Teacher Discussion Forums

Which sentences below would you say are acceptable and which unacceptable?

1. The man shouted out conceded the contest.
2. The boy shouted never paid attention.
3. The Hydra’s head shouted was first to be cut off.
4. The player rushed to hospital went into a coma.
5. The player rushed into hospital complained about the wait.
6. The boy rolled in the mud was scolded.
7. The terrorists paraded past the press were mobbed.
8. The car run backwards won the race.
9. The project run as planned gave profit.
10. He run carelessly absconds.
11. The frog marched were clearly German.
12. The disc rotated on the fixed pivot was displayed.
13. The camel walked in Bazaar was sold.
14. The box melted was pure gold.
15. The candles melted were sent to Sara.
16. The woman melted was a witch.
17. The alien mutated came forth anew.
18. My milk poured out was the last.
19. The room darkened for the party was occupied.
20. The room darkened for the party set her on edge.
21. The crystal disintegrated during transit was insured.
22. His eyes crystallized in the desert heat were sore.
23. The man hardened in the war was never a father to him.

Ok are, in my opinion (but I speak only strine):

Numbers 4,5,6*,7,8,9,12,19,20,22,23

* he shouldn't be punished for being rolled in the mud

Harzer

"Fine" (none pose any real problems in processing):
4. The player rushed to hospital went into a coma.
5. The player rushed into hospital complained about the wait.
8. The car run backwards won the race.
9. The project run as planned gave profit.
6. The boy rolled in the mud was scolded.
7. The terrorists paraded past the press were (as a result) mobbed.
12. The disc rotated on the fixed pivot was displayed.
14. The box melted was pure gold.
15. The candles melted were sent to Sara.
17. The alien mutated came forth anew.
18. My milk poured out was the last.
19. The room darkened for the party was occupied.
20. The room darkened for the party set her on edge.
21. The crystal disintegrated during transit was insured.
22. His eyes crystallized in the desert heat were sore. (I am tempted to put this into the next category below, though! Can eyes crystallize/be crystallized?)
23. The man hardened in the war was never a father to him.

Context is a little unclear/strange:
1. The man shouted out conceded the contest. (What sport? Oral boxing, TKO by crowd dissapproval?).
16. The woman melted was a witch. (Is it possible for people to melt/be melted?!)

Would be acceptable if there were no space between 'frog' and 'march' (that is, if it were clearly a verb):
11. The frog marched were clearly German.

Could be acceptable with punctuation showing direct speech:
2. The boy shouted never paid attention.

Wee donte talke like thise anyemore (if we indeed ever did!):
10. He run carelessly absconds.

Unacceptable (I can't [be bothered to] process them):
3. The Hydra’s head shouted was first to be cut off.
13. The camel walked in Bazaar was sold.

Got straight away:

4,5,6 (gave profit?),7,8,9,12, 19,20, 21, 23

Harder to imagine:

1, 3, 11 (took a while, needs a hyphen?) , 13 (is there a place called Bazaar?) ,22 (though commas would be strictly correct, there weren't any other eyes)

Participles making up a shrunken defining relative clause that would be much better before the noun but I don't know why: 14,15,16,17, 18

"Wrong" 2,10,18

JuanTwoThree wrote:13 (is there a place called Bazaar?)

Damn, I didn't notice the capital B there! If there is such a "proper noun" place, it's acceptable then.

"Wrong" 2,10,18

I'll admit 18 is strange, but is it unacceptable?

Yup, I've got 18 in twice. Scrap the 18 in "Wrong" and leave it with those other participles.

JuanTwoThree wrote:Yup, I've got 18 in twice.

I didn't notice that either! No wonder Chomsky wears glasses - I think I'll need a pair soon myself if I keep this linguistics lark up much longer.

Harzer wrote:Ok are, in my opinion (but I speak only strine):

Numbers 4,5,6*,7,8,9,12,19,20,22,23

* he shouldn't be punished for being rolled in the mud

Harzer

No, he should not.

Just looking at one or two:

4. The player rushed to hospital went into a coma.
5. The player rushed into hospital complained about the wait.
6. The boy rolled in the mud was scolded.
7. The terrorists paraded past the press were mobbed.
8. The car run backwards won the race.
9. The project run as planned gave profit.

Numbers 4, 5, 6 & 7 contain an animate subject, a passive participle (based on ergative/unaccusative verbs*) and a reduced relative clause; numbers 8 & 9 contain inanimate subjects and a passive participle (based on ergative/unaccusative verbs*) and a reduced relative clause.


*“Ergative” = externally caused action. E.g. “The boat sailed”.
“Unergative” = internally caused action. E.g. “She slept”.)

