Please go take a look at this web site on inversion:
http://www.testmagic.com/grammar/explan ... ersion.htm
"Had I learned more about the subject/verb inversion, I would not have asked this question."
Does anyone know other comprehensive guides to subject/verb inversion?
William
Subject/Verb Inversion
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
Duncan Powrie
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:33 pm
I had a quick look at the link you gave, and it seems pretty good and comprehensive (and I don't know where you'd find more comprehensive treatments).
However, in my humble opinion:
- the examples in 1 are all too formal and will lead to an imbalance
- the examples in 4 and 18 seem "WRONG" (purely test-maker inventions); those in 18 especially are like "Yoda-speak"!
- the example in 13 would get perhaps read better as: "The closer an object is to another object, the greater the gravity IS between the two objects." (rather than: "The closer an object is to another object, the greater is the gravity between the two objects."). It'll be interesting to see what others think about this.
I would single out sections 2, 9, 10, possibly 12 (depends on what English you speak!), obviously 14 15 and 17, and 16 as all containing very natural English.
However, in my humble opinion:
- the examples in 1 are all too formal and will lead to an imbalance
- the examples in 4 and 18 seem "WRONG" (purely test-maker inventions); those in 18 especially are like "Yoda-speak"!
- the example in 13 would get perhaps read better as: "The closer an object is to another object, the greater the gravity IS between the two objects." (rather than: "The closer an object is to another object, the greater is the gravity between the two objects."). It'll be interesting to see what others think about this.
I would single out sections 2, 9, 10, possibly 12 (depends on what English you speak!), obviously 14 15 and 17, and 16 as all containing very natural English.
Ya, me too. I don't quite understabd the exmaples in #4:
1a) I like carrots more than I do potatoes.
1b) I like carrots more than do I like potatoes.
2a) I like carrots more than does my friend Carl.
2b) I like carrots more than my friend Carl does.
I have never heard about this rule, "We normally have inversion if we are comparing subjects of the verb, not objects." In 2a, we are comparaing the subjects so we should use inversion.
Does anyone know this rule / technique
William
1a) I like carrots more than I do potatoes.
1b) I like carrots more than do I like potatoes.
2a) I like carrots more than does my friend Carl.
2b) I like carrots more than my friend Carl does.
I have never heard about this rule, "We normally have inversion if we are comparing subjects of the verb, not objects." In 2a, we are comparaing the subjects so we should use inversion.
Does anyone know this rule / technique
William
-
Duncan Powrie
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:33 pm
William, forget that rule - it is bullsh*t (hard to understand) and produces bullsh*t examples (I have never seen let alone heard crap like that).
The word order should remain the same whether subjects or objects are being compared, and all that then matters is if the second potential subject is followed by a verb (if it is not, it will obviously remain a second object):
1a) I like carrots more than (I do/I like) potatoes.
1b) *I like carrots more than [*do] (I like) potatoes.
3) ?I like carrots more than ((I like) my friend) Carl. (= 1a?! ->4))
4) I like carrots more than (my friend) Carl does.
5) *I like carrots more than [*does] (my friend) Carl. ( -> 4))
Note the position of "does" in the last two sentences: in 4) it has perhaps been added because somebody might misunderstand+ the meaning of 3); but in 5), the "does" is clearly an extra, SUPERFLUOUS word INSIDE the sentence that serves no obvious or useful function AT ALL. Basically, the problems with both sentences ?3) and *5) give us no choice but to view sentence 4) as being the best one!
+ Native speakers would probably interpret 3)"I like carrots more than Carl" simply as meaning 4)"I like carrots more than Carl does", but somebody with a sense of humour could deliberately misconstrue 3) to mean that "I" is a confirmed vegetarian rather than a totally murderous cannibal (it does sound as if Carl is still around to "sample" again!
).
The word order should remain the same whether subjects or objects are being compared, and all that then matters is if the second potential subject is followed by a verb (if it is not, it will obviously remain a second object):
1a) I like carrots more than (I do/I like) potatoes.
1b) *I like carrots more than [*do] (I like) potatoes.
3) ?I like carrots more than ((I like) my friend) Carl. (= 1a?!
->4))4) I like carrots more than (my friend) Carl does.
5) *I like carrots more than [*does] (my friend) Carl. ( -> 4))
Note the position of "does" in the last two sentences: in 4) it has perhaps been added because somebody might misunderstand+ the meaning of 3); but in 5), the "does" is clearly an extra, SUPERFLUOUS word INSIDE the sentence that serves no obvious or useful function AT ALL. Basically, the problems with both sentences ?3) and *5) give us no choice but to view sentence 4) as being the best one!
