Craft Notes
Grammar Challenge!
Seemed like people enjoyed talking about the finer points of grammar and usage a month or so back, so I thought I’d provide a little morsel from a nonfiction workshop I took in college taught by someone who, among other accomplishments, was the most obsessively precise user of English I have ever and will ever encounter. I have, or, well, had, David Foster Wallace to thank for my own peevishness about mistakes in what he called S.W.E., or Standard Written English. So what follows is the complete text of a worksheet from his class. Whoever can come up with the most correct corrections will win something (currently taking prize suggestions/donations). I’ll post the answers once it seems as if nobody is trying anymore. Don’t worry if someone else posts their answers first; they may not be right! Not as easy as it may first look. All sentences have one crucial error in punctuation, usage, or grammar. Okay go! ANSWERS HERE when you’re ready. And HERE is an explanation of why he took the trouble to teach us these conventions.
183D
25 February 2004
IF NO ONE HAS YET TAUGHT YOU HOW TO AVOID OR REPAIR CLAUSES LIKE THE FOLLOWING, YOU SHOULD, IN MY OPINION, THINK SERIOUSLY ABOUT SUING SOMEBODY, PERHAPS AS CO-PLAINTIFF WITH WHOEVER’S PAID YOUR TUITION
1. He and I hardly see one another.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu yet.
4. I only spent six weeks in Napa.
5. In my own mind, I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
6. From whence had his new faith come?
7. Please spare me your arguments of why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She didn’t seem to ever stop talking.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more and more aggravating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after Christ’s resurrection.
Tags: david foster wallace, grammar, usage
#6 – cut ‘From’
#6 – cut ‘From’
#5 – cut the initial prepositional phrase to avoid redundancy, i think?
#5 – cut the initial prepositional phrase to avoid redundancy, i think?
#1 – ‘one another’ should be ‘each other’
#1 – ‘one another’ should be ‘each other’
#8 – seems like a split infinitive. ‘ever seem to stop talking’
i mean, its clumsy that way; do we need have ‘seem’?
i dont like the ‘no split infinitives’ rule. i dont undrestand why its a rule.
#8 – seems like a split infinitive. ‘ever seem to stop talking’
i mean, its clumsy that way; do we need have ‘seem’?
i dont like the ‘no split infinitives’ rule. i dont undrestand why its a rule.
#4 – i think ‘spent’ is a usage error, but i dont know what to put in its place. passed maybe? like pass the time?
“I only passed six weeks in Napa.”
?
Kind of rules how he embeds his biases/takes into a 10 question grammar test. As for the grammar, me be mostly wrong.
#4 – i think ‘spent’ is a usage error, but i dont know what to put in its place. passed maybe? like pass the time?
“I only passed six weeks in Napa.”
?
Kind of rules how he embeds his biases/takes into a 10 question grammar test. As for the grammar, me be mostly wrong.
the split infinitive rule is a holdover from latin. it’s really more of a convention than a rule, at this point, so Wallace taught us that if we could easily unsplit the infinitive without making anything awkward then we always should because it runs less risk of turning off any reader who prefers the old convention. but if it’s not easy to unsplit, then leave it alone. in this case, you’ve overshot it a bit–the easy, unawkward fix, according to Wallace, is “She didn’t seem ever to stop talking.” okay i gave that one away, or you did. i don’t know how to make this a contest after all.
the split infinitive rule is a holdover from latin. it’s really more of a convention than a rule, at this point, so Wallace taught us that if we could easily unsplit the infinitive without making anything awkward then we always should because it runs less risk of turning off any reader who prefers the old convention. but if it’s not easy to unsplit, then leave it alone. in this case, you’ve overshot it a bit–the easy, unawkward fix, according to Wallace, is “She didn’t seem ever to stop talking.” okay i gave that one away, or you did. i don’t know how to make this a contest after all.
I was seriously never really taught grammar in school.
I was seriously never really taught grammar in school.
1. He and I rarely see one another.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences, left wandering around without periods, and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu.
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. In my own mind, I can understand why its implications might be somewhat threatening.
6. Whence came his new faith?
7. Please spare me your arguments why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She never seemed to stop talking.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more aggravating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly began soon after Christ’s resurrection.
i did my best but they’re probably all wrong
even though i was a badass in grammar as a kid
q: what did the prince of usage say when someone asked how do you know when it’s okay to break rules of grammar and usage for poetic license?
a: if you have to ask you’ll never know
I would think:
I spent only six weeks in Napa
not sure exactly what you mean, but if you mean by the content of the questions, then i should note that these were all sentences he lifted straight from whatever essays students in my class had turned in the few weeks before–he didn’t make them up, just chose them to teach us certain rules
im now second guessing myself on this one.
sorry im really geeking out on this post
or not, what do I know
1. He and I rarely see one another.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences, left wandering around without periods, and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu.
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. In my own mind, I can understand why its implications might be somewhat threatening.
6. Whence came his new faith?
7. Please spare me your arguments why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She never seemed to stop talking.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more aggravating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly began soon after Christ’s resurrection.
i did my best but they’re probably all wrong
even though i was a badass in grammar as a kid
q: what did the prince of usage say when someone asked how do you know when it’s okay to break rules of grammar and usage for poetic license?
a: if you have to ask you’ll never know
I would think:
I spent only six weeks in Napa
not sure exactly what you mean, but if you mean by the content of the questions, then i should note that these were all sentences he lifted straight from whatever essays students in my class had turned in the few weeks before–he didn’t make them up, just chose them to teach us certain rules
im now second guessing myself on this one.
sorry im really geeking out on this post
or not, what do I know
yeah, in latin, i think, infitives are one word, so its impossible to split them, right? thats why i always thought this convention in english was often unnecessarily enforced on poor elemtary students
yeah, in latin, i think, infitives are one word, so its impossible to split them, right? thats why i always thought this convention in english was often unnecessarily enforced on poor elemtary students
“She didn’t seem ever to stop talking.”
That reads way more awkward to my ear.
“She didn’t seem ever to stop talking.”
That reads way more awkward to my ear.
#2 – theres a weird lack of parellelism in this one. i hate the whole last part of that sentence because it also has the negative (without), so it makes it hard to set up parallel structures because you dont want the without to go across to the second characteristic.
#2 – theres a weird lack of parellelism in this one. i hate the whole last part of that sentence because it also has the negative (without), so it makes it hard to set up parallel structures because you dont want the without to go across to the second characteristic.
werd nerds
rock it!
ah yeah, i moved the seem there originally, but then thought ‘ever’ should be right before seem to modify ‘seem’ but now i see how little that makes sense. the point is not the seeming but the stopping talking
werd nerds
rock it!
ah yeah, i moved the seem there originally, but then thought ‘ever’ should be right before seem to modify ‘seem’ but now i see how little that makes sense. the point is not the seeming but the stopping talking
you’re so close! there’s a really easy fix…
Corrected versions follow:
1. He and I hardly see each other.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences, left wandering around without periods, and the ambiguity of his uncrossed Ts.
3. My brother called to find out if I were over the flu.
4. (This one stumps me. It’s late and I’m tired.)
5. I understand why its implications might be somewhat threatening.
6. From where did his new faith come?
7. Please, spare me your arguments that all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She never seemed to stop talking.
9. As the relationship progressed, her facial tic aggravated me more.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which is alleged to have taken place soon after his resurrection.
you’re so close! there’s a really easy fix…
Corrected versions follow:
1. He and I hardly see each other.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences, left wandering around without periods, and the ambiguity of his uncrossed Ts.
3. My brother called to find out if I were over the flu.
4. (This one stumps me. It’s late and I’m tired.)
5. I understand why its implications might be somewhat threatening.
6. From where did his new faith come?
7. Please, spare me your arguments that all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She never seemed to stop talking.
9. As the relationship progressed, her facial tic aggravated me more.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which is alleged to have taken place soon after his resurrection.
I think #3 should be: My brother called to see whether or not I was over the flu yet.
oh thats it. youre right. the only needs to modify the length of time.
its like the difference between
‘he had only to sing his name’ versus ‘he only had to sign his name’
I think #3 should be: My brother called to see whether or not I was over the flu yet.
oh thats it. youre right. the only needs to modify the length of time.
its like the difference between
‘he had only to sing his name’ versus ‘he only had to sign his name’
#7 I think it should be for instead of of.
I wish I were grammar knowledgeable.
I missed one thing — on #2, insert the word ‘at’ so that it reads: “…and at the ambiguity of his uncrossed Ts.”
While we’re on the subject: http://illinois.edu/db/view/25/17976?count=1&ACTION=DIALOG
3/10 ain’t bad
another a: to your q: if you think you need license to be poetic, you aren’t
#7 I think it should be for instead of of.
I wish I were grammar knowledgeable.
I missed one thing — on #2, insert the word ‘at’ so that it reads: “…and at the ambiguity of his uncrossed Ts.”
While we’re on the subject: http://illinois.edu/db/view/25/17976?count=1&ACTION=DIALOG
3/10 ain’t bad
another a: to your q: if you think you need license to be poetic, you aren’t
dang
dang
That article DFW wrote (Harper’s was it?) about split infinitives — I never could bring myself to agree with him on that one. We look to Latin, not for logic, but because its rules give euphony and rhythm to our language. I say we should always keep our infinitives together, unless to split them sounds more beautiful.
That article DFW wrote (Harper’s was it?) about split infinitives — I never could bring myself to agree with him on that one. We look to Latin, not for logic, but because its rules give euphony and rhythm to our language. I say we should always keep our infinitives together, unless to split them sounds more beautiful.
3/10: i just got my poetic learner’s permit
3/10: i just got my poetic learner’s permit
i like mark’s fix above with the commas setting off the participial phrase. i was trying to do someting to get rid of the participle
I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences, which wandered around without periods…
but then i got stuck.
i like mark’s fix above with the commas setting off the participial phrase. i was trying to do someting to get rid of the participle
I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences, which wandered around without periods…
but then i got stuck.
for #7 i want to put ‘regarding’ instead of ‘of’
these are funny — i just think of rewording them instead “she never seemed to stop talking”
for #7 i want to put ‘regarding’ instead of ‘of’
these are funny — i just think of rewording them instead “she never seemed to stop talking”
david’s fix is the correct one. adding a comma is no good, it further strands that phrase from the meaning of the sentence. the sentence should read, “I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and at the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.”
Right. And what sentences you choose aren’t showing your bias? You lost me there. Three are religion, 3,4 are relationships. I don’t really mean it as critique, in any PC way, etc. I just find it fascinating a person “randomly” chooses sentences and themes appear.
I’m just looking at it as fascinating, not as some vague attack. A part me wishes I was a sociologist, just studying human behavior. Though not sure why. Writers do the same thing.
There is a narrative forming, I feel.
S
david’s fix is the correct one. adding a comma is no good, it further strands that phrase from the meaning of the sentence. the sentence should read, “I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and at the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.”
Right. And what sentences you choose aren’t showing your bias? You lost me there. Three are religion, 3,4 are relationships. I don’t really mean it as critique, in any PC way, etc. I just find it fascinating a person “randomly” chooses sentences and themes appear.
I’m just looking at it as fascinating, not as some vague attack. A part me wishes I was a sociologist, just studying human behavior. Though not sure why. Writers do the same thing.
There is a narrative forming, I feel.
S
“regarding” would probably work. wallace’s fix was “Please spare me your arguments as to why all religions are unfounded and contrived.”
“regarding” would probably work. wallace’s fix was “Please spare me your arguments as to why all religions are unfounded and contrived.”
so which ones are the ones that have been solved so far?
so which ones are the ones that have been solved so far?
i learned ‘as to why’ from reading dfw.
also w/r/t
i learned ‘as to why’ from reading dfw.
also w/r/t
I know you aren’t critiquing, was just giving some further info. I have dozens of similar worksheets, and it’s all just based on what was recently turned in. Right before he made this worksheet, one of my fellow students had written an essay on Mormonism, and another had written about a relationship. there wasn’t much else DFW could have chosen from. so that’s why the narrative forms, in this case.
I know you aren’t critiquing, was just giving some further info. I have dozens of similar worksheets, and it’s all just based on what was recently turned in. Right before he made this worksheet, one of my fellow students had written an essay on Mormonism, and another had written about a relationship. there wasn’t much else DFW could have chosen from. so that’s why the narrative forms, in this case.
this is a great exercise, i mean picking sentences from essays, one ive used during a few sessions too. it helps you target your grammar/mechanics lessons and also gets students looking at words they wrote, so they have that connection, rather than something in a handobok.
this is a great exercise, i mean picking sentences from essays, one ive used during a few sessions too. it helps you target your grammar/mechanics lessons and also gets students looking at words they wrote, so they have that connection, rather than something in a handobok.
So far the following has been determined:
1. He and I hardly see each other.
“one another” is only used when there are more than 2 people. Kudos to Michael
2. “I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and at the naked ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
This one’s parallelism, as Ryan identified and David fixed.
3. nobody has quite gotten this, though one person was close
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa.
More on this later–Wallace taught the correct way to use “only” in a funny way where he cracked his voice.
5. Lose the “in my own mind” as Ryan figured out
6. Whence had this new faith come? – Also Ryan
Whence means “From where”
7. Please spare me your arguments as to why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
Discussed above
8. She didn’t seem ever to stop talking.
9. Nobody so far has gotten close
10. The Book of Mormons gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after his resurrection. David got this, too
So that leaves 3 and 9
So far the following has been determined:
1. He and I hardly see each other.
“one another” is only used when there are more than 2 people. Kudos to Michael
2. “I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and at the naked ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
This one’s parallelism, as Ryan identified and David fixed.
3. nobody has quite gotten this, though one person was close
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa.
More on this later–Wallace taught the correct way to use “only” in a funny way where he cracked his voice.
5. Lose the “in my own mind” as Ryan figured out
6. Whence had this new faith come? – Also Ryan
Whence means “From where”
7. Please spare me your arguments as to why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
Discussed above
8. She didn’t seem ever to stop talking.
9. Nobody so far has gotten close
10. The Book of Mormons gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after his resurrection. David got this, too
So that leaves 3 and 9
Bonus question from another worksheet: People who complain frequently tend to be unpopular, her father had pointed out.
Bonus question from another worksheet: People who complain frequently tend to be unpopular, her father had pointed out.
Lincoln first got #4, I believe
Lincoln first got #4, I believe
#9 – is missing ‘to be’ maybe
As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic to be more aggravating.
#9 – is missing ‘to be’ maybe
As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic to be more aggravating.
big hint: #9 is a usage problem
big hint: #9 is a usage problem
its progressed, isnt it.
its progressed, isnt it.
found and progressed seem to me to be on different temporal wavelengths
found and progressed seem to me to be on different temporal wavelengths
I think it has to be progressed, like because vs. since, only I don’t know what the rule would be with regard to progress unless it is one of those words, in verb form, like utilize which is not a real word I once learned.
I think it has to be progressed, like because vs. since, only I don’t know what the rule would be with regard to progress unless it is one of those words, in verb form, like utilize which is not a real word I once learned.
This is another case of not turning off certain readers who hold fast to conventions. “Aggravating” was a special peeve of Wallace’s, since you could just as easily use “irritating” and thereby not, ahem, irritate readers who believe that aggravate should only mean “to make worse.” Again, his thing was that if you can use a synonym that doesn’t come with a fraught usage history, you should, because you never want readers to be distracted in that particular way
yeah
‘progressed’ is kind of like ‘referenced’
weird verbs that arise from nouns and are now in common usage.
dialogue is another. ‘let’s dialogue about this…’
your all dorks
This is another case of not turning off certain readers who hold fast to conventions. “Aggravating” was a special peeve of Wallace’s, since you could just as easily use “irritating” and thereby not, ahem, irritate readers who believe that aggravate should only mean “to make worse.” Again, his thing was that if you can use a synonym that doesn’t come with a fraught usage history, you should, because you never want readers to be distracted in that particular way
yeah
‘progressed’ is kind of like ‘referenced’
weird verbs that arise from nouns and are now in common usage.
dialogue is another. ‘let’s dialogue about this…’
your all dorks
jeez. did not see that one coming.
progress is not like reference or dialogue. just looked it up–the root word is a verb, not a noun.
jeez. did not see that one coming.
progress is not like reference or dialogue. just looked it up–the root word is a verb, not a noun.
lol
exhibit b
lol
exhibit b
And on #3, yet sounds unnatural at the end of the clause: “to see if i was yet over the flu.”
