Which is grammatically correct?

joon · Post by **joon** » Sun May 11, 2003 1:33 am

(1) Look at the prettiest girl whom I have ever seen.
(2) Look at the prettiest girl that I have ever seen.

Roger · Post by **Roger** » Sun May 11, 2003 3:00 am

Look at the prettiest girl that I have ever seen.
Not" WHOM...

Still an awkward sentence! Why an imperative? If so, I would simply say: Look at THAT GIRL!"

But if YOU were looking at the girl, then you would say:
I was looking at the prettiest girl that I ever saw!"

joon · Post by **joon** » Sun May 11, 2003 9:12 am

It was my careless that I made it an imperative.

Thank you very much, Roger

Roger · Post by **Roger** » Mon May 12, 2003 2:03 am

"It was my carelessNESS that turned it into an imperative."

joon · Post by **joon** » Mon May 12, 2003 3:51 am

I hope you point out my lauguagial errors continously.

Actually it is a very thankful matter.

Norm Ryder · Post by **Norm Ryder** » Thu May 29, 2003 11:50 pm

joon

If you had wanted to use the imperative, you would possibly say it this way: "Look at her (or:"Look at that girl"). She's the prettiest girl I've ever seen".

I'm enjoying all these discussions of language matters. We don't get the chance to pick and choose which questions to answer when we are standing in front of a class.

Keep at it! Language learning is generally a marathon event, not a sprint, (even when mastering your first language).

Norm

prescher · Post by **prescher** » Mon Jul 07, 2003 3:00 pm

Hi, I need somebody´s help!
I teach children in Brazil and, as beginners, they have problems to understand the ´s (possessive). They mix it up with verb to be. So, I usually avoid the ´s before they fell comfortable with verb to be. I wrote them a story that starts " This is the castle of king George..." instead of saying " This is king George´s castle..." . The construction with OF is similar to Portuguese and they understand it immediately.
The question is, can I do that?, is it completely wrong?, is it a matter of usage?
I would be happy if someone helped me!
Betty

dduck · Post by **dduck** » Mon Jul 07, 2003 4:45 pm

prescher wrote:Hi, I need somebody´s help!
I teach children in Brazil and, as beginners, they have problems to understand the ´s (possessive). They mix it up with verb to be. So, I usually avoid the ´s before they fell comfortable with verb to be. I wrote them a story that starts " This is the castle of king George..." instead of saying " This is king George´s castle..." . The construction with OF is similar to Portuguese and they understand it immediately.
The question is, can I do that?, is it completely wrong?, is it a matter of usage?
I would be happy if someone helped me!
Betty

I've come across this problem with some of my elementary students as well. Some of them try to conjugate the third person singular with "'s" too. Peer feedback is useful, hopefully some of the students will be familiar with the issue and correct the other students for you.

What you tried sounds like a good idea to me. Eventually, you'll have to teach your beginners the possessive case - when they have seen both some of them will no doubt get confused, or have forgotten and start mixing things up. This would be a good time to highlight, and test their understanding of the different usages.

Iain

prescher · Post by **prescher** » Mon Jul 07, 2003 5:21 pm

Thank you for your answer. I was worried because an Australian teacher told me I should never use the construction with OF. As English is not my first language I was afraid tto make a mistake. In your opinion, may I say " This is the castle of king George " and not to be hated by teachers and grammarians?

Betty

Norm Ryder · Post by **Norm Ryder** » Mon Jul 07, 2003 10:27 pm

prescher
Your Australian friend seems to have forgotten the saying: Never say never

He or she may also have forgotten how many times they've talked about "the house of our next-door neighbour" or "the dog of the people up the road".

We tend to use this way of expressing possession when the possessor is described in a combination of words. But you will also hear satements like this: "The speed of the plane as it was coming in to land indicated that something was wrong". Or: "The police wouldn't comment on the location of the car when it was found". Or: "The attitude of the Prime Minister was incomprehensible". And even: The house of the Prime minister is only two blocks away".

You can possibly tell that it often has a more formal, less personal tone to it when you use 'of' instead of the possessive "'s". But it will always

be grammatically correct; and I wouldn't argue with your strategy of introducing possession the way you do, and for the reason you've given.

In fact, my experience is that here in Australia (and I believe in the UK, also) there is so much confusion about the use of "'s" that some people are advocating that it be dropped from the language altogether, relying on the context alone to indicate whether there is possession or an abbreviated verb "to be".
Keep up the good work, prescher.
Cheers.
Norm

dduck · Post by **dduck** » Tue Jul 08, 2003 12:33 am

Norm Ryder wrote:In fact, my experience is that here in Australia (and I believe in the UK, also) there is so much confusion about the use of "'s" that some people are advocating that it be dropped from the language altogether, relying on the context alone to indicate whether there is possession or an abbreviated verb "to be".

Never heard of any such confusion in the UK - to the extent that anyone is suggesting changing the language in this way.

BTW, When I lived in the Netherlands, I tried correcting my Dutch colleagues when they used 's to form 'regular' plurals e.g. car's. I was told by a teacher "Aahh, we Dutch, we don't worry about such things". Little by little the language changes.

Iain

prescher · Post by **prescher** » Tue Jul 08, 2003 12:50 am

I am really happy. Thank you all for your answers and comments.
It´s good to know I´m not alone.

Betty

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Jul 08, 2003 4:47 am

Dear Prescher,
Do NOT teach that the "of" construction is an alternative to the possessive in English. It very rarely is. When used for the genitive in English it is often used for the partititive genitive, not the possessive.

dduck · Post by **dduck** » Tue Jul 08, 2003 3:08 pm

Stephen Jones wrote:Dear Prescher,
Do NOT teach that the "of" construction is an alternative to the possessive in English. It very rarely is. When used for the genitive in English it is often used for the partititive genitive, not the possessive.

Dear Stephen,

Prescher is teaching a group of beginners. How is any of your advice (or rather your order) useful to her? If I explained what you just said to my elementary class they would wonder why I had started talking Greek!

Iain

Norm Ryder · Post by **Norm Ryder** » Wed Jul 09, 2003 2:36 am

Stephen and dduck
I guess we're using the word "possession" fairly broadly, and in English possession and "partitives" shade into one another imperceptibly, which, I think, is what the Collins Cobuild English Usage is recognising by calling this heading "Possession and other relationships" (p. 523 in the 1995 reprint).
It gives a wealth of examples based on a bank of UK usage, and it's difficult to say which of the two boxes to put a number of them in; but I still think, in prescher's case it's easier to start from something they know, and make the distinction further down the track.
Norm

Teacher Discussion Forums

Which is grammatically correct?

Which is grammatically correct?

The use of ´s - HELP ME !

Re: The use of ´s - HELP ME !

possession

Re: possession

"possession"