|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rainism
Joined: 13 Apr 2011
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 10:30 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Rainism, you might be right. But if university-educated native speakers don't even know the answer, it's not material your co-teacher should be spending time on in her class, unless her class is an advanced class at a foreign language high school. |
well, once again, with all due respect, have you seen the writing of some of the supposedly uni educated people on this forum?
if someone 's verbal sat was below 650 and they went to the State Uni of Everyday City, USA, I'm going to be a little suspicious of what sounds good to them. After all, those are the same people who don't employ adverbs and often misuse or don't use the proper past participles.
I believe this came up because on the "test" the "correct" answer is the first one, the one I believe to be the correct one. A different native teacher suggested the 2nd option was also possible so I was asked if that's true. I don't know if it was offered on the the test (2nd option) or how the entire question is structured.
Hum, you have my respect since you've often given sagacious advice on this forum when it came to grammar puzzles. You are correct that it seems a little suspicious that if I change the progressive to simple past, then the split seems arbitrary (which is why I posed the example)
yet.. of such things of "arbitrary" nature are things in language(s) made.
(e.g. how can no and know have the exact same pronunciation? how "arbitrary" is that?)
actually, as I've stated before.. a Google search shows an overwhelming preponderance of the so called 'correct' usage, and very little of the latter.. only several informal reviews from people on sites like tripadvisor, etc.
so, I'm not yet convinced they're equivalent and I'm not convinced there is any regionalism involved. Also, as I've noted, I've done an awful lot of reading in my life, such reading is hardly regional and I see no reason to distrust the same antennae which have served me well thus far.
p.s. I will agree over time some things evolve. For e.g. back in my day it was strictly verboten to begin any written sentence with the word "But".
This resulted in a lot of paraphrasing, a lot of "however(s)", "yet(s)" etc etc all because of a stupid rule. Today, when you see articles in such publications as the Economist no longer applying this rule, that's how/when you know that such a rule no longer applies/exists. [/i] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
different
Joined: 22 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry for the negativity before. I tend to take shots at the problems I see with ESL education.
My point was, even if lots of native speakers aren't reliable sources of info on high-level grammar points, ESL teachers shouldn't waste time teaching conditional word order to typical public school students who may not even be able to write the past tense reliably.
Anyway, maybe your antennae are right, or maybe a few grammar rules have loosened up since the time most of the literature you read was written. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isitts
Joined: 25 Dec 2008
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 2:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rainism wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Rainism, you might be right. But if university-educated native speakers don't even know the answer, it's not material your co-teacher should be spending time on in her class, unless her class is an advanced class at a foreign language high school. |
well, once again, with all due respect, have you seen the writing of some of the supposedly uni educated people on this forum?
if someone 's verbal sat was below 650 and they went to the State Uni of Everyday City, USA, I'm going to be a little suspicious of what sounds good to them. After all, those are the same people who don't employ adverbs and often misuse or don't use the proper past participles.
I believe this came up because on the "test" the "correct" answer is the first one, the one I believe to be the correct one. A different native teacher suggested the 2nd option was also possible so I was asked if that's true. I don't know if it was offered on the the test (2nd option) or how the entire question is structured.
Hum, you have my respect since you've often given sagacious advice on this forum when it came to grammar puzzles. You are correct that it seems a little suspicious that if I change the progressive to simple past, then the split seems arbitrary (which is why I posed the example)
yet.. of such things of "arbitrary" nature are things in language(s) made.
(e.g. how can no and know have the exact same pronunciation? how "arbitrary" is that?)
actually, as I've stated before.. a Google search shows an overwhelming preponderance of the so called 'correct' usage, and very little of the latter.. only several informal reviews from people on sites like tripadvisor, etc.
so, I'm not yet convinced they're equivalent and I'm not convinced there is any regionalism involved. Also, as I've noted, I've done an awful lot of reading in my life, such reading is hardly regional and I see no reason to distrust the same antennae which have served me well thus far.
p.s. I will agree over time some things evolve. For e.g. back in my day it was strictly verboten to begin any written sentence with the word "But".