+ Native speakers would probably interpret 3)"I like carrots more than Carl" simply as meaning 4)"I like carrots more than Carl does", but somebody with a sense of humour could deliberately misconstrue 3) to mean that "I" is a confirmed vegetarian rather than a totally murderous cannibal (it does sound as if Carl is still around to "sample" again!
).
Last edited by Duncan Powrie on Fri Aug 06, 2004 2:51 pm, edited 4 times in total.
-
Duncan Powrie
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:33 pm
I mean, (I like carrots) more than Carl does. Okay?! Rule or reality?
Good morning to you all!
As often, I agree with Duncan. Cast that "rule" from your mind, wipe it from your mental "rule" slate, consider it one of those unimportant things that occurs when one uses the item under study to explain the item under study. That's the best part of linguistics for me and I'm glad I saw this "rule" in the context of a friendly message board on internet and not on the administration's list of objectives for the first semester!
peace,
revel.
As often, I agree with Duncan. Cast that "rule" from your mind, wipe it from your mental "rule" slate, consider it one of those unimportant things that occurs when one uses the item under study to explain the item under study. That's the best part of linguistics for me and I'm glad I saw this "rule" in the context of a friendly message board on internet and not on the administration's list of objectives for the first semester!
peace,
revel.
-
Duncan Powrie
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:33 pm
Don't be so hard on yourself, William! I don't think you are "obsessed"! You are "just" somebody with a genuine desire to learn and understand, who is being confounded by the "advice" that is often given to learners about what they "need" to know (or learn, for tests 
).
The only people who are obsessed in this situation are the test makers (and, to a lesser and more forgivable degree, the test takers), the former of whom especially have vested interests at stake in perpetuating their whole sorry industry (it can be argued that tests are necessary to impose standards...I just wish the standard was actually the standard language as most people understand it, however!
).
Basically, if something is difficult to understand (and it took me, a native speaker, a good twenty minutes to figure that rule out!), that should start an alarm bell ringing in your head immediately; you then have to ask yourself two questions: 1) Could this be better explained?, and 2) Do I really need to know all this?
Usually the answers to these questions are: 1) YES (obviously/almost always - unless you really are of below-average intelligence!) and 2) NO (not so obvious, but nevertheless often true). Don't beat yourself up by thinking you are stupid for answering YES to the first question, and don't worry that you are missing much if you answer NO to the second.
"If something smells like bullsh*t, it probably is bullsh*t!" (Lao Zi, or was it Confucius?! ).
Once you have taken responsibility for your own learning in this way, you will be better able to "Absorb what is useful" and "Walk on!" (Bruce Lee). You'll certainly not have to continue painfully "bending the knee" to stupid native-speaker test writers who should know better.
If all else fails, remember that at heart English is an SVO language...SVO...SVO...SOS!
).The only people who are obsessed in this situation are the test makers (and, to a lesser and more forgivable degree, the test takers), the former of whom especially have vested interests at stake in perpetuating their whole sorry industry (it can be argued that tests are necessary to impose standards...I just wish the standard was actually the standard language as most people understand it, however!
).Basically, if something is difficult to understand (and it took me, a native speaker, a good twenty minutes to figure that rule out!), that should start an alarm bell ringing in your head immediately; you then have to ask yourself two questions: 1) Could this be better explained?, and 2) Do I really need to know all this?
Usually the answers to these questions are: 1) YES (obviously/almost always - unless you really are of below-average intelligence!) and 2) NO (not so obvious, but nevertheless often true). Don't beat yourself up by thinking you are stupid for answering YES to the first question, and don't worry that you are missing much if you answer NO to the second.
"If something smells like bullsh*t, it probably is bullsh*t!" (Lao Zi, or was it Confucius?! ).Once you have taken responsibility for your own learning in this way, you will be better able to "Absorb what is useful" and "Walk on!" (Bruce Lee). You'll certainly not have to continue painfully "bending the knee" to stupid native-speaker test writers who should know better.
If all else fails, remember that at heart English is an SVO language...SVO...SVO...SOS!
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
More enlightening englishdroid.com magic:
http://www.englishdroid.com/types_of_classes.htmlTOEFL tests language structures that are obsolete outside the snootier American universities. For example, inversion after a comparative: 'Roger likes classical music more than does Rita.'
The test is due to change in 2005, so perhaps some of its eccentricities will vanish.
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
Take note of especially the penultimate sentence of the following LL article:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... 01952.html
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... 01952.html