And on #3, yet sounds unnatural at the end of the clause: “to see if i was yet over the flu.”
oh, thanks for that, amy. id always thought opposite.
oh, thanks for that, amy. id always thought opposite.
amy’s hitting on all cylinders kids
thank you amy
amy’s hitting on all cylinders kids
thank you amy
woot
woot
amphiboly? complain frequently vs. frequently tend to be.
‘tend to’ feels redundant with frequently though, so it kind of obviously belongs to complain, and so it doesn’t feel like a pure amphiboly much. So the fix is People who frequently complain tend to be unpopular etc.
that ‘had’ is annoying too though.
or that the father is complaining–hypocrisy? irony?
amphiboly? complain frequently vs. frequently tend to be.
‘tend to’ feels redundant with frequently though, so it kind of obviously belongs to complain, and so it doesn’t feel like a pure amphiboly much. So the fix is People who frequently complain tend to be unpopular etc.
that ‘had’ is annoying too though.
or that the father is complaining–hypocrisy? irony?
That’s ridiculous.
Nothing wrong with the construction “only spent” and the meaning is equivalent.
That’s ridiculous.
Nothing wrong with the construction “only spent” and the meaning is equivalent.
i used to love this kind of stuff when i was a perfectionist.
i used to love this kind of stuff when i was a perfectionist.
it’s amphiboly, though i didn’t know that word before. Wallace called it a two-way adverb. So your fix works, as would, People who complain tend frequently to be unpopular…
it’s amphiboly, though i didn’t know that word before. Wallace called it a two-way adverb. So your fix works, as would, People who complain tend frequently to be unpopular…
CHAMPION
You’ve mentioned your inability to pick up on jokes at times, do you think this helps your writing in a way? I think of Lipsyte mentioning how he looks for the awkward phrase over the beautiful one and Barthelme’s idea of the “back-broke sentence.” The idea that the awkward is more often than not going to stick with the reader more so than the “beautiful.”
LUTZ
I tend to take things literally, and I tend to mishear things. I always watch DVDs with the closed-captioning feature on. I recently had a look at the lyrics of the Pretenders’ “Back on the Chain Gang” and realized that for years I’d been mishearing about two-thirds of the lines. If I’m not mishearing, I’m misunderstanding. I once had a short-term job that involved packaging computer disks for mailing. The boss said, “Don’t forget to stuff newspaper into each box,” and he pointed to enormous stacks of old papers banked against a wall. Much later in the day, he checked in on me and noticed that the huge stock of newspapers had pretty much been depleted. Then he picked up some of the packages that I had sealed for mailing and said, “Why in the world are these so heavy?” There are many things I can’t do, such as whistle or snap my fingers or operate miniblinds. It wasn’t until the final month of my final year of gym class that I finally managed to do something resembling a simple somersault. Writing fiction may be the one field of endeavor where it can be to your advantage to have never gotten the hang of things. As for sentences, I think there is a profound difference between beautiful sentences and pretty sentences. The former category is much more encompassing and can include all manner of ungainly but apposite formations. I rarely fall for a sentence that’s merely pretty.
CHAMPION
You’ve mentioned your inability to pick up on jokes at times, do you think this helps your writing in a way? I think of Lipsyte mentioning how he looks for the awkward phrase over the beautiful one and Barthelme’s idea of the “back-broke sentence.” The idea that the awkward is more often than not going to stick with the reader more so than the “beautiful.”
LUTZ
I tend to take things literally, and I tend to mishear things. I always watch DVDs with the closed-captioning feature on. I recently had a look at the lyrics of the Pretenders’ “Back on the Chain Gang” and realized that for years I’d been mishearing about two-thirds of the lines. If I’m not mishearing, I’m misunderstanding. I once had a short-term job that involved packaging computer disks for mailing. The boss said, “Don’t forget to stuff newspaper into each box,” and he pointed to enormous stacks of old papers banked against a wall. Much later in the day, he checked in on me and noticed that the huge stock of newspapers had pretty much been depleted. Then he picked up some of the packages that I had sealed for mailing and said, “Why in the world are these so heavy?” There are many things I can’t do, such as whistle or snap my fingers or operate miniblinds. It wasn’t until the final month of my final year of gym class that I finally managed to do something resembling a simple somersault. Writing fiction may be the one field of endeavor where it can be to your advantage to have never gotten the hang of things. As for sentences, I think there is a profound difference between beautiful sentences and pretty sentences. The former category is much more encompassing and can include all manner of ungainly but apposite formations. I rarely fall for a sentence that’s merely pretty.
1. (S)He and I hardly see one another. Let’s not be sexist.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s. This sentence makes me uncomfortable. I’d rather not think about it.
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu yet. Smart move. A phone call cannot spread germs.
4. I only spent six weeks in Napa. That is enough.
5. In my own mind, I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening. I would recommend Paxil.
6. From whence had his new faith come? Probably church.
7. Please spare me your arguments of why all religions are unfounded and contrived. He says please but then is so rude.
8. She didn’t seem to ever stop talking. That’s my mom your talking about.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more and more aggravating. Deer tic. Wait, dear tic.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after Christ’s resurrection. I think you spelled Nephites wrong.
1. (S)He and I hardly see one another. Let’s not be sexist.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s. This sentence makes me uncomfortable. I’d rather not think about it.
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu yet. Smart move. A phone call cannot spread germs.
4. I only spent six weeks in Napa. That is enough.
5. In my own mind, I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening. I would recommend Paxil.
6. From whence had his new faith come? Probably church.
7. Please spare me your arguments of why all religions are unfounded and contrived. He says please but then is so rude.
8. She didn’t seem to ever stop talking. That’s my mom your talking about.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more and more aggravating. Deer tic. Wait, dear tic.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after Christ’s resurrection. I think you spelled Nephites wrong.
#3: you want ‘whether’ and not ‘if’
#3: you want ‘whether’ and not ‘if’
yes, i do.
yes, i do.
Great post, Amy. If my students weren’t spending 45 minutes on the difference between direct and indirect objects, I’d love to do this in class.
Great post, Amy. If my students weren’t spending 45 minutes on the difference between direct and indirect objects, I’d love to do this in class.
Thanks, Nik. I can totally relate–my students are still putting semicolons between subjects and verbs, which is why I posted this here instead.
Thanks, Nik. I can totally relate–my students are still putting semicolons between subjects and verbs, which is why I posted this here instead.
At the risk of being deleted, I will respond to this post. I guess the fact that most of these sentences are awkward to begin with is part of the game. So, disregarding that, my corrections are as follows:
3: My brother called to find out if I was over the flu.
7: Please spare me your argument that all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8: She never seemed to stop talking.
9: As the relationship progressed I found her facial tick more and more aggravating.
At the risk of being deleted, I will respond to this post. I guess the fact that most of these sentences are awkward to begin with is part of the game. So, disregarding that, my corrections are as follows:
3: My brother called to find out if I was over the flu.
7: Please spare me your argument that all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8: She never seemed to stop talking.
9: As the relationship progressed I found her facial tick more and more aggravating.
So that’s the answer to three?
So that’s the answer to three?
Has anyone read the Gary Lutz book on grammar?
Has anyone read the Gary Lutz book on grammar?
Jesus, if these are the problems his students were having, I’d love to teach his classes. Being intensely familiar with the intricacies of grammar is like being intensely familiar with the third season of Star Trek. Only useful around other people who are as familiar as you, and even then it’s only barely useful. PS – I’m very familiar with the third season of Star Trek.
Jesus, if these are the problems his students were having, I’d love to teach his classes. Being intensely familiar with the intricacies of grammar is like being intensely familiar with the third season of Star Trek. Only useful around other people who are as familiar as you, and even then it’s only barely useful. PS – I’m very familiar with the third season of Star Trek.
heh
heh
It’s not really a grammar, but a word usage nitpick: shouldn’t #1 be “rarely see each other,” since “hardly see each other” would imply that both has poor eyesight or some other visual impediment to fully visualizing the other individual?
By the way, I nearly had a seizure and did suffer severe flashbacks to Mrs. Gant’s fifth grade class diagramming sentence after sentence after sentence. Am I just that old, or did anyone else have to diagram sentences in school back in the day?
It’s not really a grammar, but a word usage nitpick: shouldn’t #1 be “rarely see each other,” since “hardly see each other” would imply that both has poor eyesight or some other visual impediment to fully visualizing the other individual?
By the way, I nearly had a seizure and did suffer severe flashbacks to Mrs. Gant’s fifth grade class diagramming sentence after sentence after sentence. Am I just that old, or did anyone else have to diagram sentences in school back in the day?
I agree. I didn’t say anything because apparently it had already been solved, but yes “rarely” is more accurate.
I agree. I didn’t say anything because apparently it had already been solved, but yes “rarely” is more accurate.
1. He and I hardly see each other.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences, left wandering around without periods, and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”‘s.
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu. ???
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. In my own mind I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening. Or might be threatening?
6. Whence had his new faith come?
7. Please spare me your argument of why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She never seemed to stop talking.
9. As the relationship progressed, her facial tic aggravated me more and more.
10. Not sure.
1. He and I hardly see each other.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences, left wandering around without periods, and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”‘s.
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu. ???
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. In my own mind I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening. Or might be threatening?
6. Whence had his new faith come?
7. Please spare me your argument of why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She never seemed to stop talking.
9. As the relationship progressed, her facial tic aggravated me more and more.
10. Not sure.
#3 My brother called to find out whether or not I was over the flu.
#9 As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic increasingly annoying.
#3 My brother called to find out whether or not I was over the flu.
#9 As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic increasingly annoying.
1. Each other.
2. the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s and the vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods. (It’s still weird, even with that inversion, though. Maybe start over?)
3. Whether.
4. spent only, not only spent.
5. strike “In my own mind” (you can understand only in your own mind)
6. “From” is redundant. It’s included in the meaning of “whence.” Whence his new faith?
7. Strike “of why” and replace with “that”?
8. She seemed never to stop talking. You can’t really “didn’t seem,” and there’s a split infinitive, which frankly I’m ok with, but a real SNOOT I suppose wouldn’t like.
9. To aggravate already means to intensify; so “more and more” is sort of redundant.
10. Was it the Nephites or the ministry that took place? According to the Book of Mormon, Christ ministered to the Nephites shortly after his resurrection.
1. Each other.
2. the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s and the vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods. (It’s still weird, even with that inversion, though. Maybe start over?)
3. Whether.
4. spent only, not only spent.
5. strike “In my own mind” (you can understand only in your own mind)
6. “From” is redundant. It’s included in the meaning of “whence.” Whence his new faith?
7. Strike “of why” and replace with “that”?
8. She seemed never to stop talking. You can’t really “didn’t seem,” and there’s a split infinitive, which frankly I’m ok with, but a real SNOOT I suppose wouldn’t like.
9. To aggravate already means to intensify; so “more and more” is sort of redundant.
10. Was it the Nephites or the ministry that took place? According to the Book of Mormon, Christ ministered to the Nephites shortly after his resurrection.
I would guess in #9, Wallace thought this was a misuse of “aggravate,” which I assume he claimed properly means “to make heavier” rather than “to annoy.” The OED doesn’t support this peeve, however.
I would guess in #9, Wallace thought this was a misuse of “aggravate,” which I assume he claimed properly means “to make heavier” rather than “to annoy.” The OED doesn’t support this peeve, however.
I’m sorry; I didn’t see that this had already been explained.
I’m sorry; I didn’t see that this had already been explained.
Corrected versions:
1. He and I hardly ever see one another.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods, and at the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
3. My brother called to find out whether I was over the flu yet.
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
6. Whence had come his new faith?
7. Please spare me your arguments for why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She didn’t seem ever to stop talking.
9. As the relationship progressed, her facial tic aggravated me more and more.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which it alleges took place soon after Christ’s resurrection.
Corrected versions:
1. He and I hardly ever see one another.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods, and at the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
3. My brother called to find out whether I was over the flu yet.
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
6. Whence had come his new faith?
7. Please spare me your arguments for why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She didn’t seem ever to stop talking.
9. As the relationship progressed, her facial tic aggravated me more and more.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which it alleges took place soon after Christ’s resurrection.
These exercises make me realize how awkward SWE is.
1. He and I rarely see one another.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences, left wandering without periods, and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s. (Note that there’s no apostrophe after “t”.)
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu. (“Yet” is redundant.)
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. In my mind, I can understand why the implications may be somewhat threatening. (“Own” is redundant; of course it’s your *own* mind. Change “its” to “the.” With “its,” the speaker is saying that the implications of his or her *mind* is somewhat threatening, and based on context, that’s not what the speaker is referring to.)
6. Whence came his new faith?
7. Please spare me your arguments on why all religions are unfounded and contrived. (Change “of” to “on.” You might change “arguments” to the singular, but I don’t see anything wrong with either.)
8. She never seemed to stop talking.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more aggravating. (I’m almost certain this solution is wrong.)
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after Christ’s resurrection. (This is tricky, but here’s a hint: did the Mormon account allegedly take place soon after Christ’s resurrection, or did Christ’s ministry allegedly take place soon after his resurrection?)
These exercises make me realize how awkward SWE is.
1. He and I rarely see one another.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences, left wandering without periods, and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s. (Note that there’s no apostrophe after “t”.)
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu. (“Yet” is redundant.)
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. In my mind, I can understand why the implications may be somewhat threatening. (“Own” is redundant; of course it’s your *own* mind. Change “its” to “the.” With “its,” the speaker is saying that the implications of his or her *mind* is somewhat threatening, and based on context, that’s not what the speaker is referring to.)
6. Whence came his new faith?
7. Please spare me your arguments on why all religions are unfounded and contrived. (Change “of” to “on.” You might change “arguments” to the singular, but I don’t see anything wrong with either.)
8. She never seemed to stop talking.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more aggravating. (I’m almost certain this solution is wrong.)
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after Christ’s resurrection. (This is tricky, but here’s a hint: did the Mormon account allegedly take place soon after Christ’s resurrection, or did Christ’s ministry allegedly take place soon after his resurrection?)
1. He and I hardly see each (one) other.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods(,) and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
3. My brother called to find out whether (if) I was over the flu yet.
4. I spent only (only spent) six weeks in Napa.
5. In my own mind, I can understand why its implications might (may) be somewhat threatening. (I was vacillating between the might/may correction, and whether or not the initial clause is redundant.)
6. (From) Whence had his new faith come?
7. Please spare me your arguments as to (of) why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She didn’t ever seem to stop talking. (She didn’t seem to ever stop talking.)
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic increasingly (more and more) aggravating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly takes (took) place soon after Christ’s resurrection.
1. He and I hardly see each (one) other.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods(,) and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
3. My brother called to find out whether (if) I was over the flu yet.
4. I spent only (only spent) six weeks in Napa.
5. In my own mind, I can understand why its implications might (may) be somewhat threatening. (I was vacillating between the might/may correction, and whether or not the initial clause is redundant.)
6. (From) Whence had his new faith come?
7. Please spare me your arguments as to (of) why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She didn’t ever seem to stop talking. (She didn’t seem to ever stop talking.)
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic increasingly (more and more) aggravating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly takes (took) place soon after Christ’s resurrection.
#3 My brother called to find out whether I was over the flu.
#9 I found her facial tic more and more aggravating as the relationship progressed.
#3 My brother called to find out whether I was over the flu.
#9 I found her facial tic more and more aggravating as the relationship progressed.
hi amy!!!
