|
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 |
Qinella
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Location: the crib
|
 Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 7:20 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
| Yesterday wrote: |
"Some properties of matter are shape, size, and color".
I was taught at school to NEVER put a comma in front of an "and"... however McGraw/Hill and Foresman have done it throughout all of their books....
please let me know if I am wrong... |
It can officially go either way. I prefer leaving the comma in. |
The way I remember it from my editing days is that, in the event of a set occuring in the middle of a sentence (as in, not at the end), a comma might be placed before the last item, but isn't necessary.
Here's the thing about comma usage: the comma's purpose is to assist understanding in reading. If you feel something is too ambiguous without a comma, add one. If you think a placed comma is garish or cumbersome, remove it. It's pretty flexible in many instances.
| Quote: |
| I think that it should be on the table "was" not "were" because "the food looked" tense does not mesh with it I think it is present perfect tense .... |
You mean present perfect as in a perfect setting (warm castle, good eats) taking place now, right?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kyrei
Joined: 22 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 7:29 pm Post subject: Re: Errors in Korean Textbooks, "Were I wrong?" Am |
|
|
| dogbert wrote: |
What do you mean there was no "with"?
The OP stated:
"On the table were a roasted chicken with potatoes, cake, and hot coffee."
His original post does not seem to have been edited.
|
Right, my mistake there. My apologies.
| dogbert wrote: |
Or are you saying that there have to be more than two nouns for something to be plural? In that case:
"There were Kyrei with the Great Toad, Dogbert, and Jongnoguru."
"There was Kyrei with the Great Toad, Dogbert, and Jongnoguru." |
I am saying that technically the first one is correct as the subject is plural, but that we commonly say the second.
Try this:
Q) Who was at the party?
A1) There were Kyrei with Great Toad, Dogbert, and Jongnoguru.
A2) There was Kyrei with Great Toad, Dogbert, and Jongnoguru.
Again, A1 is technically correct, but A2 is the most commonly spoken/written answer. It goes back to old grammar rules that are considered antiquated now. It is a rather common colloquialism. Take this for example "There's a lot of things wrong with this country". That, we can all agree is a mistake, yet is quite commonly used nowadays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NearlyKorean
Joined: 15 Mar 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 7:36 pm Post subject: The great table debate and.... |
|
|
I believe.....
"On the table were a roasted chicken with potatoes, cake, and hot coffee" is incorrect.
It should be "On the table was a roasted chicken with potatoes, cake, and hot coffee" since table is the subject of this sentence. The verb must agree with the subject. However, if the subject of the sentnce was "a roasted chicken with potatoes, cake, and hot coffee" then 'were' would be correct.
A roasted chicken with potatoes, cake, and hot coffee were on the table.
MHO,
NK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pyongshin Sangja
Joined: 20 Apr 2003
Location: I love baby!
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It should be "On the table was a roasted chicken with potatoes, cake, and hot coffee" since table is the subject of this sentence. The verb must agree with the subject. However, if the subject of the sentence was "a roasted chicken with potatoes, cake, and hot coffee" then 'were' would be correct. |
Jesus Murphy, table is not the subject of the sentence. "On the table" is a prepositional phrase that doesn't affect the subject or the verb. The subject is either just "roasted chicken" and "with...." is a prepositional phrase, or you could treat "Roasted chicken with potatoes, cake and hot coffee" as a list and use a plural verb. It could be either:
| Quote: |
A roasted chicken was on the table, with potatoes, cake and hot coffee.
A roasted chicken with potatoes, cake and hot coffee was on the table.
Potatoes, cake and hot coffee were on the table, with a roasted chicken.
On the table was a roasted chicken with potatoes, cake and hot coffee.
On the table were: a roasted chicken with potatoes, cake and hot coffee.
|
Basically, if you treat a roasted chicken with potatoes, cake and hot coffee as a list of 3 items, you would use the verb "were" and you should really use a colon. If you focus on the chicken and make everything else incidental to the chicken, you would use the verb "was."
And that's all she wrote.
I agree with RACETRAITOR about using "so" in the following sentence, because it assumes prior knowledge and compares the room to something else of which we have no knowledge. If you are introducing a topic and wish to describe it as being exceptional in some way, you would say ""very." The use of "so" is improper and quite juvenile. |
|
| 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
