help needed...

[tony823]

One of my students asks me the following two questions:

Roberto reached down and picked up the grammar book, which was lying upside down on the floor.
a. There was only one grammar book near Roberto.
b. There was more than one grammar book near Roberto

The correct answer is a.
However, I just wonder that this is not logical.
The point is that "....the grammar book, which was lying upside down on the floor."

Can we have any idea about how many books are there on the floor from this sentence.


The second question is

Can we say "Here is a good place."

My student said that another teacher said it is Chinese English.

But, from my point of view, I think it is fine.

Does anyone have any comment?


Many thanks.

[tigertiger]

Roberto's book.

I am no expert but no one else has answered.
To my reading

a) The comma makes a difference. I think it tells us about the book (singular), more than it tells us the state of one, compared to the others.

Without the comma it is less clear. Both answers could be correct. But without additional context a) is the most likely and so would be more correct.

[tigertiger]

"Here is a good place"
If this is a deletion "here is a good place - to sit down" which could be an answer to a question, perhaps unasked.

E.G. of unasked question. Let's stop for lunch, (where?), here is a good place.

The phrase on its own, describing a place, would be non standard. It would seem clumsy. "This is a good place" is better.

I can imagine it being used for emphasis though.
"Here [pause for emphasis] is a good place" as in "This place is a good place"

[lolwhites]

I suspect the writer of the first question was trying to test whether students knew the difference between a defining and non-defining relative clause:

Roberto reached down and picked up the grammar book which was lying upside down on the floor. - note the absence of the comma. This could be taken to mean that there were other grammar books, but only one was lying upside down, so we say the grammar book which was lying upside down on the floor to distinguish it from any others.


Roberto reached down and picked up the grammar book, which was lying upside down on the floor. - note the comma. Here which was lying upside down on the floor serves to give extra information about the garmmar book, rather than to distinguish it from any others. Therefore, it's probable that there was only one book.

If the write had added the word "probably" to the a and b options, it might have read better.

[Superhal]

Because of the "the", that means "grammar book" is a direct object. Depending on the context, I would say this means that there are multiple books on the floor but only 1 grammar book. But, it could also mean that there was only 1 book. From this sentence alone, you cannot tell if there were multiple books or how many books there were.

The context with articles (the, a, an, 0) is extremely important. What if one of these sentences were just before:

1. There was a pile of textbooks on the ground.
2. The grammar book fell off the table.
3. Roberto searched his bag for his grammar book, when he saw it out of the corner of his eye.

All three are possible and plausible, and would make A true.

[fluffyhamster]

What if one of these sentences were just before:

1. There was a pile of textbooks on the ground.
2. The grammar book fell off the table.
3. Roberto searched his bag for his grammar book, when he saw it out of the corner of his eye.

All three are possible and plausible, and would make A true.

The extra context would make A true only if we altered the following sentence thus:

1. There was a pile of textbooks on the ground. Roberto reached down and picked up the grammar book, which was lying upside down (CUT: on the floor).

2. The grammar book fell off the table. Roberto reached down and picked IT up (CUT: the grammar book, which was lying upside down on the floor).

3. Roberto searched his bag for his grammar book, when he saw it out of the corner of his eye<. Roberto>HE reached down and picked IT up (CUT: the grammar book, which was) (<MOVE: lying upside down on the floor).

The cohesion and coherance of the context is also extremely important.

Hmm, my 3 there reminds me: to help complicate matters further, the 'which was' could be ellipted from the original sentence: 'Roberto reached down and picked up the grammar book, lying upside down on the floor.' The use of the comma would then seem unnecessary at the least.

http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/teacher/v ... =9438#9438

Talking of animals, I seem to have the memory of an elephant and the killer instinct of a Carcharodon carcharias (almost as dangerous as a Metalus fiftysixus).

Hope that all helps.

[thethinker]

Because of the "the", that means "grammar book" is a direct object.

What? Since when does the word "the" mean that a word or phrase must be the direct object? What about "He gave the man some money."? In that sentence, "the man" is the indirect object. With "pick up", the direct object is the thing being picked up, and the indirect object (if there is one) would be the person for whom the object is being picked up, e.g. "I picked you up a newspaper on the way home." (you=indirect object, a newspaper=direct object). Absolutely nothing to do with the article.

The point of the question is to make sure the student understands the difference between defining and non-defining clauses. In the phrase "the book which was on the floor", the use of a defining-clause tells us that the speaker is referring to one thing out of many, as that is the function of a defining clause. Therefore there must be more than one book on the floor (unless the speaker was mentally ill, or had poor eyesight that falsely led him to believe there was more than one).

To understand the sentence given by the OP, it's best to just ignore the clause altogether. As it is a non-defining clause it plays no role in telling us which grammar book is being picked up, it merely gives us additional information. Consider just "He picked up the grammar book." Does this mean there's only one grammar book near Roberto? Almost definitely. Unless Roberto was in a huge room miles wide and long, and there were other piles of grammar books in it elsewhere, unknown to the speaker, then the implication is that there is only one book.

Depending on the context, I would say this means that there are multiple books on the floor but only 1 grammar book. But, it could also mean that there was only 1 book. From this sentence alone, you cannot tell if there were multiple books or how many books there were.

Neither a defining clause or a non-defining clause would tell us anything about the existence or not of any other books (i.e. non-grammar books), because the clause refers to "the grammar book", and nothing else. There may well be other non-grammar books, but nothing in the sentence given give tell us that.

[lolwhites]

Ellipsis isn't possible in the original sentence because the participle clause "lying upside down on the floor" would refer back to Roberto.

Reminds me of the time my primary school head angrily announced "I saw a sandwich walking down the corridor"

[fluffyhamster]

Ellipsis isn't possible in the original sentence because the participle clause "lying upside down on the floor" would refer back to Roberto.

I recall there being more, but it's gone now (I was half expecting to come back to make my reply and find even more points and counterpoints LOL).

All I can say is, what I brought back up there in the link had seemed a tricky area before, but in the context of Roberto's book things seemed to become clearer to me; I was however posting with at least my tongue tip in my cheek so I was half-wondering if anyone would call me out (glad to see I've remained somewhat in still, though).