I still have all of my “Your Liberal Arts Dollars At Work” papers.
hope you are well.
xo
hi amy!!!
I still have all of my “Your Liberal Arts Dollars At Work” papers.
hope you are well.
xo
IF NO ONE HAS TAUGHT YOU… TO AVOID OR REPAIR CLAUSES such as THE FOLLOWING, YOU SHOULD … THINK SERIOUSLY ABOUT SUING SOMEone, PERHAPS AS CO-PLAINTIFF WITH whomever is paying YOUR TUITION
1. He and I BARELY see one another.
2. I cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences, wandering around without periods and LEFT AMBIGUOUS WITH THEIR uncrossed “t”s.
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu yet.
ISN”T THAT JUST COLLOQUIAL? Cut the yet, sure.
4. I spent ONLY six weeks in Napa.
5. I TOO FEEL SOMEWHAT THREATENED BY ITS implications
6. From whence had his new faith come?
WHENCE HIS NEW FAITH?
7. Please spare me your argument THAT all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She didn’t seem to ever stop talking.
SHE NEVER SEEMED TO STOP TALKING
9. As the relationship progressed, I GREW MORE AND MORE AGGRAVATED BY HER facial tic
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after Christ’s resurrection.
SORRY I DONT KNOW THE HISTORY!
3. My brother called to find out whether I had gotten (or “got,” if you’re, you know, British) over the flu.
9. As our relationship evolved, I found her facial tic increasingly irritating.
3. My brother called to find out whether I had gotten (or “got,” if you’re, you know, British) over the flu.
9. As our relationship evolved, I found her facial tic increasingly irritating.
Regarding #3: Perhaps I ought to stick to the verb “be”; if so, is it possible that DFW was looking for the subjunctive “were” in this sentence? I.e., “My brother called to find out whether I were over the flu.”
Regarding #3: Perhaps I ought to stick to the verb “be”; if so, is it possible that DFW was looking for the subjunctive “were” in this sentence? I.e., “My brother called to find out whether I were over the flu.”
To me, #6 seems like a subjective usage decision, not an error, in that Webster explicitly lists “from whence” as acceptable usage: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whence.
To me, #6 seems like a subjective usage decision, not an error, in that Webster explicitly lists “from whence” as acceptable usage: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whence.
#3 My brother called to find out whether or not I was over the flu.
#3 My brother called to find out whether or not I was over the flu.
1. He and I hardly ever see each other.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences, left wandering around without periods, and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “T”s.
3. My brother called to find out if I had gotten over the flu.
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. In my own mind, I can understand why its implications might be somewhat threatening.
6. Whence had his new faith come?
7. Please spare me your arguments about how each religion is unfounded and contrived.
8. She didn’t seem to ever stop talking.
9. As the relationship moved forward, I found her facial tic to be more aggravating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephrites, which happened after his resurrection, allegedly.
1. He and I hardly ever see each other.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences, left wandering around without periods, and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “T”s.
3. My brother called to find out if I had gotten over the flu.
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. In my own mind, I can understand why its implications might be somewhat threatening.
6. Whence had his new faith come?
7. Please spare me your arguments about how each religion is unfounded and contrived.
8. She didn’t seem to ever stop talking.
9. As the relationship moved forward, I found her facial tic to be more aggravating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephrites, which happened after his resurrection, allegedly.
1. He and I rarely see each other.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences, which he left wandering around without periods, and at the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
3. My brother called to ask if I was over the flu.
4. I was only in Napa for six weeks.
5. I understand that its implications might be somewhat threatening.
6. Whence came his new faith?
7. Please spare me your arguments as to why all religions are unfounded and contrived. [ok…so I cheated on this one]
8. She seemed never to stop talking.
9. As our relationship progressed, I found her facial tic increasingly aggravating.
10. The Book of Mormon tells of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, an event which allegedly took place soon after Christ’s resurrection.
1. He and I rarely see each other.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences, which he left wandering around without periods, and at the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
3. My brother called to ask if I was over the flu.
4. I was only in Napa for six weeks.
5. I understand that its implications might be somewhat threatening.
6. Whence came his new faith?
7. Please spare me your arguments as to why all religions are unfounded and contrived. [ok…so I cheated on this one]
8. She seemed never to stop talking.
9. As our relationship progressed, I found her facial tic increasingly aggravating.
10. The Book of Mormon tells of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, an event which allegedly took place soon after Christ’s resurrection.
Corrected
1. He and I RARELY or SELDOM see one another.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of THE sentences HE left wandering around without periods and AT the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
3. My brother called to ASK out if I WERE over the flu yet.
4. I spent JUST six weeks in Napa.
5. I can understand why its implications COULD be somewhat threatening.
6. From WHERE had his new faith come?
7. Please spare me your arguments AS TO why all religions are unfounded OR contrived.
8. IT SEEMED SHE NEVER STOPPED TALKING.
9. THE MORE THE relationship progressed, THE MORE AGGRAVATING I found her facial tic to be.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an ALLEGED account of Christ MINISTERING to the Nephites soon after HIS resurrection.
Corrected
1. He and I RARELY or SELDOM see one another.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of THE sentences HE left wandering around without periods and AT the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
3. My brother called to ASK out if I WERE over the flu yet.
4. I spent JUST six weeks in Napa.
5. I can understand why its implications COULD be somewhat threatening.
6. From WHERE had his new faith come?
7. Please spare me your arguments AS TO why all religions are unfounded OR contrived.
8. IT SEEMED SHE NEVER STOPPED TALKING.
9. THE MORE THE relationship progressed, THE MORE AGGRAVATING I found her facial tic to be.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an ALLEGED account of Christ MINISTERING to the Nephites soon after HIS resurrection.
1. He and I hardly see each other.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences, left wandering around without periods, and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
3. My brother called to find out if I am yet over the flu.
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. In my mind, I can understand that its implications may be somewhat threatening.
6. Whence had he new faith?
7. Please spare me your arguments for why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She didn’t seem ever to stop talking.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tics more and more aggravating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which is alleged to have taken place soon after Christ’s resurrection. (Or, “which took place soon after Christ’s alleged resurrection.”)
1. He and I hardly see each other.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences, left wandering around without periods, and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
3. My brother called to find out if I am yet over the flu.
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. In my mind, I can understand that its implications may be somewhat threatening.
6. Whence had he new faith?
7. Please spare me your arguments for why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She didn’t seem ever to stop talking.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tics more and more aggravating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which is alleged to have taken place soon after Christ’s resurrection. (Or, “which took place soon after Christ’s alleged resurrection.”)
hi rachel!!! thanks for reading. do you remember what “M.B.T.G.A.” stood for on the 28 April ’04 WS? it puzzles me. Though I do have a note on it where I wrote, “The old are easy to beat” (in quotes), to which Wallace responded in pen, “IT’S TRUE!” (in quotes).
i’m well and i hope you are too! smooches
hi rachel!!! thanks for reading. do you remember what “M.B.T.G.A.” stood for on the 28 April ’04 WS? it puzzles me. Though I do have a note on it where I wrote, “The old are easy to beat” (in quotes), to which Wallace responded in pen, “IT’S TRUE!” (in quotes).
i’m well and i hope you are too! smooches
actually there are a couple with “M.B.G.T.A.”
actually there are a couple with “M.B.G.T.A.”
LINK OF LYNXES TO MOST HANDKE MATERIAL ON THE WEB:
http://www.handke.scriptmania.com/favorite_links_1.html
HANDKE LINKS + BLOGS SCRIPTMANIA PROJECT MAIN SITE:
http://www.handke.scriptmania.com
and 13 sub-sites
e.g.
http://www.handkeromance.scriptmania.com/index.html
http://www.handkelectures.freeservers.com/
http://www.handkedrama.scriptmania.com/
http://www.handkescholar.scriptmania.com/
http://www.handkebild.scriptmania.com/
http://handke-photo.scriptmania.com/
http://www.handke-nobel.scriptmania.com/
http://www.handkeprose.scriptmania.com/
http://www.handkefilm.scriptmania.com/
http://handke-watch.blogspot.com/
[moravian nights discussion]
the newest:
http://handke-photo.scriptmania.com/
contains the psychoanalytic monograph
The Morawian Night Essay + Handke trivia
http://www.handkelectures.freeservers.com [the drama lecture]
http://www.van.at/see/mike/index.htm
[dem handke auf die schliche/besuch auf dem moenchsberg, a book of mine about Handke]
http://begleitschreiben.twoday.net/topics/Peter+Handke/
http://handke-discussion.blogspot.com/
[the American Scholar caused controversy about Handke, reviews, detailed of Coury/ Pilipp’s THE WORKS OF PETER HANDKE, the psycho-biological monograph/ a note on Velica Hoca/ ]
with three photo albums, to wit:
http://picasaweb.google.com/mikerol
http://picasaweb.google.com/mikerol/HANDKE3ONLINE#
http://picasaweb.google.com/mikerol/HANDKE2ONLINE#
http://picasaweb.google.com/mikerol/POSTED?authkey=YeKkFSE3-Js#
http://www.handke-trivia.blogspot.com
http://www.artscritic.blogspot.com
[some handke material, too, the Milosevic controversy summarized]
MICHAEL ROLOFF
Member Seattle Psychoanalytic Institute and Society
this LYNX will LEAP you to all my HANDKE project sites and BLOGS:
http://www.roloff.freehosting.net/index.html
“MAY THE FOGGY DEW BEDIAMONDIZE YOUR HOOSPRINGS!” + MAY THE FIREPLUG OF FILIALITY REINSURE YOUR BUNGHOLE!”” {J. Joyce}
“Sryde Lyde Myde Vorworde Vorhorde Vorborde” [von Alvensleben]
LINK OF LYNXES TO MOST HANDKE MATERIAL ON THE WEB:
http://www.handke.scriptmania.com/favorite_links_1.html
HANDKE LINKS + BLOGS SCRIPTMANIA PROJECT MAIN SITE:
http://www.handke.scriptmania.com
and 13 sub-sites
e.g.
http://www.handkeromance.scriptmania.com/index.html
http://www.handkelectures.freeservers.com/
http://www.handkedrama.scriptmania.com/
http://www.handkescholar.scriptmania.com/
http://www.handkebild.scriptmania.com/
http://handke-photo.scriptmania.com/
http://www.handke-nobel.scriptmania.com/
http://www.handkeprose.scriptmania.com/
http://www.handkefilm.scriptmania.com/
http://handke-watch.blogspot.com/
[moravian nights discussion]
the newest:
http://handke-photo.scriptmania.com/
contains the psychoanalytic monograph
The Morawian Night Essay + Handke trivia
http://www.handkelectures.freeservers.com [the drama lecture]
http://www.van.at/see/mike/index.htm
[dem handke auf die schliche/besuch auf dem moenchsberg, a book of mine about Handke]
http://begleitschreiben.twoday.net/topics/Peter+Handke/
http://handke-discussion.blogspot.com/
[the American Scholar caused controversy about Handke, reviews, detailed of Coury/ Pilipp’s THE WORKS OF PETER HANDKE, the psycho-biological monograph/ a note on Velica Hoca/ ]
with three photo albums, to wit:
http://picasaweb.google.com/mikerol
http://picasaweb.google.com/mikerol/HANDKE3ONLINE#
http://picasaweb.google.com/mikerol/HANDKE2ONLINE#
http://picasaweb.google.com/mikerol/POSTED?authkey=YeKkFSE3-Js#
http://www.handke-trivia.blogspot.com
http://www.artscritic.blogspot.com
[some handke material, too, the Milosevic controversy summarized]
MICHAEL ROLOFF
Member Seattle Psychoanalytic Institute and Society
this LYNX will LEAP you to all my HANDKE project sites and BLOGS:
http://www.roloff.freehosting.net/index.html
“MAY THE FOGGY DEW BEDIAMONDIZE YOUR HOOSPRINGS!” + MAY THE FIREPLUG OF FILIALITY REINSURE YOUR BUNGHOLE!”” {J. Joyce}
“Sryde Lyde Myde Vorworde Vorhorde Vorborde” [von Alvensleben]
This is just a wild guess for #9 but how about:
I found her facial tic more aggravating as the relationship progressed.
This is just a wild guess for #9 but how about:
I found her facial tic more aggravating as the relationship progressed.
1. He and I RARELY see one another.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences, left wandering around without periods, and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
3. My brother called to find out if I WERE over the flu yet.
4. I only PASSED six weeks in Napa.
5. I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
6. From whence had his faith come?
7. Please spare me your argument why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She seemed to never stop talking.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic increasingly aggravating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account, which allegedly took place soon after Christ’s resurrection,of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites.
1. He and I RARELY see one another.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences, left wandering around without periods, and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
3. My brother called to find out if I WERE over the flu yet.
4. I only PASSED six weeks in Napa.
5. I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
6. From whence had his faith come?
7. Please spare me your argument why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She seemed to never stop talking.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic increasingly aggravating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account, which allegedly took place soon after Christ’s resurrection,of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites.
OOPs, I kept split infinitive on #8.I meant to say, “She seemed never to stop talking.”
Bonnie
OOPs, I kept split infinitive on #8.I meant to say, “She seemed never to stop talking.”
Bonnie
I thought “whoever” should have been “whomever,” too. But SWE disagrees. “Whoever” is correct.
I thought “whoever” should have been “whomever,” too. But SWE disagrees. “Whoever” is correct.
actually alan, the meaning is not equivalent. the ‘only’ is meant to accompany the amount of time spent (only six weeks) not the action being taken. ‘I only spent’ is not the same as ‘i spent only six weeks.’ Lincoln is right.
actually alan, the meaning is not equivalent. the ‘only’ is meant to accompany the amount of time spent (only six weeks) not the action being taken. ‘I only spent’ is not the same as ‘i spent only six weeks.’ Lincoln is right.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic to be more and more aggravating.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic to be more and more aggravating.
[…] 3, 2009 · Leave a Comment Amy McDaniel posts a grammar worksheet from a non-fiction seminar given by David Foster Wallace. And it’s got some […]
Dear Amy. I found the grammar challenge on a publishing website and forwarded it to my writers’ group. I thought you might find two of the responses interesting. One of the writers also teaches grammar at a school in NYC. Regards. Sandra
First response:
There’s a grammatical error in the sentence below. It should read, “Don’t worry if someone else posts his or her answers first; he or she may not be right.” It’s amazing that the instructions for a grammar contest should contain a grammatical error (prononoun/antecedent mismatch). Yikes!
Don’t worry if someone else posts their answers first; they may not be right!
By the way, the a better way to phrase the sentence above would be “Don’t worry if others post their answers first; they may not be right.” (The exclamation point is unnecessary.)
Second response:
Or “Don’t worry if someone else posts an answer first; that answer may not be right.”
Dear Amy. I found the grammar challenge on a publishing website and forwarded it to my writers’ group. I thought you might find two of the responses interesting. One of the writers also teaches grammar at a school in NYC. Regards. Sandra
First response:
There’s a grammatical error in the sentence below. It should read, “Don’t worry if someone else posts his or her answers first; he or she may not be right.” It’s amazing that the instructions for a grammar contest should contain a grammatical error (prononoun/antecedent mismatch). Yikes!
Don’t worry if someone else posts their answers first; they may not be right!
By the way, the a better way to phrase the sentence above would be “Don’t worry if others post their answers first; they may not be right.” (The exclamation point is unnecessary.)
Second response:
Or “Don’t worry if someone else posts an answer first; that answer may not be right.”
1. He and I hardly see each other.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences wandering around without periods and at the ambiguity of his uncrossed Ts.
3. My brother called to find out whether or not I was over the flu.
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
6. Whence had his new faith come?
7. Please spare me your arguments as to why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She seemed never to stop talking.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more and more irritating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after His resurrection.
1. He and I hardly see each other.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences wandering around without periods and at the ambiguity of his uncrossed Ts.