This resulted in a lot of paraphrasing, a lot of "however(s)", "yet(s)" etc etc all because of a stupid rule. Today, when you see articles in such publications as the Economist no longer applying this rule, that's how/when you know that such a rule no longer applies/exists. [/i] |
Your question was answered by three other posters on page 1! What are you going on about? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rainism
Joined: 13 Apr 2011
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Your question was answered by three other posters on page 1 |
not to my satisfaction  and another person agreed with me.
I wish I had the contact email to my honors English literature teacher in HS.
Now I'm very curious myself as to what the proper option(s) is/are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thiuda
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 5:34 am Post subject: Re: need help with grammar question please? |
|
|
| rainism wrote: |
she would rather have been playing
vs
She would have rather been playing |
As others have pointed out, both of these sentences are perfectly acceptable. rather is an adverb and one of the features of adverbs is that they can move around a sentence.
(1) Loudly the teacher reprimanded his student.
(2) The teacher loudly reprimanded his student.
(3) The teacher reprimanded his student loudly.
If these sentences were both possible answers on an exam, then they both ought to be counted as correct. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rainism
Joined: 13 Apr 2011
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:05 am Post subject: Re: need help with grammar question please? |
|
|
| Thiuda wrote: |
| rainism wrote: |
she would rather have been playing
vs
She would have rather been playing |
As others have pointed out, both of these sentences are perfectly acceptable. rather is an adverb and one of the features of adverbs is that they can move around a sentence.
(1) Loudly the teacher reprimanded his student.
(2) The teacher loudly reprimanded his student.
(3) The teacher reprimanded his student loudly.
If these sentences were both possible answers on an exam, then they both ought to be counted as correct. |
well you Thiuda and Cosmic Hum I've seen on enough grammar threads, where I have to take you guys have actual educational background in grammar to offer the opinions that you do.
so I'll accept it (albeit begrudgingly). It's exceedingly rare for my antennae to be off. They didn't recognize the 2nd option as a flat out error, but they're very uncomfortable with it. With my reading background I "should" have seen many more examples of such possible usage, but I have not.
I agree with you on characteristics of adverbs, but I don't see "rather" as easily as an adverb as you do. I'm not sure what I see it as. But then, I don't have any formal grammar background and simply rely on things I've seen written in literature and high end current event periodicals.
and no I would never personally confuse a test, especially an ESL/EFL test with such banalities. It's simply something I was asked about. I'm not sure if the other is an actual option on the test or was simply suggested as yet another option by the other teacher.
different, no need to apologize about anything, and I completely agree with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rainism
Joined: 13 Apr 2011
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 3:11 pm Post subject: Re: need help with grammar question please? |
|
|
| Thiuda wrote: |
| rainism wrote: |
she would rather have been playing
vs
She would have rather been playing |
As others have pointed out, both of these sentences are perfectly acceptable. rather is an adverb and one of the features of adverbs is that they can move around a sentence.
(1) Loudly the teacher reprimanded his student.
(2) The teacher loudly reprimanded his student.
(3) The teacher reprimanded his student loudly.
If these sentences were both possible answers on an exam, then they both ought to be counted as correct. |
by this logic, one should be able to move "rather" fairly freely around the sentence, and that's clearly NOT possible.
rather she would have been playing?
she would have been playing rather?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isitts
Joined: 25 Dec 2008
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 5:41 pm Post subject: Re: need help with grammar question please? |
|
|
| rainism wrote: |
by this logic, one should be able to move "rather" fairly freely around the sentence, and that's clearly NOT possible.
rather she would have been playing?
she would have been playing rather?
|
That�s what I was about to post. Yeah, you can�t move it just anywhere. That first sentence changes the meaning (you�d need a comma after �Rather�).
�Rather, she would have been playing.� In this case it�d have nothing to do with her preference.
The second sentence doesn�t work and you also couldn�t say:
�She rather would have been playing.�
So something has to be split; either �would� and �have� or �have� and �been�.
Ok�looking at Cambridge �English Grammar in Use� now, and while it doesn�t have this particular tense, it does show that �would� and �rather� go together. The example they give is:
�I would rather drive.�
If we change the tense to what you have, it�d change to:
�I would rather have driven.�
So, that makes the first option in your original post the correct one.
*sigh* Now you can stop losing sleep.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rainism
Joined: 13 Apr 2011
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
AHA!
GRACIAS!
