1) Can you think of a noun phrase with the constituents noun + article (in that order)?
2) Is this a dangling participle? Having said that, here's another problem!
Breaktime!
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
Breaktime!
Or, Short questions and puzzles to distract you from your coffee.
1) Can you think of a noun phrase with the constituents noun + article (in that order)?
2) Is this a dangling participle? Having said that, here's another problem!
1) Can you think of a noun phrase with the constituents noun + article (in that order)?
2) Is this a dangling participle? Having said that, here's another problem!
-
bradwelljackson
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:22 pm
- Location: Shakhty, Russia
1) Ray, a drop of golden sun
2) (Having said that, here's another problem!) Well now, Mr. Fluff, your pedantic knowledge of grammar is infinitely superior to mine, but I'll give it my amateur try and see how you analyze it:
My understanding is that any non-finite clause begins with an infinitive or participial phrase, and it seems as though the "Having said that" bit belongs to the participial category (for all I know, it could be a gerund). Your phrase would therefore seem to be a dangler. What might save it from being thrown into that ignominious maw is the presumption that there must have been a sentence before that to flesh out this sentence of yours. It would therefore be less dangling since it is in context.
2) (Having said that, here's another problem!) Well now, Mr. Fluff, your pedantic knowledge of grammar is infinitely superior to mine, but I'll give it my amateur try and see how you analyze it:
My understanding is that any non-finite clause begins with an infinitive or participial phrase, and it seems as though the "Having said that" bit belongs to the participial category (for all I know, it could be a gerund). Your phrase would therefore seem to be a dangler. What might save it from being thrown into that ignominious maw is the presumption that there must have been a sentence before that to flesh out this sentence of yours. It would therefore be less dangling since it is in context.
-
bradwelljackson
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:22 pm
- Location: Shakhty, Russia
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
Sorry for the delay in replying - got literally cut off from the internet when the Virgin cable got damaged!
Regarding Q1, Sampson 
on pg 177 in chapter 10 ('Evidence against the grammatical/ungrammatical distinction') of his Empirical Linguistics opines that "to suggest that the construction is not just very unusual but actually impossible in English is merely a challenge to think of a plausible context for it...There would be nothing even slighty strange, in a discussion of foreign languages, in saying Norwegians put the article after the noun, in their language they they say things like bread the is on table the - an utterance which contans two examples of Culy's 'impossible construction'. Talking about foreign languages is one valid use of the English language, among countless others."
Regarding Q2, Trask in the entry for 'dangling participle' in his Penguin Dictionary of English Grammar has this to say: "A PARTICIPLE which is not grammatically linked to the rest of its sentence, or at least not in an orderly manner. For example, in *Driving down the road, a deer leapt out in front of me, the participial phrase driving down the road is dangling: if anything it appears to be linked (wrongly) to a deer. In *Having said that, there's another solution, the participial phrase having said that is linked to nothing at all. Though they are not rare in speech, dangling participles are regarded as inappropiate in formal writing, and they should be avoided; they violate the SUBJECT-ATTACHMENT RULE". (="A rule of standard English by which the absent SUBJECT of a NON-FINITE phrase must be interpreted as identical to the subject of the higher clause containing it. Violation of this rule produces a DANGLING PARTICIPLE").
The "problem" it would seem to me (and thus the puzzle I drew from Trask, and posited here) is that Trask is "obviously" talking about sentence-level, limited-context rules, but has (perhaps deliberately and somewhat slyly) picked an example that smacks very much of more extended (and as he implies, spoken) discourse...so his book might be more interesting and instructive than some.
Anyway, thanks for the replies, and I'll perhaps post more short questions and puzzles (conundrums?) like this as and when I spot 'em!
Regarding Q1, Sampson
on pg 177 in chapter 10 ('Evidence against the grammatical/ungrammatical distinction') of his Empirical Linguistics opines that "to suggest that the construction is not just very unusual but actually impossible in English is merely a challenge to think of a plausible context for it...There would be nothing even slighty strange, in a discussion of foreign languages, in saying Norwegians put the article after the noun, in their language they they say things like bread the is on table the - an utterance which contans two examples of Culy's 'impossible construction'. Talking about foreign languages is one valid use of the English language, among countless others."Regarding Q2, Trask in the entry for 'dangling participle' in his Penguin Dictionary of English Grammar has this to say: "A PARTICIPLE which is not grammatically linked to the rest of its sentence, or at least not in an orderly manner. For example, in *Driving down the road, a deer leapt out in front of me, the participial phrase driving down the road is dangling: if anything it appears to be linked (wrongly) to a deer. In *Having said that, there's another solution, the participial phrase having said that is linked to nothing at all. Though they are not rare in speech, dangling participles are regarded as inappropiate in formal writing, and they should be avoided; they violate the SUBJECT-ATTACHMENT RULE". (="A rule of standard English by which the absent SUBJECT of a NON-FINITE phrase must be interpreted as identical to the subject of the higher clause containing it. Violation of this rule produces a DANGLING PARTICIPLE").