3. My brother called to find out whether or not I was over the flu.
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
6. Whence had his new faith come?
7. Please spare me your arguments as to why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She seemed never to stop talking.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more and more irritating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after His resurrection.
This top statement is missing its period. The use of ‘whoever’ is correct though.
IF NO ONE HAS YET TAUGHT YOU HOW TO AVOID OR REPAIR CLAUSES LIKE THE FOLLOWING, YOU SHOULD, IN MY OPINION, THINK SERIOUSLY ABOUT SUING SOMEBODY, PERHAPS AS CO-PLAINTIFF WITH WHOEVER’S PAID YOUR TUITION.
1. He and I hardly see one another.
We rarely see one another.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences wandering around without periods and the ambiguity of his uncrossed ‘t’s.
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu yet.
My brother called to find out if I were over the flu yet.
4. I only spent six weeks in Napa.
I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. In my own mind, I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
6. From whence had his new faith come?
Whence had his new faith come?
7. Please spare me your arguments of why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
Please spare me your arguments that all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She didn’t seem to ever stop talking.
She seemed never to stop talking.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more and more aggravating.
I found her facial tic more and more aggravating as the relationship progressed.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after Christ’s resurrection.
The Book of Mormon accounts for Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after His resurrection.
…#7 stumps me more than anything. You could also make ‘religion’ singular with ‘is’ I suppose. I wonder when we’ll see the answer key.
This top statement is missing its period. The use of ‘whoever’ is correct though.
IF NO ONE HAS YET TAUGHT YOU HOW TO AVOID OR REPAIR CLAUSES LIKE THE FOLLOWING, YOU SHOULD, IN MY OPINION, THINK SERIOUSLY ABOUT SUING SOMEBODY, PERHAPS AS CO-PLAINTIFF WITH WHOEVER’S PAID YOUR TUITION.
1. He and I hardly see one another.
We rarely see one another.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences wandering around without periods and the ambiguity of his uncrossed ‘t’s.
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu yet.
My brother called to find out if I were over the flu yet.
4. I only spent six weeks in Napa.
I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. In my own mind, I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
6. From whence had his new faith come?
Whence had his new faith come?
7. Please spare me your arguments of why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
Please spare me your arguments that all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She didn’t seem to ever stop talking.
She seemed never to stop talking.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more and more aggravating.
I found her facial tic more and more aggravating as the relationship progressed.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after Christ’s resurrection.
The Book of Mormon accounts for Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after His resurrection.
…#7 stumps me more than anything. You could also make ‘religion’ singular with ‘is’ I suppose. I wonder when we’ll see the answer key.
don’t hate on the exclamation point.
don’t hate on the exclamation point.
[…] Giant put together a grammar quiz based on a worksheet from a workshop David Foster Wallace […]
Sandra,
I do find those responses interesting because of the respondents’ apparent unawareness of how context might affect the choices we make vis a vis following rules exactly or not. my intro to the quiz was clearly conversational in tone throughout (did they also frown on my sentence fragments? The nonstandard implied subject in the first sentence?). this is a blog, not a grammar book. replacing “someone” with “they” is perfectly understandable in conversational English. i was perfectly aware of the nonstandard choice there, and i’m not about to say “he or she” on a blog post. the “others” fix reads similarly stilted to me. your writer’s group should read wallace’s essay on the language wars from harper’s–it clearly differentiates between standard written english and more casual forms. the point is to know the rules so that you can be in control of how you use language. the point is NOT to be hyper-correct in all contexts. but i appreciate your passing the quiz along.
Sandra,
I do find those responses interesting because of the respondents’ apparent unawareness of how context might affect the choices we make vis a vis following rules exactly or not. my intro to the quiz was clearly conversational in tone throughout (did they also frown on my sentence fragments? The nonstandard implied subject in the first sentence?). this is a blog, not a grammar book. replacing “someone” with “they” is perfectly understandable in conversational English. i was perfectly aware of the nonstandard choice there, and i’m not about to say “he or she” on a blog post. the “others” fix reads similarly stilted to me. your writer’s group should read wallace’s essay on the language wars from harper’s–it clearly differentiates between standard written english and more casual forms. the point is to know the rules so that you can be in control of how you use language. the point is NOT to be hyper-correct in all contexts. but i appreciate your passing the quiz along.
Amy-
I like what you say here.
My opinion is that if one is writing _deliberately_, _for whatever reason_, then _intent_ is foremost.
In other words, write what you intend to write! For example, if you need to vent and do it by writing quickly with tons of typos, grammatical mistakes, etc, then more power to you. The typos, etc. are an integral “part” of the piece, and if the reader does not “get this”, then “oh well”.
And, can you post a link to that DFW essay?
Amy-
I like what you say here.
My opinion is that if one is writing _deliberately_, _for whatever reason_, then _intent_ is foremost.
In other words, write what you intend to write! For example, if you need to vent and do it by writing quickly with tons of typos, grammatical mistakes, etc, then more power to you. The typos, etc. are an integral “part” of the piece, and if the reader does not “get this”, then “oh well”.
And, can you post a link to that DFW essay?
three cheers for the singular ‘they’
three cheers for the singular ‘they’
it will prevail at last.
it will prevail at last.
[…] answers to the other night’s grammar challenge appear haphazardly throughout that post’s comments section, but it seems like people are […]
Re the comments about the singular “they” in your intro: I thought you had put that singular “they” in there on purpose, to evoke a response. The defensiveness surprises me. It’s a piece about grammar; surely you could have expected a response to that usage in the intro. In the context of the quiz that follows, it’s a good point.
Re the comments about the singular “they” in your intro: I thought you had put that singular “they” in there on purpose, to evoke a response. The defensiveness surprises me. It’s a piece about grammar; surely you could have expected a response to that usage in the intro. In the context of the quiz that follows, it’s a good point.
the top statement is the title of the WS
the top statement is the title of the WS
I thought you had put that singular “they” in there on purpose, to evoke a response. The defensiveness surprises me. It’s a piece about grammar; surely you could have expected the response. Doesn’t seem to me that Sandra is challenging everything you wrote, just the use of the singular they. The fact that she didn’t take issue with the conversational tone, sentence fragments, etc., is exactly why she’s not being hypercorrect or unaware. In the context of the intro to a quiz about grammar, ahe has a good point.
I thought you had put that singular “they” in there on purpose, to evoke a response. The defensiveness surprises me. It’s a piece about grammar; surely you could have expected the response. Doesn’t seem to me that Sandra is challenging everything you wrote, just the use of the singular they. The fact that she didn’t take issue with the conversational tone, sentence fragments, etc., is exactly why she’s not being hypercorrect or unaware. In the context of the intro to a quiz about grammar, ahe has a good point.
everything i write is on purpose, and i did predict that some people would take umbrage with the choice. but i still think that in the context of a blog, and in the context of the rest of the informal paragraph i wrote to introduce the quiz, the singular “they” is the most appropriate choice. and why wouldn’t i defend a choice that i think is the right one?
everything i write is on purpose, and i did predict that some people would take umbrage with the choice. but i still think that in the context of a blog, and in the context of the rest of the informal paragraph i wrote to introduce the quiz, the singular “they” is the most appropriate choice. and why wouldn’t i defend a choice that i think is the right one?
So what does “I only spent six weeks” mean if not “I spent only six weeks”?
So what does “I only spent six weeks” mean if not “I spent only six weeks”?
only spent means that is the only action that was taken, i think.
only six weeks means that is only the amount of time spent.
i mean, we are talking tiny tiny differences, but the meaning is still not ‘equivalent.’ really, it’s not ridiculous.
when i read it, i see it as a matter of emphasis. the first instance focuses on the action, meaning maybe he didnt do other things. the second is a qualification of time.
i only punched him in the face (i didnt do anything worse, like shoot him in the stomach!)
i punched him only in the face (i didnt punch him anywhere else on his body)
i dunno. my opinion, how i read it.
only spent means that is the only action that was taken, i think.
only six weeks means that is only the amount of time spent.
i mean, we are talking tiny tiny differences, but the meaning is still not ‘equivalent.’ really, it’s not ridiculous.
when i read it, i see it as a matter of emphasis. the first instance focuses on the action, meaning maybe he didnt do other things. the second is a qualification of time.
i only punched him in the face (i didnt do anything worse, like shoot him in the stomach!)
i punched him only in the face (i didnt punch him anywhere else on his body)
i dunno. my opinion, how i read it.
Ryan,
“I only punched him in the face” could be ambiguous in writing (though it’s unlikely to be in speech).
I didn’t say the placement of only never affects meaning, only that it does not do so in the case I was talking about. If there is an ambiguity in that sentence of the same type as the one in your example, why are you unable to tell me what it is?
I would suggest that the “tiny tiny” differences you feel are there but cannot define are differences in the way you parse the two sentences, not differences in their meaning.
Ryan,
“I only punched him in the face” could be ambiguous in writing (though it’s unlikely to be in speech).
I didn’t say the placement of only never affects meaning, only that it does not do so in the case I was talking about. If there is an ambiguity in that sentence of the same type as the one in your example, why are you unable to tell me what it is?
I would suggest that the “tiny tiny” differences you feel are there but cannot define are differences in the way you parse the two sentences, not differences in their meaning.
Alan, I think you are sorely missing the point. Sure, this is an example of a misplacement of only that is bound to cause no more than a tiny little bit of possible misreading. But as I’ve stated above, Wallace took sentences straight from very recent essays to make particular points. The point here was that you should always put only right before what it modifies. Of course there are better sentences with which to make that point. But this example is, ACCORDING TO CONVENTION, still an error, and why make entirely avoidable errors that may lead the more convention-bound among your audience to think you don’t know what you’re doing?
Alan, I think you are sorely missing the point. Sure, this is an example of a misplacement of only that is bound to cause no more than a tiny little bit of possible misreading. But as I’ve stated above, Wallace took sentences straight from very recent essays to make particular points. The point here was that you should always put only right before what it modifies. Of course there are better sentences with which to make that point. But this example is, ACCORDING TO CONVENTION, still an error, and why make entirely avoidable errors that may lead the more convention-bound among your audience to think you don’t know what you’re doing?
hi alan,
no, you ahve a point, my example is different than the sentence in question.
ok. i think i understand what you are saying: you are saying that ‘only spent six weeks’ is the same as ‘spent only six weeks’ because spent implies that other actions were taken during the time of spending the weeks? that makes sense, yes.
so when you read those sentences, you dont feel emphasis shift between the onlys depending on where they are placed? i think that the ambiguity comes in the different emphasis of the only, and so a clearer meaning could be to emphasize the time spent by putting the emphasis (modifier) as close as possible to the time.
but all of this depends on intent too, i think. which is what maybe makes this one hard. like, we dont have context or know the speaker. if we knew more, then yeah.
so imagining a context, someone, maybe a complainer, who says ‘I only spent’ could be trying to draw attention to the verb spent, maybe to complain about the ‘spending’ and the lack of other, maybe funner activities? maybe spending time, to the speaker, is a negative thing?
and someone who says ‘i only spent six weeks’ could be emphasizing the time spent, maybe it was too short?
i have defined/explained the differences as i see them pretty well. i have explained my reading of the shifts in only, i think, with specific examples.
to me, ‘parsing a sentence’ is what helps us create meaning in that sentence, so i dont see the two as separate (not saying that that’s what you said). anyhow, yeah. i just like to have the words placed as nearly exactly as i can put them. thats all im saying. if i can do it just a little bit better, then i will try to do that.
hi alan,
no, you ahve a point, my example is different than the sentence in question.
ok. i think i understand what you are saying: you are saying that ‘only spent six weeks’ is the same as ‘spent only six weeks’ because spent implies that other actions were taken during the time of spending the weeks? that makes sense, yes.
so when you read those sentences, you dont feel emphasis shift between the onlys depending on where they are placed? i think that the ambiguity comes in the different emphasis of the only, and so a clearer meaning could be to emphasize the time spent by putting the emphasis (modifier) as close as possible to the time.
but all of this depends on intent too, i think. which is what maybe makes this one hard. like, we dont have context or know the speaker. if we knew more, then yeah.
so imagining a context, someone, maybe a complainer, who says ‘I only spent’ could be trying to draw attention to the verb spent, maybe to complain about the ‘spending’ and the lack of other, maybe funner activities? maybe spending time, to the speaker, is a negative thing?
and someone who says ‘i only spent six weeks’ could be emphasizing the time spent, maybe it was too short?
i have defined/explained the differences as i see them pretty well. i have explained my reading of the shifts in only, i think, with specific examples.
to me, ‘parsing a sentence’ is what helps us create meaning in that sentence, so i dont see the two as separate (not saying that that’s what you said). anyhow, yeah. i just like to have the words placed as nearly exactly as i can put them. thats all im saying. if i can do it just a little bit better, then i will try to do that.
Ryan,
I don’t think there is any inherent difference in emphasis between the two versions of the sentence.
But if there WERE, then not only would both sentences be correct, but the one falsely labeled incorrect above would actually be PREFERRED in cases where it reflected the emphasis that was intended.
So what you’re saying is not in fact an argument against my position.
Ryan,
I don’t think there is any inherent difference in emphasis between the two versions of the sentence.
But if there WERE, then not only would both sentences be correct, but the one falsely labeled incorrect above would actually be PREFERRED in cases where it reflected the emphasis that was intended.
So what you’re saying is not in fact an argument against my position.
Amy McDaniel,
You have not been able to show me that there is EVEN a “tiny bit of possible misreading.” Not one particle. And the avoidance of ambiguity was YOUR explanation for the rule, not mine.
Now you’re saying forget about ambiguity, it’s an error because the rule is a convention. Well, it’s not a convention in the sense of being unidiomatic by any empirical standard. You were taught that it was wrong and so have a few other people, and if you want avoid the usage to protect their sensitivities I guess that’s your choice. But why claim it’s wrong because it’s ambiguous when there are any number of counterexamples, including the one you cited, to show that it need not be?
Amy McDaniel,
You have not been able to show me that there is EVEN a “tiny bit of possible misreading.” Not one particle. And the avoidance of ambiguity was YOUR explanation for the rule, not mine.
Now you’re saying forget about ambiguity, it’s an error because the rule is a convention. Well, it’s not a convention in the sense of being unidiomatic by any empirical standard. You were taught that it was wrong and so have a few other people, and if you want avoid the usage to protect their sensitivities I guess that’s your choice. But why claim it’s wrong because it’s ambiguous when there are any number of counterexamples, including the one you cited, to show that it need not be?
Alan,
We cross-posted in different sections, and we’ll probably keep doing so, but here goes anyway.
I was not “taught that it was wrong.” I was, however, taught that there is such a thing as standard written english (SWE), and that placing only apart from its modifier is nonstandard. Standard written english is not purely empirical, though idiomatic usage does cause the conventions of SWE to shift. But this convention has not shifted yet. I was further taught that knowing the current conventions can be only of benefit to a careful writer. This quiz, and the original worksheet, test knowledge of SWE.
As to the other argument, about ambiguity, I don’t really see where I said to forget about ambiguity; I’m just saying that, yes, other sentences with a misplaced only are more ambiguous. But this one still could potentially cause nanoseconds (to use Wallace’s term) of misunderstanding because when many readers see “only,” they think “modifier coming up,” but if they then see a word that is not logically able to be modified by only (like spend), they will be so very briefly misled. To quote from the essay I keep urging you to read: “But many of these solecisms require at least a couple extra nanoseconds of cognitive effort, a kind of rapid sift-and-discard process, before the recipient gets it. Extra work. It’s debatable just how much extra work, but it seems indisputable that we put some extra neural burden on the recipient when we fail to follow certain conventions. “
Alan,
We cross-posted in different sections, and we’ll probably keep doing so, but here goes anyway.
I was not “taught that it was wrong.” I was, however, taught that there is such a thing as standard written english (SWE), and that placing only apart from its modifier is nonstandard. Standard written english is not purely empirical, though idiomatic usage does cause the conventions of SWE to shift. But this convention has not shifted yet. I was further taught that knowing the current conventions can be only of benefit to a careful writer. This quiz, and the original worksheet, test knowledge of SWE.
