Cambridge Advanced Learners' Dictionary
below - I swear I didn't edit out the hyphen.
first class (adjective)
..............................
2 A first class degree is the best possible degree qualification you
can obtain from a British university.
Ildhund
...
> I had used 'decimate' in the figurative sense to mean 'to rip apart',
> 'to destroy' or 'to severely criticise'. Is this objected to?
OED (2nd Ed.) gives four meanings, the first two (to do with taxation) being
obsolete. That leaves:
3. Milit. To select by lot and put to death one in every ten of (a body of
soldiers guilty of mutiny or other crime): a practice in the ancient Roman
army, sometimes followed in later times.
4. transf. a. To kill, destroy, or remove one in every ten of. b.
rhetorically or loosely. To destroy or remove a large proportion of; to
subject to severe loss, slaughter, or mortality.
Note that 4b is 'loose'. None of the illustrative quotations given suggests
that the victims numbered more than one in ten.
So, by this pedant (who would also object to your unnecessarily split
infinitive), yes.
--
Noel
sprocket
> Most points, conceded. I was about to concede the 'software' point
> too, but Peter zoomed in with what turned out to be a rescue
> operation!
You'll note that almost all Peter's examples were from non-English
sources though. It may be creeping in, but I work in technology and I've
not heard it used in the UK.
> I had used 'decimate' in the figurative sense to mean 'to rip apart',
> 'to destroy' or 'to severely criticise'. Is this objected to?
If used in the sense of "destroy utterly" it's poor usage, "annihilate"
being a better choice. No one would object to it referring to literal
reduction by 10%, or severe punishment. At least you'll understand when
you read about the Roman emperor who had a legion decimated three times
for mutiny- that meant three rounds of killing one in ten. I'll leave
you to work out how many survived.
> "Note that you never hear of lophenation" went right above my head.
Sorry. Pun on high/low.
>
> first class (adjective)
> ..............................
> 2 A first class degree is the best possible degree qualification you
> can obtain from a British university.
>
The first class was second-class.
It's just a binding to make sure it's understood as an adjectival
phrase. It may not be needed depending on context- if you can be sure
your sense can be unambiguously construed, there's no problem. English
is a language, not a legal code.
JS
David
> > I had used 'decimate' in the figurative sense to mean 'to rip
> > apart', 'to destroy' or 'to severely criticise'. Is this objected
> > to?
> If used in the sense of "destroy utterly" it's poor usage,
> "annihilate" being a better choice. No one would object to it
> referring to literal reduction by 10%, or severe punishment.
> At least you'll understand when you read about the Roman emperor who
> had a legion decimated three times for mutiny- that meant three
> rounds of killing one in ten. I'll leave you to work out how many
> survived.
729 (9 cubed) per 1000 of the original number. Actual figure unknown
unless you know the size of the legion.
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
Paul
> 729 (9 cubed) per 1000 of the original number. Actual figure unknown
> unless you know the size of the legion.
> David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop ukhttp://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
Thanks for working it out for me!
These would be the approximate numbers of legionaries in a legion
depending on which period of history we find ourselves in! (source:
wikipedia)
The size of a typical legion varied widely throughout the history of
ancient Rome, with complements of 4,200 legionaries in the republican
period of Rome (split into 35 maniples of 120 legionaries each), to
5,200 plus auxilaries in the imperial period (split into 10 cohorts, 9
of 480 men each, plus the first cohort holding 800 men).