The "problem" it would seem to me (and thus the puzzle I drew from Trask, and posited here) is that Trask is "obviously" talking about sentence-level, limited-context rules, but has (perhaps deliberately and somewhat slyly) picked an example that smacks very much of more extended (and as he implies, spoken) discourse...so his book might be more interesting and instructive than some.
Anyway, thanks for the replies, and I'll perhaps post more short questions and puzzles (conundrums?) like this as and when I spot 'em!
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
Hi Rp! The questions, although some might be interesting for higher-level students to ponder, are probably more suitable for teachers. I'm not really 'asking (for myself)', needing to ask, though, as I've generally got or reached some sort of answer already before I post each question...but obviously I am still interested in hearing what others may think. The most important thing is that these are I hope all reasonably interesting and fun little puzzles (like I said in my opening post above) for people to ponder (and perhaps in their turn pose to people who don't frequent Dave's).
Question 3) does seem a bit of a tricky one though, so I'm not sure that I quite have the answer, and am therefore really, genuinely interested in what others think, so thanks for your answer! There's a problem (IMHO) however with what you've said: if 'Generally which refers to living things and that refers to non-living things' (or vice-versa or whatever the rule is supposed to be! Have you got them the wrong way round? I've forgotten this stuff, and that's if I really knew it in the first place!) were really true, it wouldn't be possible to say the house (which) I used to live in instead of the house (that) I used to live in, and don't the two (very acceptable) examples that I've just given there furthermore show that it is the 'house' rather than 'I' to which either relativizer is ultimately "referring" or "tied" (re. your 'Since you are a living thing you would use which'), regardless of precisely what the Subject is?
Anyway, my thoughts such as they are on 3) can be found here: http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewtopic.php?t=3332 .
(Briefly however, it would seem, in the book that Glenski is referring to, that what should be the basic semantics of more basic exemplars has got a little lost in the quagmire of relatively formal-language wrangling that Japanese professors of English like to indulge in and directly or indirectly [by way of JTEs who lack much common sense and initiative to do otherwise] inflict on students who aren't really yet at the necessary level...which is of course a quite separate thing from posing such questions just to [those students'] teachers, though even the latter sort of activity is in most cases probably also a bit unnecessary ultimately!).
Question 3) does seem a bit of a tricky one though, so I'm not sure that I quite have the answer, and am therefore really, genuinely interested in what others think, so thanks for your answer! There's a problem (IMHO) however with what you've said: if 'Generally which refers to living things and that refers to non-living things' (or vice-versa or whatever the rule is supposed to be! Have you got them the wrong way round? I've forgotten this stuff, and that's if I really knew it in the first place!) were really true, it wouldn't be possible to say the house (which) I used to live in instead of the house (that) I used to live in, and don't the two (very acceptable) examples that I've just given there furthermore show that it is the 'house' rather than 'I' to which either relativizer is ultimately "referring" or "tied" (re. your 'Since you are a living thing you would use which'), regardless of precisely what the Subject is?
Anyway, my thoughts such as they are on 3) can be found here: http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewtopic.php?t=3332 .
(Briefly however, it would seem, in the book that Glenski is referring to, that what should be the basic semantics of more basic exemplars has got a little lost in the quagmire of relatively formal-language wrangling that Japanese professors of English like to indulge in and directly or indirectly [by way of JTEs who lack much common sense and initiative to do otherwise] inflict on students who aren't really yet at the necessary level...which is of course a quite separate thing from posing such questions just to [those students'] teachers, though even the latter sort of activity is in most cases probably also a bit unnecessary ultimately!).
-
JuanTwoThree
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
Rp , aren't you thinking of the 'who vs which rule' or the 'rule' about not using 'that' after a comma? Or the silly one which is demolished over and over again here:
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?cat=36
because yours is one that is new to me and which I must have been breaking all my life.
Excuse me, I must go and shout at the dog which is barking and give a biscuit to the dog that isn't.
(See?)
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?cat=36
because yours is one that is new to me and which I must have been breaking all my life.
Excuse me, I must go and shout at the dog which is barking and give a biscuit to the dog that isn't.
(See?)
Okay, the which and that question really bugged me so I canvassed some friends of mine and here is the consensus from a Canadian perspective:
While there is a lot of discussion about the correct use of which and that, the example actually involves the phrases in which and in that. In which can be a substitute for where or when. In that means something similar to inasmuch as.
e.g. He is a math whiz, in that he can calculate logarithms in his head.
Because the two phrases have different meanings, they cannot be substituted for each other.
While there is a lot of discussion about the correct use of which and that, the example actually involves the phrases in which and in that. In which can be a substitute for where or when. In that means something similar to inasmuch as.
e.g. He is a math whiz, in that he can calculate logarithms in his head.
Because the two phrases have different meanings, they cannot be substituted for each other.