As to the other argument, about ambiguity, I don’t really see where I said to forget about ambiguity; I’m just saying that, yes, other sentences with a misplaced only are more ambiguous. But this one still could potentially cause nanoseconds (to use Wallace’s term) of misunderstanding because when many readers see “only,” they think “modifier coming up,” but if they then see a word that is not logically able to be modified by only (like spend), they will be so very briefly misled. To quote from the essay I keep urging you to read: “But many of these solecisms require at least a couple extra nanoseconds of cognitive effort, a kind of rapid sift-and-discard process, before the recipient gets it. Extra work. It’s debatable just how much extra work, but it seems indisputable that we put some extra neural burden on the recipient when we fail to follow certain conventions. “
hi alan,
1) i disagree with you on ‘inherent difference in emphasis.’ this is fine. i am okay with our disagreement. i feel very relaxed about it.
2) wait, what is your original position? maybe that is what i am confused about. you said @1030pm dec 3rd “So what does “I only spent six weeks” mean if not “I spent only six weeks”?” i interpreted that to mean that you think (your position is that) those phrases mean the same thing. so i said, loosely, dec 4th 1:11am that it depends on context, which was my way of trying to answer you rquestion; context makes them mean different things, right? @149am you said (hypothetically) that if we consider context, then both sentences are correct, which is what i said at 1:11am. so you agreed with me (hypothetically)?
so what i was saying (that both emphasis and context influence meaning (and we already disagree on emphasis)) was an arugment against your position (as i understood it) that the two ‘are equivalent.’ if i misunderstood your position, and you had another position, then im seriously sorry if ive compeltely muddled this discussion.
hi alan,
1) i disagree with you on ‘inherent difference in emphasis.’ this is fine. i am okay with our disagreement. i feel very relaxed about it.
2) wait, what is your original position? maybe that is what i am confused about. you said @1030pm dec 3rd “So what does “I only spent six weeks” mean if not “I spent only six weeks”?” i interpreted that to mean that you think (your position is that) those phrases mean the same thing. so i said, loosely, dec 4th 1:11am that it depends on context, which was my way of trying to answer you rquestion; context makes them mean different things, right? @149am you said (hypothetically) that if we consider context, then both sentences are correct, which is what i said at 1:11am. so you agreed with me (hypothetically)?
so what i was saying (that both emphasis and context influence meaning (and we already disagree on emphasis)) was an arugment against your position (as i understood it) that the two ‘are equivalent.’ if i misunderstood your position, and you had another position, then im seriously sorry if ive compeltely muddled this discussion.
M.B. G. T. A. = Make the Bad Thing Go Away.
There is also one with the title “PAPA MAKE IT GO!”
I miss the past.
M.B. G. T. A. = Make the Bad Thing Go Away.
There is also one with the title “PAPA MAKE IT GO!”
I miss the past.
nice, thanks. yeah i have Papa make it go, and also $ never sleeps
nice, thanks. yeah i have Papa make it go, and also $ never sleeps
1. We rarely see each other.
2. The naked vulnerability of his sentences, wandering around without periods, and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s, would make me cringe.
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu.
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
6. Whence had his new faith come? (Actually I would say: “Why is he suddenly faithful?” to avoid the archaic word.)
7. Please spare me your arguments of why all religions are unfounded and contrived. (It’s terrible, but I have no suggestion.)
8. She didn’t ever seem to stop talking.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her faicial tic more and more irritating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after Christ’s resurrection. (No change.)
1. We rarely see each other.
2. The naked vulnerability of his sentences, wandering around without periods, and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s, would make me cringe.
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu.
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
6. Whence had his new faith come? (Actually I would say: “Why is he suddenly faithful?” to avoid the archaic word.)
7. Please spare me your arguments of why all religions are unfounded and contrived. (It’s terrible, but I have no suggestion.)
8. She didn’t ever seem to stop talking.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her faicial tic more and more irritating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after Christ’s resurrection. (No change.)
Per Stephen Fry: “Sadly, desperately sadly, the only people who seem to bother with language in public today bother with it in quite the wrong way. They write letters to broadcasters and newspapers in which they are rude and haughty about other people’s usage and in which they show off their own superior ‘knowledge’ of how language should be. Well I’m glad to say I’ve outgrown that silly approach to language. …There are all kinds of pedants around with more time to read and imitate Lynne Truss and John Humphrys than to write poems, love-letters, novels and stories it seems. They whip out their Sharpies and take away and add apostrophes from public signs, shake their heads at prepositions which end sentences and mutter at split infinitives and misspellings, but do they bubble and froth and slobber and cream with joy at language? Do they ever let the tripping of the tips of their tongues against the tops of their teeth transport them to giddy euphoric bliss? Do they ever yoke impossible words together for the sound-sex of it? Do they use language to seduce, charm, excite, please, affirm and tickle those they talk to? Do they? I doubt it. They’re too farting busy sneering at a greengrocer’s less than perfect use of the apostrophe.” Read the full thing here: http://bit.ly/8hdFPf — Clearly, DFW wasn’t pedantic in how he used language, so he gets a break. But the rest of us aren’t DFW, are we? We should be paying more attention to the big stuff instead of obsessing over piddling concerns.
Per Stephen Fry: “Sadly, desperately sadly, the only people who seem to bother with language in public today bother with it in quite the wrong way. They write letters to broadcasters and newspapers in which they are rude and haughty about other people’s usage and in which they show off their own superior ‘knowledge’ of how language should be. Well I’m glad to say I’ve outgrown that silly approach to language. …There are all kinds of pedants around with more time to read and imitate Lynne Truss and John Humphrys than to write poems, love-letters, novels and stories it seems. They whip out their Sharpies and take away and add apostrophes from public signs, shake their heads at prepositions which end sentences and mutter at split infinitives and misspellings, but do they bubble and froth and slobber and cream with joy at language? Do they ever let the tripping of the tips of their tongues against the tops of their teeth transport them to giddy euphoric bliss? Do they ever yoke impossible words together for the sound-sex of it? Do they use language to seduce, charm, excite, please, affirm and tickle those they talk to? Do they? I doubt it. They’re too farting busy sneering at a greengrocer’s less than perfect use of the apostrophe.” Read the full thing here: http://bit.ly/8hdFPf — Clearly, DFW wasn’t pedantic in how he used language, so he gets a break. But the rest of us aren’t DFW, are we? We should be paying more attention to the big stuff instead of obsessing over piddling concerns.
shot in the dark:
1. We hardly see each other.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences, left wandering around without periods, and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu.
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
6. Whence had his new faith come?
7. Please spare me your arguments that all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She never seemed stop talking.
9. As the relationship progressed I found her facial tic more aggravating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites; which allegedly took place after his resurrection.
1. He and I hardly see one another. (“one another” should be “each other”)
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s. (“and the ambiguity” should be “and at the ambiguity)
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu yet. (“if” should be “whether”)
4. I only spent six weeks in Napa. (“six weeks” should be “six weeks’ time)
5. In my own mind, I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
6. From whence had his new faith come?
(Whence = from where, so “From” should be deleted and “whence” should be capitalized)
7. Please spare me your arguments of why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
(“of” should be “on”)
8. She didn’t seem to ever stop talking. (“She seemed to never stop talking.”)
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more and more aggravating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after Christ’s resurrection.
I will request a refund from the university for my English classes regarding answers 5, 9 and 10.
shot in the dark:
1. We hardly see each other.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences, left wandering around without periods, and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu.
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
6. Whence had his new faith come?
7. Please spare me your arguments that all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She never seemed stop talking.
9. As the relationship progressed I found her facial tic more aggravating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites; which allegedly took place after his resurrection.
1. He and I hardly see one another. (“one another” should be “each other”)
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s. (“and the ambiguity” should be “and at the ambiguity)
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu yet. (“if” should be “whether”)
4. I only spent six weeks in Napa. (“six weeks” should be “six weeks’ time)
5. In my own mind, I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
6. From whence had his new faith come?
(Whence = from where, so “From” should be deleted and “whence” should be capitalized)
7. Please spare me your arguments of why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
(“of” should be “on”)
8. She didn’t seem to ever stop talking. (“She seemed to never stop talking.”)
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more and more aggravating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after Christ’s resurrection.
I will request a refund from the university for my English classes regarding answers 5, 9 and 10.
two guesses as to what professor wallace would have said if i had told him, “Hey, DFW, I’m no DFW, so why should I have to care about these piddling concerns?”
okay I’ll tell you. he would have thrown me out of his classroom and failed me, for three good reasons. a of all, because he would not have appreciated being called “DFW” which is a shortening of his pen name, not the name he went by. he was dave, professor dave, mr. wallace, dave wallace, whatev, but not DFW, to students. b of all he would have been furious that i thought all this stuff just came easily to him; he taught us that writing is hard work for everyone. c of all (this is why he would throw me out and fail me) because he taught us that every writer should respect their reader by making taking care with each and every word of ours that we’d have them read. we’re asking readers to pay attention to the nuances of our language–so, god help us, WE certainly should be paying twenty times as much attention before we make that audacious request. also, in general, he recoiled at students bringing up anything that reeked of his fame, mythology, and so on–he just wanted to be the best teacher he could be.
two guesses as to what professor wallace would have said if i had told him, “Hey, DFW, I’m no DFW, so why should I have to care about these piddling concerns?”
okay I’ll tell you. he would have thrown me out of his classroom and failed me, for three good reasons. a of all, because he would not have appreciated being called “DFW” which is a shortening of his pen name, not the name he went by. he was dave, professor dave, mr. wallace, dave wallace, whatev, but not DFW, to students. b of all he would have been furious that i thought all this stuff just came easily to him; he taught us that writing is hard work for everyone. c of all (this is why he would throw me out and fail me) because he taught us that every writer should respect their reader by making taking care with each and every word of ours that we’d have them read. we’re asking readers to pay attention to the nuances of our language–so, god help us, WE certainly should be paying twenty times as much attention before we make that audacious request. also, in general, he recoiled at students bringing up anything that reeked of his fame, mythology, and so on–he just wanted to be the best teacher he could be.
1. He and I rarely see each other. [usage problems]
2. The naked vulnerability of his sentences–left wandering around without periods and with ambiguously uncrossed “t”s–made me cringe. [conditional is odd; need to clarify sentence description]
3. My brother called to find out if I had gotten over the flu. [wrong tense; “yet” not needed]
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa. [misplaced adv.]
5. I can understand why its implications may seem somewhat threatening. [first clause is superfluous; “implication” is not tangible/concrete, so “to be” feels off]
6. From whence did his new faith come? [usage of “whence” is technically correct, if old-fashioned; but asking “where” it came from seems odd, since faith doesn’t come from a specific location but from an individual’s mindset. recommend “Why has he embraced this new faith?”]
7. Please spare me your arguments about why all religions are unfounded and contrived. [misused prep.]
8. She didn’t ever seem to stop talking. [misplaced adv.]
9. As my relationship with her progressed, I became more and more aggravated by her facial tic. [since the relationship is between the speaker and the woman who suffers from the tic, not between the speaker and the tic; also fixing slightly misplaced mod. for clarity]
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after Christ’s resurrection. [no change, but could recast second “Christ’s” to “the Son of God’s” or “the Savior’s” to avoid repeat; appropriateness depends on context.]
1. He and I rarely see each other. [usage problems]
2. The naked vulnerability of his sentences–left wandering around without periods and with ambiguously uncrossed “t”s–made me cringe. [conditional is odd; need to clarify sentence description]
3. My brother called to find out if I had gotten over the flu. [wrong tense; “yet” not needed]
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa. [misplaced adv.]
5. I can understand why its implications may seem somewhat threatening. [first clause is superfluous; “implication” is not tangible/concrete, so “to be” feels off]
6. From whence did his new faith come? [usage of “whence” is technically correct, if old-fashioned; but asking “where” it came from seems odd, since faith doesn’t come from a specific location but from an individual’s mindset. recommend “Why has he embraced this new faith?”]
7. Please spare me your arguments about why all religions are unfounded and contrived. [misused prep.]
8. She didn’t ever seem to stop talking. [misplaced adv.]
9. As my relationship with her progressed, I became more and more aggravated by her facial tic. [since the relationship is between the speaker and the woman who suffers from the tic, not between the speaker and the tic; also fixing slightly misplaced mod. for clarity]
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after Christ’s resurrection. [no change, but could recast second “Christ’s” to “the Son of God’s” or “the Savior’s” to avoid repeat; appropriateness depends on context.]
1. Should be “We hardly see each other.” “He and I” is wordy.
2. “I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences, left wandering around without periods, and at the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
3. My brother called to find out if I was yet over the flu. (adverb, theoretically, should be as close as possible to the verb it modifies.
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa. (Only should be modifying “six” not “spent”)
5. I can understand why its implications may be threatening. (“In my own mind,” is redundant)
6. Whence had this new faith come?
7. Please spare me your argumens that all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She seemed to never stop talking.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more and more irritating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after His resurrection.
1. Should be “We hardly see each other.” “He and I” is wordy.
2. “I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences, left wandering around without periods, and at the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
3. My brother called to find out if I was yet over the flu. (adverb, theoretically, should be as close as possible to the verb it modifies.
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa. (Only should be modifying “six” not “spent”)
5. I can understand why its implications may be threatening. (“In my own mind,” is redundant)
6. Whence had this new faith come?
7. Please spare me your argumens that all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She seemed to never stop talking.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more and more irritating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after His resurrection.
RE: “He and I hardly see one another.” Unless the two subjects are going blind, the correction would be to replace “hardly” with a word such as “rarely.” Only traditionalists care about the difference between using “one another” or “each other” to refer to two individuals. Was DFW a traditionalist? From this quiz item alone I deduce not. For even if one were to replace “one another” with “each other,” the colloquial use of “hardly” would remain.
RE: “He and I hardly see one another.” Unless the two subjects are going blind, the correction would be to replace “hardly” with a word such as “rarely.” Only traditionalists care about the difference between using “one another” or “each other” to refer to two individuals. Was DFW a traditionalist? From this quiz item alone I deduce not. For even if one were to replace “one another” with “each other,” the colloquial use of “hardly” would remain.
I’m having trouble seeing where you’re going with this. You’re saying that his one fix is traditionalist, while his lack of another fix isn’t…you’re on thin ice, Edit, impugning David Foster Wallace’s sense of tonal consistency. “Hardly” does not just mean “in a hard manner.” But why should its other definition apply only to the use of “see” to mean physical eyesight, rather than to mean encounter? Since when does that usage of “hardly” only apply to the senses? But I will say again–the quiz makes clear that there is one MAJOR convention error in each sentence, all of which come from student papers–certainly, some of them could be otherwise edited according to taste. but “one another” is the only usage that breaks convention, as far as i can see
I’m having trouble seeing where you’re going with this. You’re saying that his one fix is traditionalist, while his lack of another fix isn’t…you’re on thin ice, Edit, impugning David Foster Wallace’s sense of tonal consistency. “Hardly” does not just mean “in a hard manner.” But why should its other definition apply only to the use of “see” to mean physical eyesight, rather than to mean encounter? Since when does that usage of “hardly” only apply to the senses? But I will say again–the quiz makes clear that there is one MAJOR convention error in each sentence, all of which come from student papers–certainly, some of them could be otherwise edited according to taste. but “one another” is the only usage that breaks convention, as far as i can see
Take your suggested variation: “He and I hardly encounter one another.” Perhaps it will clarify the ambiguity raised by the colloquial usage of “hardly” in the original example. What, are the two subjects playing rugby? Or driving bumper cars? DFW was trying to teach his students that spoken English does not always follow the rules of S.W.E. (Look up “hardly” in any dictionary. It does not include the definition we would infer from spoken English, that “hardly” means “rarely.”) As a teacher of S.W.E., his view is anti-phonocentric, but not traditionalist. If he were, I imagine the example would have been, “He and I rarely see one another.”