Talking of Chomsky and glasses, I was browsing through The Anti-Chomsky Reader the other day* and noticed they'd selected a non-too-flattering photo for the cover, then processed it like a negative to make him look quite creepy and inhuman. Or perhaps there's no "ugly" conspiracy here and it was simply an alternative photo, that wasn't used for Smith's Chomsky: Ideas and Ideals (Second Edition) and that was therefore going begging. See the cover photo, read an excerpt from the book, and check out some fairly articulate (for Amazon - but then, how could they not be, given the subject matter!) reviews:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... 91-2180063

* Mainly for the chapters detailing his "contributions" to linguistics, and the "tricks" he's employed to get to and stay at the top. Postal goes a bit postal pumping the evidence he's got clenched in his fist for all it's worth, whilst the next author - some amateur historian-*beep*-linguistics buff - just seems a bit of a nutter. I can't blame C for getting a bit peed off with him (they entered into quite a lengthy correspondance by email, which is worth reading if you like to sometimes imagine how Chomsky might deal with you if you were corresponding with him and somehow allowed yourself to get a bit stroppy with him over his steadfast viewpoints ).

fluffyhamster wrote:
Context is a little unclear/strange:
1. The man shouted out conceded the contest. (What sport? Oral boxing, TKO by crowd dissapproval?).
16. The woman melted was a witch. (Is it possible for people to melt/be melted?!)

A shouting contest. Remember that I live in Spain.

Check out The Wizard of Oz for melted women (wicked witches).

Would be acceptable if there were no space between 'frog' and 'march' (that is, if it were clearly a verb):
11. The frog marched were clearly German.

I agree.

Could be acceptable with punctuation showing direct speech:
2. The boy shouted never paid attention.

But that would be a different meaning to "the shouted boy/the boy who was shouted".

Wee donte talke like thise anyemore (if we indeed ever did!):
10. He run carelessly absconds.

Some NNES do - unfortunately.

Unacceptable (I can't [be bothered to] process them):
3. The Hydra’s head shouted was first to be cut off.
13. The camel walked in Bazaar was sold.

[/quote]

I'll let Hercules and Aladdin know your stance. )

Unless English has suddenly mutated overnight, none of the sentences are "acceptable" as they are all missing a relative pronoun and "was"/"were". I wonder about the almost universal acceptance of some of them by everyone who has posted so far, is this a psychology experiment? I would admit, however, that I can still work out the meaning of every sentence.

JuanTwoThree wrote:Got straight away:

4,5,6 (gave profit?)

Gave profit how?

4. The player rushed to hospital went into a coma.
5. The player rushed into hospital complained about the wait.
6. The boy rolled in the mud was scolded.

1, 3, 11 (took a while, needs a hyphen?)

Which one does?

[/quote]13 (is there a place called Bazaar?)[/quote]

NNES example.

,22 (though commas would be strictly correct, there weren't any other eyes)

I agree - about the commas.

Participles making up a shrunken defining relative clause that would be much better before the noun but I don't know why: 14,15,16,17, 18

But would that still imply the existence of "other boxes" etc?

"Wrong" 2,10,18

Could you say why you think 18 is wrong?

Andrew Patterson wrote:Unless English has suddenly mutated overnight, none of the sentences are "acceptable" as they are all missing a relative pronoun and "was"/"were". I wonder about the almost universal acceptance of some of them by everyone who has posted so far, is this a psychology experiment? I would admit, however, that I can still work out the meaning of every sentence.

Are you not familar with reduced relative clauses containing a passive participle?

(gave profit?) should be after 9, it's an odd expression

11 only, frog-marched or frogmarched would help

18 wrong was a mistake, see my post to fluffy.

I can't decide about these one word right position post-modifying participles. They suggest a contrast with an unmentioned alternative:

The candles melted (but not the ones that weren't) were sent to Sarah

an implied contrast which is lost in the left position. But I feel they usually need more words even if as Danny Kate said

"A jester unemployed is nobody's fool"

I finally see the possibility for 2 too, so maybe my "wrongs" are still further reduced

RETHINK/REEDIT:

Got straight away:

4,5,6 ,7,8,9 (strange expression: gave profit),12, 19,20, 21, 23

Harder to imagine:

1, 3, 11 (11 took a while, needs a hyphen?) , 13 (13: is there a place called Bazaar?) ,22 (22: though commas would be strictly correct, there weren't any other eyes)

Participles making up a shrunken defining relative clause that would be much (?) better before the noun but I don't know why : 14,15,16,17, 18

Took for ever: 2

"Wrong" 10