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
Heh, it had been (and still was!) bugging me a bit to, Rp, so thanks for taking the time with it! And I think you're right with what you've established.
The sorts of examples that I was bouncing around in my head beforehand were the slightly stilted That is the house, in that I used to live in it, and the "Guide for Extraterrestrials"-like That is a house, in that people live in it. I hadn't really thought about the 'in which' phrasing as much, because it didn't ultimately seem such a (quite the) problem in the linked thread, but I agree totally that 'where' (relative adverb?) can certainly be a substitute. (I've contributed by the way to a few older threads about 'where' versus 'in which' in general though).
So thanks to your help and perseverance Rp, Q3 has now pretty much been solved I reckon! But I'll just attempt to wrap it up in my own words quickly (tell me what you think): The comma that usually(?) comes before the string 'in that' (and thus gives it its meaning here), and its function generally in all these examples, make it clear that it is not a relative pronoun i.e. not part of a relativizing construction or process, but rather a two-word conjunction (or logical connector or whatever) meaning 'for the following reason (that...)', meaning that what follows it will hardly be "gapless" but have at least an "extra" pronoun (and here, an "extra" preposition), which is a further and sure sign that no relative construction has been employed. 'In which' meanwhile can be substituted by 'where', which as a relative adverb is very much capable (obviously, from the examples themselves) of being a part of any relativizing construction or process still being formed for uttering or writing; note that such constructions incorporate the preposition well, and therefore leave no "extra" preposition (and certainly no "extra" pronoun) floundering around in their wake - all signs that "relativization" has taken place.
The sorts of examples that I was bouncing around in my head beforehand were the slightly stilted That is the house, in that I used to live in it, and the "Guide for Extraterrestrials"-like That is a house, in that people live in it. I hadn't really thought about the 'in which' phrasing as much, because it didn't ultimately seem such a (quite the) problem in the linked thread, but I agree totally that 'where' (relative adverb?) can certainly be a substitute. (I've contributed by the way to a few older threads about 'where' versus 'in which' in general though).
So thanks to your help and perseverance Rp, Q3 has now pretty much been solved I reckon! But I'll just attempt to wrap it up in my own words quickly (tell me what you think): The comma that usually(?) comes before the string 'in that' (and thus gives it its meaning here), and its function generally in all these examples, make it clear that it is not a relative pronoun i.e. not part of a relativizing construction or process, but rather a two-word conjunction (or logical connector or whatever) meaning 'for the following reason (that...)', meaning that what follows it will hardly be "gapless" but have at least an "extra" pronoun (and here, an "extra" preposition), which is a further and sure sign that no relative construction has been employed. 'In which' meanwhile can be substituted by 'where', which as a relative adverb is very much capable (obviously, from the examples themselves) of being a part of any relativizing construction or process still being formed for uttering or writing; note that such constructions incorporate the preposition well, and therefore leave no "extra" preposition (and certainly no "extra" pronoun) floundering around in their wake - all signs that "relativization" has taken place.
Hi Fluffyhamster: from an academic perspective I think your posting is "right-on". My thoughts are, and for the purposes of this site, if a lower level translation should be included for the students who may browse this site? Thoughts.........
By the way, I've asked a question in the computer thread on use of the Apple iPad and haven't gotten any hits as yet. Just wondering what you think of the iPad as a teaching tool?
By the way, I've asked a question in the computer thread on use of the Apple iPad and haven't gotten any hits as yet. Just wondering what you think of the iPad as a teaching tool?
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
Well, I think what would most help students (and not just those who browse this site) would be if publishers generally could simply improve their books (and teachers who rely too much on such books their teaching). As it is, ELT textbooks seem to always induce something bad: Japanese publishers as we have seen often induce confusion, fear of mistakes (ironic when a lot of what passes in them for "correct" is in fact incorrect or at least unclear or misleading) and sometimes even loathing for English (A: Why is it all so complicated?! B: No, it's only been made to appear that way! It could be made easier, believe me...), whilst western publishers on the other hand can induce drooling comatose stupidity and inability with the triteness and general easiness/unending informality of a lot of their dialogue-based ELT textbooks. Either way, such textbook-induced problems result in students (or teachers on their behalf) coming limping to sites like this as if they have been struggling through minefields to reach a Red Cross tent.
Anyway, I guess that those who even glance at these "unnecessary" discussions have the interest and level needed to understand them, but if not, perhaps they could try feeding it into Google Translate or Manglesense or whatever.
I'm not very tech savvy, and from what I've heard the only thing really going for the iPad is its screen, but I'll at least take a look at your other thread!
Oh, and welcome to the forums by the way!
Anyway, I guess that those who even glance at these "unnecessary" discussions have the interest and level needed to understand them, but if not, perhaps they could try feeding it into Google Translate or Manglesense or whatever.
I'm not very tech savvy, and from what I've heard the only thing really going for the iPad is its screen, but I'll at least take a look at your other thread!
Oh, and welcome to the forums by the way!