Take your suggested variation: “He and I hardly encounter one another.” Perhaps it will clarify the ambiguity raised by the colloquial usage of “hardly” in the original example. What, are the two subjects playing rugby? Or driving bumper cars? DFW was trying to teach his students that spoken English does not always follow the rules of S.W.E. (Look up “hardly” in any dictionary. It does not include the definition we would infer from spoken English, that “hardly” means “rarely.”) As a teacher of S.W.E., his view is anti-phonocentric, but not traditionalist. If he were, I imagine the example would have been, “He and I rarely see one another.”
1. one another = each other
2. “t”s = t’s
3. yet = already
4. only spent = spent only
5. Delete the comma
6. Delete: From
7. Delete: of
8. didn’t seem to ever = never seemed to
9. more and more = increasingly
10. Christ’s resurrection = his resurrection
1. one another = each other
2. “t”s = t’s
3. yet = already
4. only spent = spent only
5. Delete the comma
6. Delete: From
7. Delete: of
8. didn’t seem to ever = never seemed to
9. more and more = increasingly
10. Christ’s resurrection = his resurrection
Hi Ryan,
Ok, I’m sorry, I didn’t understand you were withdrawing your assertion that “the only needs to modify the length of time.”
So now I take it that you’re saying I was right to point out that either version is correct and well formed. You disagree that they mean the same thing, but you’re saying the difference you have found isn’t clearly at odds with the speaker’s intention and in fact “I only spent six weeks in Napa” may be the preferred construction, depending on the context.
That this version is not incorrect was my main point, and I’m glad we now agree on that. In support of that I asserted that not only (1) are both versions well formed, but (2) it couldn’t be argued that one or the other was at odds with the speaker’s intended meaning because they meant the same thing. You now say you agree with (1), and while you don’t accept (2) you do think that either expression may be appropriate to the speaker’s intention depending on the context. So you have dropped your original (December 2nd, 2009 / 1:05 am) argument that “I only spent six weeks in Napa” could not have reflected the speaker’s intention and embraced my suggestion that the objections to this expression are ridiculous.
Hi Ryan,
Ok, I’m sorry, I didn’t understand you were withdrawing your assertion that “the only needs to modify the length of time.”
So now I take it that you’re saying I was right to point out that either version is correct and well formed. You disagree that they mean the same thing, but you’re saying the difference you have found isn’t clearly at odds with the speaker’s intention and in fact “I only spent six weeks in Napa” may be the preferred construction, depending on the context.
That this version is not incorrect was my main point, and I’m glad we now agree on that. In support of that I asserted that not only (1) are both versions well formed, but (2) it couldn’t be argued that one or the other was at odds with the speaker’s intended meaning because they meant the same thing. You now say you agree with (1), and while you don’t accept (2) you do think that either expression may be appropriate to the speaker’s intention depending on the context. So you have dropped your original (December 2nd, 2009 / 1:05 am) argument that “I only spent six weeks in Napa” could not have reflected the speaker’s intention and embraced my suggestion that the objections to this expression are ridiculous.
[…] just keeps on giving. One of his former students has posted a ten-question worksheet he wrote titled: IF NO ONE HAS YET TAUGHT YOU HOW TO AVOID OR REPAIR CLAUSES LIKE THE FOLLOWING, […]
I see what you are saying about ambiguity, Edit, but remember that this sentence was in a context, in an essay. Whatever came before that probably resolved any possible ambiguity about the usage of “see”, which is why Professor Wallace did not harp on the “hardly.” But yes, as an isolated sentence, “rarely” is less ambiguous. But I still don’t know what you are trying to prove, re: Wallace–you seem at once to be accusing him of inconsistency and to be defending him with your own kind of presumed special knowledge of what he intended as a teacher. I didn’t just find this quiz and come up with my own answers–I took notes during his class and wrote down what he said about the sentences, so your odd cut of beef is not with me.
I see what you are saying about ambiguity, Edit, but remember that this sentence was in a context, in an essay. Whatever came before that probably resolved any possible ambiguity about the usage of “see”, which is why Professor Wallace did not harp on the “hardly.” But yes, as an isolated sentence, “rarely” is less ambiguous. But I still don’t know what you are trying to prove, re: Wallace–you seem at once to be accusing him of inconsistency and to be defending him with your own kind of presumed special knowledge of what he intended as a teacher. I didn’t just find this quiz and come up with my own answers–I took notes during his class and wrote down what he said about the sentences, so your odd cut of beef is not with me.
If you’re looking for grammar mistakes in English that native speakers deem acceptable then you don’t know your grammar (excepting punctuation and spelling which being written are bound to convention), and/or are stuck in the 1950s.
Grammar is a living, breathing, changing entity and the rules are constantly changing as language changes. If you thing something should be ‘his or her bag’ rather than ‘their bag’ then you are simply defending an older way of communicating that is in the midst of change. Who decides that you are right? Some famous author rather than say, Noam Chomsky, who actually developed modern linguistics?
Some may disagree with this sentiment. If so, I challenge you to your credentials: explain the difference between ‘a’ and ‘the’. It should be easy for you given the average 4 year old can display the difference in a split second.
If you’re looking for grammar mistakes in English that native speakers deem acceptable then you don’t know your grammar (excepting punctuation and spelling which being written are bound to convention), and/or are stuck in the 1950s.
Grammar is a living, breathing, changing entity and the rules are constantly changing as language changes. If you thing something should be ‘his or her bag’ rather than ‘their bag’ then you are simply defending an older way of communicating that is in the midst of change. Who decides that you are right? Some famous author rather than say, Noam Chomsky, who actually developed modern linguistics?
Some may disagree with this sentiment. If so, I challenge you to your credentials: explain the difference between ‘a’ and ‘the’. It should be easy for you given the average 4 year old can display the difference in a split second.
Amy —
I see your point. If his intention was to make up for the lack of a fuddy-duddy, school marmish, “traditionalist” English teacher in his students’ lives, then the correct answer would be “He and I hardly see each other.”
Amy —
I see your point. If his intention was to make up for the lack of a fuddy-duddy, school marmish, “traditionalist” English teacher in his students’ lives, then the correct answer would be “He and I hardly see each other.”
Give me 17th century grammar and orthography any day. S.W.E. is a pedant’s playground. Looking past the singular “they” (may it reign supreme), can I get a round of applause for the passive voice–in which the lion’s share of life transpires?
Give me 17th century grammar and orthography any day. S.W.E. is a pedant’s playground. Looking past the singular “they” (may it reign supreme), can I get a round of applause for the passive voice–in which the lion’s share of life transpires?
(2) I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
(2a) I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and at the naked ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
Why is the parallelism in (2a) OK (conjoining PPs) but the parallelism in (2) is not (conjoining DPs)? It seems to me that (2) is the same as (3) below, while (2a) is the same as (3a) below.
(3) I laughed at John and Mary.
(3a) I laughed at John and at Mary.
Of course, there is a semantic difference, because when the DPs are conjoined, the conjoined DPs are the collective theme of a single event of laughing. When the PPs are conjoined, the DPs are separate themes, and there may be two distinct events, or there may be a single event.
Therefore, there is no way to say that (2a) is better than (2), the only thing that can be said is that there is a difference in meaning between the two sentences.
(2) I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
(2a) I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and at the naked ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
Why is the parallelism in (2a) OK (conjoining PPs) but the parallelism in (2) is not (conjoining DPs)? It seems to me that (2) is the same as (3) below, while (2a) is the same as (3a) below.
(3) I laughed at John and Mary.
(3a) I laughed at John and at Mary.
Of course, there is a semantic difference, because when the DPs are conjoined, the conjoined DPs are the collective theme of a single event of laughing. When the PPs are conjoined, the DPs are separate themes, and there may be two distinct events, or there may be a single event.
Therefore, there is no way to say that (2a) is better than (2), the only thing that can be said is that there is a difference in meaning between the two sentences.
Wrong again. His intention was to teach us certain conventions so that (a) we could avoid offending/distracting traditionalist readers, who deserve respect, too, and (b) we could be in control of how narrators/characters speak depending on THEIR educational background and social milieu, in order to be, as I keep stressing, consistent–not hyper-correct, if the situation doesn’t call for that, just consistent.
Wrong again. His intention was to teach us certain conventions so that (a) we could avoid offending/distracting traditionalist readers, who deserve respect, too, and (b) we could be in control of how narrators/characters speak depending on THEIR educational background and social milieu, in order to be, as I keep stressing, consistent–not hyper-correct, if the situation doesn’t call for that, just consistent.
Juice, you are right that 3 and 3a are both right. The point here is that the “at” structure is clouded by the intervening prepositions “of” “around” and “without”…the object “ambiguity” could be the object of those preps rather than the original “at.”
what are PPs and DPs?
Juice, you are right that 3 and 3a are both right. The point here is that the “at” structure is clouded by the intervening prepositions “of” “around” and “without”…the object “ambiguity” could be the object of those preps rather than the original “at.”
what are PPs and DPs?
1. We seldom see each other.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences wandering around without periods and the ambiguity of his uncrossed ts.
3. My brother called to find if I was over the flu yet.
4. I spent six weeks only in Napa.
5. In my mind, I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
6. From whence came his new faith?
7. Please spare me your arguments on why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She never stopped talking.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more and more aggravating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites that allegedly took place soon after Christ’s resurrection.
1. We seldom see each other.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences wandering around without periods and the ambiguity of his uncrossed ts.
3. My brother called to find if I was over the flu yet.
4. I spent six weeks only in Napa.
5. In my mind, I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
6. From whence came his new faith?
7. Please spare me your arguments on why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She never stopped talking.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more and more aggravating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites that allegedly took place soon after Christ’s resurrection.
Amy — I didn’t realize that David Foster Wallace wasn’t the name your teacher went by, but only was his pen name. As I didn’t study with Mr. Wallace and don’t know of his likes and dislikes, I thought it would be acceptable to use his initials (or is it “pen initials”?) to identify him in a blog post. Please accept posthumously on his behalf my apologies. I meant no disrespect to Mr. Wallace. Of course, more important is Stephen Fry’s point, which is that writers truly “respect their reader” when they try to write something worth reading, rather than lavishing attention on avoiding the errors that are the subject of the Wallace worksheet. It’s a matter of priorities. If you’ve otherwise perfected your writing, then by all means, focus on using “whether” instead of “if” when asking whether (or if) someone’s gotten over the flu. But in a fallen and imperfect world where resources — time, education, brain power, or what have you — are limited, it’s bad stewardship to obsess over SWE (oops, I hope that’s an approved abbreviation), instead of whether (or if) your writing provides more sizzle, flavor, and nourishment than Wonder Bread.
Amy — I didn’t realize that David Foster Wallace wasn’t the name your teacher went by, but only was his pen name. As I didn’t study with Mr. Wallace and don’t know of his likes and dislikes, I thought it would be acceptable to use his initials (or is it “pen initials”?) to identify him in a blog post. Please accept posthumously on his behalf my apologies. I meant no disrespect to Mr. Wallace. Of course, more important is Stephen Fry’s point, which is that writers truly “respect their reader” when they try to write something worth reading, rather than lavishing attention on avoiding the errors that are the subject of the Wallace worksheet. It’s a matter of priorities. If you’ve otherwise perfected your writing, then by all means, focus on using “whether” instead of “if” when asking whether (or if) someone’s gotten over the flu. But in a fallen and imperfect world where resources — time, education, brain power, or what have you — are limited, it’s bad stewardship to obsess over SWE (oops, I hope that’s an approved abbreviation), instead of whether (or if) your writing provides more sizzle, flavor, and nourishment than Wonder Bread.
I’ve always written ‘flu (with the apostrophe). Is that a Briticism (I’m British)?
I’ve always written ‘flu (with the apostrophe). Is that a Briticism (I’m British)?
Amy,
I think the small controversy–earlier in the thread–about your grammar in introducing the quiz as well as your appropriate response, say a lot about the utility of S.W.E. Without making any of the rather well-worn points about the web and language, I’d say the S.W.E. is an artifact of an essentially closed historical moment in which very little written language was meant to be taken as spoken language. Whereas I’d say that the majority of language generated at keyboard on any given day is generated as “spoken” language. Or to use your word, the “context” of most language in print is spoken language. Written English and its companionable conventions are mostly preserved in cover letters and term papers.
Amy,
I think the small controversy–earlier in the thread–about your grammar in introducing the quiz as well as your appropriate response, say a lot about the utility of S.W.E. Without making any of the rather well-worn points about the web and language, I’d say the S.W.E. is an artifact of an essentially closed historical moment in which very little written language was meant to be taken as spoken language. Whereas I’d say that the majority of language generated at keyboard on any given day is generated as “spoken” language. Or to use your word, the “context” of most language in print is spoken language. Written English and its companionable conventions are mostly preserved in cover letters and term papers.
1. He and I hardly see one another.
* We rarely see one another.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
* I would cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering without periods and the ambiguity of his uncrossed ‘t’s. (“Wandering without periods” doesn’t need “around”. It also disrupts the parallel structure of the sentence, but I couldn’t think of a way to fix that.)
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu yet.
* My brother called. He wanted to know if I had recovered from the flu.
4. I only spent six weeks in Napa.
* I spent just six weeks in Napa.
5. In my own mind, I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
* I can understand why its implications may be threatening. (You don’t need to say “In my own mind” — it can be assumed that comprehension takes place in the author’s own mind. Also, don’t temper adjectives with “somewhat”. Find a word that means “somewhat threatening” and use it.)
6. From whence had his new faith come?
* Whence had he new faith? (“Whence” already means “from what source” so the “from” is redundant. My revision might sound clunky, but that’s because “whence” is a stupid word that I would never seriously use.)
7. Please spare me your arguments of why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
Please spare me your arguments as to why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She didn’t seem to ever stop talking.
She never stopped talking. (The reader will recognize this as hyperbole.)
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more and more aggravating.
I found her facial tic increasingly aggravating as the relationship progressed.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after Christ’s resurrection.
* The Book of Mormon recounts Christ’s ministry to the Nephites that allegedly followed His resurrection.
1. He and I hardly see one another.
* We rarely see one another.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
* I would cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering without periods and the ambiguity of his uncrossed ‘t’s. (“Wandering without periods” doesn’t need “around”. It also disrupts the parallel structure of the sentence, but I couldn’t think of a way to fix that.)
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu yet.
* My brother called. He wanted to know if I had recovered from the flu.
4. I only spent six weeks in Napa.
* I spent just six weeks in Napa.
5. In my own mind, I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
* I can understand why its implications may be threatening. (You don’t need to say “In my own mind” — it can be assumed that comprehension takes place in the author’s own mind. Also, don’t temper adjectives with “somewhat”. Find a word that means “somewhat threatening” and use it.)
6. From whence had his new faith come?
* Whence had he new faith? (“Whence” already means “from what source” so the “from” is redundant. My revision might sound clunky, but that’s because “whence” is a stupid word that I would never seriously use.)
7. Please spare me your arguments of why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
Please spare me your arguments as to why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She didn’t seem to ever stop talking.
She never stopped talking. (The reader will recognize this as hyperbole.)
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more and more aggravating.
I found her facial tic increasingly aggravating as the relationship progressed.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after Christ’s resurrection.
* The Book of Mormon recounts Christ’s ministry to the Nephites that allegedly followed His resurrection.
Topham,
I appreciate your reply. I guess I would just say that I’m glad Professor Wallace encouraged me to set higher standards for myself than Stephen Fry might, in that he wanted us to perfect our writing in every way possible. Honestly, this stuff doesn’t take that long to learn. Nobody needs to have it memorized, anyway; all you need is an up-to-date usage manual. I do agree that many pedants miss the point by enforcing rules rather than teaching a respect for convention for the reader’s sake and for consistency’s sake. But you and Stephen Fry are really not likely to deter me from the path that my teacher put me on; he took his job very seriously and took much time to convince us to take care with language in its every detail, even once returning my call at 11pm to discuss the tiniest of grammar points so that I wouldn’t have a single error in the essay I turned in the next day, so that we could then focus on the big stuff–the sizzle, flavor, and nourishment that I hoped so dearly to achieve.