I'm going to go gently stroke my umm.. err.. "antennae" now 
little suckers never fail me  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isitts
Joined: 25 Dec 2008
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rainism wrote: |
AHA!
GRACIAS!
I'm going to go gently stroke my umm.. err.. "antennae" now
little suckers never fail me |
No problem.
Actually, I should have written:
�I would rather have been driving.�
But anyway, mystery solved.
That Grammar in Use book is really helpful. Comes in handy when you have adult students grilling you on these kinds of questions. Plus it explains why your antennae are going off.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you are looking for a 'rule' to confirm your belief...this may be useful to you.
�Rather� - in your example...is not being used as an adverb...as you already surmised.
'Would rather'...is considered a modal-like form.
As far as splitting the modal-like form�so far I am unable to find any prescriptive rule on the subject.
If this were a GRE question, with both forms listed as options, I would choose the original undivided modal as the �more correct� choice.(given no other better option)
However, modals and adverbials tend to be very elastic in their uses and mobility�will need to do more research to find a more conclusive �rule� on this subject.
Hope this is useful to you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
meangradin
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| 'Would rather'...is considered a modal-like form. |
I didn't even consider that.
| Quote: |
| I wish I had the contact email to my honors English literature teacher in HS. |
Newsflash; grammarians differ on "correct" usage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rainism
Joined: 13 Apr 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| meangradin wrote: |
| Quote: |
| 'Would rather'...is considered a modal-like form. |
I didn't even consider that.
| Quote: |
| I wish I had the contact email to my honors English literature teacher in HS. |
Newsflash; grammarians differ on "correct" usage. |
I'm sure this occurs in limited cases, but I'm also fairly certain there's a certain accepted Ivy League/ Eton-Cambridge-BBC standard on such things and that is the standard I am interested in.
My intention is not to find things to label as wrong or incorrect. (though if it's egregious enough, then I'll be "mean" with gusto.) My intention is to simply identify and use the best/most educated option. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thiuda
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rainism wrote: |
| Thiuda wrote: |
| rainism wrote: |
she would rather have been playing
vs
She would have rather been playing |
As others have pointed out, both of these sentences are perfectly acceptable. rather is an adverb and one of the features of adverbs is that they can move around a sentence.
(1) Loudly the teacher reprimanded his student.
(2) The teacher loudly reprimanded his student.
(3) The teacher reprimanded his student loudly.
If these sentences were both possible answers on an exam, then they both ought to be counted as correct. |
by this logic, one should be able to move "rather" fairly freely around the sentence, and that's clearly NOT possible. |
No, I stated that adverbs can move around a sentence, I didn't say that all adverbs moved around a sentence in the same way. There are restrictions on how the different types of adverbs can move. In the examples I provided, 'loudly' is an adverb of manner. Adverbs of manner move differently than adverbs of degree, like 'rather'. Even within the set of adverbs of degree, different adverbs move in different ways.
Some degree adverbs can come in front of a main verb, after a main verb, or after the object if there is one.
(1) Peter completely agrees with John.
(a) Peter agrees completely with John.
(b) Peter agrees with John completely.
Other degree adverbs are more limited and go in front of adjectives, or other adverbs and modify them.
(2) Wonju is rather a pretty town.
(a) Wonju is a rather pretty town.
(3) She would have rather been playing.
(a) She would rather have been playing.
In any case, the point I was trying to make was that 'rather' is an adverb and that adverbs can move around a sentence, and that therefore both of your examples are acceptable.
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
�Rather� - in your example...is not being used as an adverb...as you already surmised.
'Would rather'...is considered a modal-like form.
As far as splitting the modal-like form�so far I am unable to find any prescriptive rule on the subject. |
Whether 'would rather' functions as a quasi-modal here is irrelevant to this discussion, because 'rather' would still be an adverb(ial particle). Phrasal verbs function in the same manner, two/three words form a single grammatical unit, but the adverbial particles can still move, as in (4).
(4) Peter turned off the light in the living room.
(a) Peter turned the light in the living room off.
(b) Peter turned the light off.
More food for thought:
(5) She would really rather have been playing.
(6) She would have much rather been playing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rainism
Joined: 13 Apr 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
so you're saying Cambridge English Grammar in Use now is mistaken?
I'm perfectly willing to accept what they say |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