Topham,
I appreciate your reply. I guess I would just say that I’m glad Professor Wallace encouraged me to set higher standards for myself than Stephen Fry might, in that he wanted us to perfect our writing in every way possible. Honestly, this stuff doesn’t take that long to learn. Nobody needs to have it memorized, anyway; all you need is an up-to-date usage manual. I do agree that many pedants miss the point by enforcing rules rather than teaching a respect for convention for the reader’s sake and for consistency’s sake. But you and Stephen Fry are really not likely to deter me from the path that my teacher put me on; he took his job very seriously and took much time to convince us to take care with language in its every detail, even once returning my call at 11pm to discuss the tiniest of grammar points so that I wouldn’t have a single error in the essay I turned in the next day, so that we could then focus on the big stuff–the sizzle, flavor, and nourishment that I hoped so dearly to achieve.
Okay, okay, I’ve done my homework. Hardly is used correctly, if ambiguously, used in the sentence, per Webster’s. Chicago (5.202) says, “Traditionalists use each other when two things or people are involved, one another when more than two are involved.” Call me an anti-traditionalist.
Okay, okay, I’ve done my homework. Hardly is used correctly, if ambiguously, used in the sentence, per Webster’s. Chicago (5.202) says, “Traditionalists use each other when two things or people are involved, one another when more than two are involved.” Call me an anti-traditionalist.
Gazzer, you would be so right if this were about anything besides standard written english. this worksheet was in a writing workshop, not a linguistics class. i didn’t take his word for it because he was famous author; I believe him because he made a compelling case, over the course of two semesters and in the essay I link to in the answers post, for knowing the CURRENT conventions of standard written english so we might apply them consistently and appropriately. The quiz is not intended to say there is only one way to write or even speak, it was intended to test our knowledge of, again, CURRENT standards of acceptable usage so we could be deliberate in the extent to which we applied those rules.
Gazzer, you would be so right if this were about anything besides standard written english. this worksheet was in a writing workshop, not a linguistics class. i didn’t take his word for it because he was famous author; I believe him because he made a compelling case, over the course of two semesters and in the essay I link to in the answers post, for knowing the CURRENT conventions of standard written english so we might apply them consistently and appropriately. The quiz is not intended to say there is only one way to write or even speak, it was intended to test our knowledge of, again, CURRENT standards of acceptable usage so we could be deliberate in the extent to which we applied those rules.
i meant speak or even write
i meant speak or even write
She didn’t seem to stop talking. Ever!
She didn’t seem to stop talking. Ever!
1. He and I could hardly see one another.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences, left wandering around without periods and the ambiguity of his uncrossed t’s.
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu.
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. In my own mind I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
6. Whence had this new faith come?
7. Please spare me your arguments on why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She seemed to never stop talking.???
9. As our relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more and more aggravating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which, allegedly, took place soon after his resurrection.
1. He and I could hardly see one another.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences, left wandering around without periods and the ambiguity of his uncrossed t’s.
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu.
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. In my own mind I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
6. Whence had this new faith come?
7. Please spare me your arguments on why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She seemed to never stop talking.???
9. As our relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more and more aggravating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which, allegedly, took place soon after his resurrection.
Isn’t #10 a that / which problem? If there was another Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, the last phrase should be start with “that” not “which.”
Isn’t #10 a that / which problem? If there was another Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, the last phrase should be start with “that” not “which.”
I like that you got rid of “over” in sentence three but why split it into two sentences? It seemed to add unnecessary words.
I like that you got rid of “over” in sentence three but why split it into two sentences? It seemed to add unnecessary words.
His two sentence version has more words though?
His two sentence version has more words though?
scratch that comment.
scratch that comment.
1. He and I rarely see one another.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods, and made ambiguous by his uncrossed “t”s.
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu.
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. I understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
6. Whence had his new faith come?
7. Please spare me your arguments as to why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She didn’t seem ever to stop talking. [She seemed to talk forever.]
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more aggravating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry, soon after His resurrection, to the Nephites.
1. He and I rarely see one another.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods, and made ambiguous by his uncrossed “t”s.
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu.
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. I understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
6. Whence had his new faith come?
7. Please spare me your arguments as to why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She didn’t seem ever to stop talking. [She seemed to talk forever.]
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more aggravating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry, soon after His resurrection, to the Nephites.
9. As my relationship with her progressed, I found her facial tic increasingly annoying.
Aggravate means to increase in degree.
9. As my relationship with her progressed, I found her facial tic increasingly annoying.
Aggravate means to increase in degree.
[…] thanks so much to all of you who read/took/RT’d/linked to/commented on the Dave Wallace grammar challenge. I wanted to pay a small, quiet tribute to someone who did a great lot for me, and I am floored by […]
3 should be: “My brother called to find out whether I was over the flu.” Otherwise it suggests that my brother only made the call if I had the flu. “Whether or not” is redundant.
9 should have no comma.
3 should be: “My brother called to find out whether I was over the flu.” Otherwise it suggests that my brother only made the call if I had the flu. “Whether or not” is redundant.
9 should have no comma.
In the ninth sentence, “aggravating” is the wrong word; as several people have pointed out, it means “increasing in degree.” Some people have suggested substituting “irritating,” and Angela has suggested “annoying.” Either of those would be a good choice.
For some reason, “aggravate” has increasingly been used as a synonym for “irritate,” and perhaps the dictionaries of the future will indicate that that is indeed its meaning. But there are still enough of us old timers and fuss budgets around so that the old meaning still is regarded as the basic one, and we become increasingly irritated–NOT aggravated– as we see this misuse in the writing of supposedly educated writers.
I should have read the rest of the thread more carefully. My Collins dictionary defines ‘aggravate’ as “to make (a disease, situation, problem, etc.) worse or more severe.” So if the previous sentence made it clear that the tic caused a problem, then ‘aggravate’ would seem to be OK (to me). Otherwise not.
I should have read the rest of the thread more carefully. My Collins dictionary defines ‘aggravate’ as “to make (a disease, situation, problem, etc.) worse or more severe.” So if the previous sentence made it clear that the tic caused a problem, then ‘aggravate’ would seem to be OK (to me). Otherwise not.
Hey all, “aggravate” isn’t the ideal word in #9, but it’s not wrong. Definitions of the verb from two widely used dictionaries, with my comments in brackets:
Merriam-Webster’s
3a : to rouse to displeasure or anger by usually persistent and often petty goading. [Obviously she doesn’t mean to goad the speaker with her tic, but that’s the effect.]
American Heritage
2. to annoy; irritate; exasperate
Hey all, “aggravate” isn’t the ideal word in #9, but it’s not wrong. Definitions of the verb from two widely used dictionaries, with my comments in brackets:
Merriam-Webster’s
3a : to rouse to displeasure or anger by usually persistent and often petty goading. [Obviously she doesn’t mean to goad the speaker with her tic, but that’s the effect.]
American Heritage
2. to annoy; irritate; exasperate
[…] from a college course worksheet written and taught by the late David Foster Wallace. Test yourself without the answers or just read through the questions and answers […]
172 nerds. oops. 173.
172 nerds. oops. 173.
Here’s another take on the Grammar Challenge. I was trained in writing by a poet.
Strikeouts are shown in brackets.
IF NO ONE HAS YET TAUGHT YOU [HOW] TO AVOID OR REPAIR CLAUSES LIKE THE FOLLOWING, YOU SHOULD, IN MY OPINION, THINK SERIOUSLY ABOUT SUING SOMEBODY, PERHAPS AS CO-PLAINTIFF WITH WHOEVER[‘S] PAID YOUR TUITION
1. He and I hardly ever see each other [one another].
This reads more comfortably. “You write and telephone each other. Do you never see each other?” “Well, hardly ever.” Probably colloquial usage.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences (left wandering around without periods) and at the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu yet.
What’s wrong with that? He knew I had the flu. “yet,” is irritating.
4. I only spent six weeks in Napa.
…argued ad nauseum.
5. [In my own mind,] I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
6. [From w] Whence came [had] his new faith [come]?
7. Please spare me your arguments, that [of why] all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She didn’t ever seem to [ever] stop talking.
She must, sometime, have stopped talking, just to draw a breath.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic [even more and] more aggravating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after His Christ’s resurrection.
The Book of Mormon alleges nothing.
Here’s another take on the Grammar Challenge. I was trained in writing by a poet.
Strikeouts are shown in brackets.
IF NO ONE HAS YET TAUGHT YOU [HOW] TO AVOID OR REPAIR CLAUSES LIKE THE FOLLOWING, YOU SHOULD, IN MY OPINION, THINK SERIOUSLY ABOUT SUING SOMEBODY, PERHAPS AS CO-PLAINTIFF WITH WHOEVER[‘S] PAID YOUR TUITION
1. He and I hardly ever see each other [one another].
This reads more comfortably. “You write and telephone each other. Do you never see each other?” “Well, hardly ever.” Probably colloquial usage.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences (left wandering around without periods) and at the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu yet.
What’s wrong with that? He knew I had the flu. “yet,” is irritating.
4. I only spent six weeks in Napa.
…argued ad nauseum.
5. [In my own mind,] I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
6. [From w] Whence came [had] his new faith [come]?
7. Please spare me your arguments, that [of why] all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She didn’t ever seem to [ever] stop talking.
She must, sometime, have stopped talking, just to draw a breath.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic [even more and] more aggravating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after His Christ’s resurrection.
The Book of Mormon alleges nothing.
I hit “Submit comment” before I was quite finished. In 10., my version is “The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which took place after His resurrection.” “allegedly” and “Christ’s” are deleted. The Book of Mormon is not in any doubt as to Christ’s ministry to the Nephites.
I hit “Submit comment” before I was quite finished. In 10., my version is “The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which took place after His resurrection.” “allegedly” and “Christ’s” are deleted. The Book of Mormon is not in any doubt as to Christ’s ministry to the Nephites.
1. Seems more or less fine. “each other” feels better to my ear, but Google shows pretty much split usage on “one another” vs. “each other” in this sort of sentence — “we see each other” gets 7.1 million hits. “We see one another” gets 7.5 million hits.
2. Not sure what you’d object to here. My guess is that you’re objecting to the conditional being used for the habitual past, which is a pretty damned common feature of English, so you should probably just chill out. But you could say “I used to” or something like that. Stylistically, this is what I call a “floppy” sentence — a long chain of prepositional phrases stacked up on each other. “Left wandering around without periods” is also a rather overdone metaphor, but I doubt this is the complaint.
3. This sentence is fine. I might prefer “if I had gotten over”, but I couldn’t call “I was over” an error.
4. Perfectly fine.
5. Well, without context, it’s unclear what “its” refers to — depending on the context, this might be an overly vague “its”. Stylistically “its implications” plus “may be” adds up to a pretty weak statement, but not ungrammatical.
6. “From whence” is redundant, but more to the point ,the whole sentence is pompous (trying to avoid ending with a preposition + using the archaic “whence”). How about just: “Where had his new faith come from?” If you wanted to go old school, you could say “Whence came his new faith?”
7. “arguments of” is odd usage.
8. Just fine. The split infinitive here is much better than the alternatives (ever to stop / to stop talking ever).
9. You’re probably objecting to this now-common colloquial use of “aggravating.” If so, you might want to start listening to the English spoken all around you :) But if I were writing academically, I would certainly avoid this (a condition can be aggravated, a person cannot be).
10. Just fine
1. Seems more or less fine. “each other” feels better to my ear, but Google shows pretty much split usage on “one another” vs. “each other” in this sort of sentence — “we see each other” gets 7.1 million hits. “We see one another” gets 7.5 million hits.
2. Not sure what you’d object to here. My guess is that you’re objecting to the conditional being used for the habitual past, which is a pretty damned common feature of English, so you should probably just chill out. But you could say “I used to” or something like that. Stylistically, this is what I call a “floppy” sentence — a long chain of prepositional phrases stacked up on each other. “Left wandering around without periods” is also a rather overdone metaphor, but I doubt this is the complaint.
3. This sentence is fine. I might prefer “if I had gotten over”, but I couldn’t call “I was over” an error.
4. Perfectly fine.
5. Well, without context, it’s unclear what “its” refers to — depending on the context, this might be an overly vague “its”. Stylistically “its implications” plus “may be” adds up to a pretty weak statement, but not ungrammatical.
6. “From whence” is redundant, but more to the point ,the whole sentence is pompous (trying to avoid ending with a preposition + using the archaic “whence”). How about just: “Where had his new faith come from?” If you wanted to go old school, you could say “Whence came his new faith?”
7. “arguments of” is odd usage.
8. Just fine. The split infinitive here is much better than the alternatives (ever to stop / to stop talking ever).
9. You’re probably objecting to this now-common colloquial use of “aggravating.” If so, you might want to start listening to the English spoken all around you :) But if I were writing academically, I would certainly avoid this (a condition can be aggravated, a person cannot be).
10. Just fine
[…] linked on Kottke, here’s a short grammar challenge from an old David Foster Wallace’s worksheet. Find the […]
[…] Follow this link: HTMLGIANT / Grammar Challenge! […]
What about, “She didn’t ever seem to stop talking.” Now the infinitive is not split, but the statement is less awkward. But does that change the meaning?
What about, “She didn’t ever seem to stop talking.” Now the infinitive is not split, but the statement is less awkward. But does that change the meaning?
Or again, move the “only” so the emphasis is no longer on “spent” but rather on “six.” Ex: I spent only six weeks in Napa.
Or again, move the “only” so the emphasis is no longer on “spent” but rather on “six.” Ex: I spent only six weeks in Napa.
Amy McDaniel—
what are PPs and DPs?
Seriously? Seriously?!?
By the way, you mention “not offending” more traditional readers. I find most of the “corrections” offered more offensive than the originals. What about offending anti-prescriptivists?
Amy McDaniel—
what are PPs and DPs?
Seriously? Seriously?!?
By the way, you mention “not offending” more traditional readers. I find most of the “corrections” offered more offensive than the originals. What about offending anti-prescriptivists?
How about, “I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods, and the ambiguity of his uncrossed ‘t’s’.”
How about, “I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods, and the ambiguity of his uncrossed ‘t’s’.”
[…] Class worksheet on grammar and usage from David Foster Wallace, given to students of a nonfiction workshop he taught. The discussion in the comments is worth your time, too. […]
1. He and I hardly see one another.
He and I rarely meet.
– “hardly” seems to indicate a vision problem as someone else pointed out
– “see each other” is wordy.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and at the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
– Faulty parallelism was fixed with an extra “at”.
– I’m not sure how to spell “t”s; I would do exactly this, influenced programming.
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu yet.
My brother called to find out whether I was over the flu.
– I’m amazed people are missing this. “If” is so very wrong.
– “Yet” is redundant.
4. I only spent six weeks in Napa.
Only I spent six weeks in Napa.
I spent only six weeks in Napa.
I spent six weeks in Napa only.
– ho hum; I have only eyes for you. Doesn’t everybody know this one?
5. In my own mind, I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
I can understand why this may appear threatening.
– This is a wretch of a sentence, which needs rewriting from top to bottom.
6. From whence had his new faith come?
Whence came his new faith?
– Most Americans should just not use “whence”.
7. Please spare me your arguments of why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
Please spare me your arguments that all religions are unfounded and contrived.
– duh
8. She didn’t seem to ever stop talking.
It seemed as if she never would stop talking.
– I had trouble with this one. The original is obviously wrong but I had trouble capturing the exact meaning, and how to formulate the subjunctive.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more and more aggravating.
As the relationship progressed, I found myself increasingly irritated by her facial tic.
– My confidence is low here. I suppose the usage of “aggravating” is wrong, and “more and more” a bit juvenile.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after Christ’s resurrection.
?
– This seems fine to me. Maybe lose the comma?
1. He and I hardly see one another.
He and I rarely meet.
– “hardly” seems to indicate a vision problem as someone else pointed out
– “see each other” is wordy.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and at the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
– Faulty parallelism was fixed with an extra “at”.
– I’m not sure how to spell “t”s; I would do exactly this, influenced programming.
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu yet.
My brother called to find out whether I was over the flu.
– I’m amazed people are missing this. “If” is so very wrong.
– “Yet” is redundant.
4. I only spent six weeks in Napa.
Only I spent six weeks in Napa.
I spent only six weeks in Napa.
I spent six weeks in Napa only.
– ho hum; I have only eyes for you. Doesn’t everybody know this one?
5. In my own mind, I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
I can understand why this may appear threatening.
– This is a wretch of a sentence, which needs rewriting from top to bottom.
6. From whence had his new faith come?
Whence came his new faith?
– Most Americans should just not use “whence”.
7. Please spare me your arguments of why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
Please spare me your arguments that all religions are unfounded and contrived.
– duh
8. She didn’t seem to ever stop talking.
It seemed as if she never would stop talking.
– I had trouble with this one. The original is obviously wrong but I had trouble capturing the exact meaning, and how to formulate the subjunctive.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more and more aggravating.
As the relationship progressed, I found myself increasingly irritated by her facial tic.
– My confidence is low here. I suppose the usage of “aggravating” is wrong, and “more and more” a bit juvenile.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after Christ’s resurrection.
?
– This seems fine to me. Maybe lose the comma?
DFW is reacting against using “aggravate” to mean “anger” instead of “worsen”, and against using “alleged” without the implication of wrong-doing.
DFW is reacting against using “aggravate” to mean “anger” instead of “worsen”, and against using “alleged” without the implication of wrong-doing.
[…] Take David Foster Wallace’s grammar challenge. Answers here. (via […]
“I have ever and will ever encounter” –yeah, that’s a promising opening to this post.
“I have ever and will ever encounter” –yeah, that’s a promising opening to this post.
I enjoyed these exercises; I was able to get perhaps half of them. But they made me think of the definition of SWE. Now, I’m not a native English speaker, and I haven’t done any linguistics. In fact, I’m a PhD student in Philosophy, in the UK (which might be of some importance). In philosophy articles (ie. written by professional philosophers, writing in academic journals), it seems to me that many of the rules laid down here are very frequently violated. Avoiding split infinitives, for instance, is not something which is regularly done. And using “whether” instead of “if” is not, I think, something which must be slavishly followed. “Whence” wouldn’t be used much; “from where” would be the expected form. And the recommended placement of “only” after the verb seems to be highly unnatural.
Sure, one can treat the rules of SWE as conventions. But when codified like this, such conventions risk assuming the position of being fixed and unchanging. I think the actual story is anything but. Perhaps the most important lesson to draw is that natural language is not a formal language. Consider the following example: “If the assumptions are correct, we can only draw one conclusion: the argument is valid.” If I understand you correctly, from what you’re telling me, the second clause should be changed to “we can draw only one conclusion”. Why? Because “only draw one conclusion” is ambiguous as to the alternatives to what concluding that the argument is valid are. Is it to go on a three-week holiday to California? Or go home from work early and catch the hockey scores? No, it’s to draw another conclusion. So it should be “draw only one”. (In fact, this also contains ambiguities. It’s not the number which is interesting. Further conclusions might be drawn, which aren’t interesting at the moment. The contrast is with saying that the argument isn’t valid, or that we can’t know whether the argument is valid or not, not with whether exactly one conclusion follows from the argument or several.)
Philosophy, in its Anglophone, analytical incarnation, is the discipline which has logic and correct argument as its very domain. Nonetheless, I’d bet that many philosophers use constructions like the example above, even though it could be criticised on formal grounds. The reason? Natural language isn’t a formal language. Context determines what logic requires. When certain background assumptions are common knowledge, ambiguity is greatly reduced, and thus the need for reducing ambiguity also is. If I am writing a philosophy article, and I start to speak about assumptions, you will know that I will in that context speak of conclusions, instead of trips to California. If you do not, you’re either (a) an alien, (b) a robot, or (c) someone who doesn’t know what assumptions are. Very often in the history of language cultivation, it seems like people have missed those points (not just in English, but in other languages as well) But that’s not the only point. The point is also that if my guesses are correct, what is taught as SWE may not be as standard, or at least not as much of the one and only standard, even in academic style, as many of you seem to uncritically assume.
I enjoyed these exercises; I was able to get perhaps half of them. But they made me think of the definition of SWE. Now, I’m not a native English speaker, and I haven’t done any linguistics. In fact, I’m a PhD student in Philosophy, in the UK (which might be of some importance). In philosophy articles (ie. written by professional philosophers, writing in academic journals), it seems to me that many of the rules laid down here are very frequently violated. Avoiding split infinitives, for instance, is not something which is regularly done. And using “whether” instead of “if” is not, I think, something which must be slavishly followed. “Whence” wouldn’t be used much; “from where” would be the expected form. And the recommended placement of “only” after the verb seems to be highly unnatural.
Sure, one can treat the rules of SWE as conventions. But when codified like this, such conventions risk assuming the position of being fixed and unchanging. I think the actual story is anything but. Perhaps the most important lesson to draw is that natural language is not a formal language. Consider the following example: “If the assumptions are correct, we can only draw one conclusion: the argument is valid.” If I understand you correctly, from what you’re telling me, the second clause should be changed to “we can draw only one conclusion”. Why? Because “only draw one conclusion” is ambiguous as to the alternatives to what concluding that the argument is valid are. Is it to go on a three-week holiday to California? Or go home from work early and catch the hockey scores? No, it’s to draw another conclusion. So it should be “draw only one”. (In fact, this also contains ambiguities. It’s not the number which is interesting. Further conclusions might be drawn, which aren’t interesting at the moment. The contrast is with saying that the argument isn’t valid, or that we can’t know whether the argument is valid or not, not with whether exactly one conclusion follows from the argument or several.)
Philosophy, in its Anglophone, analytical incarnation, is the discipline which has logic and correct argument as its very domain. Nonetheless, I’d bet that many philosophers use constructions like the example above, even though it could be criticised on formal grounds. The reason? Natural language isn’t a formal language. Context determines what logic requires. When certain background assumptions are common knowledge, ambiguity is greatly reduced, and thus the need for reducing ambiguity also is. If I am writing a philosophy article, and I start to speak about assumptions, you will know that I will in that context speak of conclusions, instead of trips to California. If you do not, you’re either (a) an alien, (b) a robot, or (c) someone who doesn’t know what assumptions are. Very often in the history of language cultivation, it seems like people have missed those points (not just in English, but in other languages as well) But that’s not the only point. The point is also that if my guesses are correct, what is taught as SWE may not be as standard, or at least not as much of the one and only standard, even in academic style, as many of you seem to uncritically assume.
I think most of them are obvious. So without looking at the linked answers, I offer the following:
1) “…each other.”
2) at least add “at the ambiguity…”
3) “whether” not “if”
4) “I spent only…” (But cf Wordsworth: “I only have relinquished one delight.”)
5) Skip “In my own mind” or change to “Speaking for myself….”
6) “Whence…” Delete “From”
7) “about why…”
8) Split infinitive (though there’s nothing wrong with that, in my opinion)
9) Change aggravating (=making worse) to “annoying” or “vexing.”
10) “Nephites” should not be the antecedent to “which.”
I think most of them are obvious. So without looking at the linked answers, I offer the following:
1) “…each other.”
2) at least add “at the ambiguity…”
3) “whether” not “if”
4) “I spent only…” (But cf Wordsworth: “I only have relinquished one delight.”)
5) Skip “In my own mind” or change to “Speaking for myself….”
6) “Whence…” Delete “From”
7) “about why…”
8) Split infinitive (though there’s nothing wrong with that, in my opinion)
9) Change aggravating (=making worse) to “annoying” or “vexing.”
10) “Nephites” should not be the antecedent to “which.”
My problem with # 10 is the ambiguity of “to the Nephites”. That is, does the book give an account of (Christ’s ministry to the Nephites), or does it give to the Nephites an account of Christ’s ministry. I think this is at least partly helped by making it “The Book of Mormon recounts Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which was…”, since I don’t generally think of recounting as something you do to someone.
My problem with # 10 is the ambiguity of “to the Nephites”. That is, does the book give an account of (Christ’s ministry to the Nephites), or does it give to the Nephites an account of Christ’s ministry. I think this is at least partly helped by making it “The Book of Mormon recounts Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which was…”, since I don’t generally think of recounting as something you do to someone.
This was a wonderful challenge, and I’m still not completely sure of my answers. But here they are — I did not read the comments above, so forgive me if some of my answers are duplicates (or if they are stupid!).
1. He and I hardly see one another. I’d substitute “hardly” with “rarely.”
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s. I would place a comma after sentences and after periods and add the word ‘which’ so the sentence now reads: I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences, which were left wandering around without periods, and the ambiguity of his uncrossed t’s. *I prefer the use of the apostrophe when making plurals of single letters, rather than using quotation marks and a following “s.”
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu yet. I’d use the subjunctive and delete “yet.” My brother called to find out if I were over the flu.
4. I only spent six weeks in Napa. My problem here is with the placement of the word “only.” I would move so the sentence reads: I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. In my own mind, I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening. In the introductory phrase, the use of “own” is redundant, and I assum that “its implications” does not refer to my mind, so I would rewrite the sentence as follows: In my mind, I can understand why these implications may be somewhat threatening.
6. From whence had his new faith come? Whence is one of those words that carry more meaning than one would initially suspect. It does need “from.” Whence came his new faith?
7. Please spare me your arguments of why all religions are unfounded and contrived. I had a bit of trouble understanding the intent of the writer of this sentence. Was it the arguments that are unfounded and contrived or the religions? I rewrote it this way: Please spare me your arguments on the unfounded and contrived nature of all religions.
8. She didn’t seem to ever stop talking. It’s not that she “didn’t seem,” but that she seemed … I rewrote it this way: She seemed to never stop talking. I don’t mind split infinitives; I think they can often add interest or weight to a sentence.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more and more aggravating. This one was a bit of a challenge. I want to move the introductory phrase to the end and personalize the “relationship” by the use of “our” instead of “the.” So: I found her facial tic more and more aggravating as our relationship progressed.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after Christ’s resurrection. I’d change the second clause to read: “said to have taken place soon after his resurrection.”
This was a wonderful challenge, and I’m still not completely sure of my answers. But here they are — I did not read the comments above, so forgive me if some of my answers are duplicates (or if they are stupid!).
1. He and I hardly see one another. I’d substitute “hardly” with “rarely.”
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s. I would place a comma after sentences and after periods and add the word ‘which’ so the sentence now reads: I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences, which were left wandering around without periods, and the ambiguity of his uncrossed t’s. *I prefer the use of the apostrophe when making plurals of single letters, rather than using quotation marks and a following “s.”
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu yet. I’d use the subjunctive and delete “yet.” My brother called to find out if I were over the flu.
4. I only spent six weeks in Napa. My problem here is with the placement of the word “only.” I would move so the sentence reads: I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. In my own mind, I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening. In the introductory phrase, the use of “own” is redundant, and I assum that “its implications” does not refer to my mind, so I would rewrite the sentence as follows: In my mind, I can understand why these implications may be somewhat threatening.
6. From whence had his new faith come? Whence is one of those words that carry more meaning than one would initially suspect. It does need “from.” Whence came his new faith?
7. Please spare me your arguments of why all religions are unfounded and contrived. I had a bit of trouble understanding the intent of the writer of this sentence. Was it the arguments that are unfounded and contrived or the religions? I rewrote it this way: Please spare me your arguments on the unfounded and contrived nature of all religions.
8. She didn’t seem to ever stop talking. It’s not that she “didn’t seem,” but that she seemed … I rewrote it this way: She seemed to never stop talking. I don’t mind split infinitives; I think they can often add interest or weight to a sentence.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more and more aggravating. This one was a bit of a challenge. I want to move the introductory phrase to the end and personalize the “relationship” by the use of “our” instead of “the.” So: I found her facial tic more and more aggravating as our relationship progressed.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after Christ’s resurrection. I’d change the second clause to read: “said to have taken place soon after his resurrection.”
4/10
I learned English as a Foreign Language and I never lived in an English-speaking country.
4/10
I learned English as a Foreign Language and I never lived in an English-speaking country.
[…] is a grammar challenge that David Foster Wallace once gave his […]
[…] Potts’s thoughts on a nonsensically abstruse grammar quiz by David Foster […]
[…] and so grammar is much on my mind – which explains my sheer delight when I ran across this grammar challenge, given by none other than David Foster Wallace to his students in a nonfiction writing […]
[…] staff (RIP Safire), but here’s a little of both: A former student of Wallace’s posted a brief Grammar Challenge on HTML Giant. If you think you know your stuff, try to get all 10; if you just want to skip to the answers, here […]
[…] one crucial error either in punctuation, grammar or usage each. Amy McDaniel posted this on the HTML Giant website. If you read the answers posted by people leaving comments, you might be even more confused than […]
[…] mit dickrandiger Brille kurz zu sehen: Jonathan Franzen. Vor ein paar Tagen wurde im Netz eine Wallace-Lesson aus seinen Pomona-Vorlesungen gepostet. Für Freunde des spitzfindigen Englisch. […]
What David Foster Wallace taught you was STATUS written English; that is, the way the most well-educated deem correct. This does not necessarily reflect how most people actually use the language. Many sentences here are quite perfectly fine, unless you are concerned with being excruciatingly correct by the standards of literary mavens. Language’s main function is to communicate effectively (“I know what you mean”) but is also used to establish status, dividing the “good speakers” (i.e., those who set the rules) from those who don’t pay so much attention to the rules, which is most of us. If your aim is to communicate effectively, remember who your audience is. Being a language snob doesn’t always pay.
FYI, I’m an editor at a major university and a former English teacher.
1. He and I barely see one another.
This is what most people would actually say. What they mean is, “He and I seldom or rarely see one another,” not that you can barely make one another out.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
You need commas setting off the phrase “left wandering around without periods.” It modifies ” sentences.” The speaker cringes at the “vulnerability” and the “ambiguity.”
3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu yet.
“…to find out if I was yet over the flu”? “…if I were yet over the flu’? Who in actuality would say it either of those ways?
4. I only spent six weeks in Napa.
Oh, yeah, yeah. Technically it’s “I spent only six weeks in Napa.” But again, that’s not how we actually talk.
5. In my own mind I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
Where else are you going to know this, except in your own mind? Leave off the phrase “In my own mind.”
6. From whence had his new faith come?
Who says “whence” anymore, except those trying to impress? Technically correct: “Whence had his new faith come?” How we really talk: “Where had his new faith come from?” And no, there’s not really anything wrong with a preposition at the end of a sentence. It’s “wrong’ because you can’t do it in Latin, the structure of which 19th century grammarians hoped to force on English.
7. Please spare me your arguments for why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
Delete “for.” Don’t need it.
8. She didn’t seem to ever stop talking.
Oh sure, purists still foment about “split infinities” and demand that you write, “She didn’t ever seem to stop talking.” But the sentence sounds better the way it is. Just like “To BOLDLY go where no man has gone before.” Again, the “no-split infinitive” rule is left over from using Latin as a model.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more and more aggravating.
I suppose you should only say, “I found her facial tic more aggravating.” But we sometimes repeat for emphasis.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after Christ’s resurrection.
As it reads, it sounds like the MINISTRY took place after Christ’s resurrection, when presumably he was in heaven. Is that correct? Is the author trying to say that the account was written soon after the ministry? In that case, the sentence might better read, “The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly was written soon after His resurrection.”
Or maybe I’ve just missed the error altogether.
Wallace went over all that in his Harper’s article. It really is worth ar ead.
Wallace went over all that in his Harper’s article. It really is worth ar ead.
Listen, coventryk, I appreciate your taking the time to look at the quiz, but really, who are you to tell me what my teacher taught me? this is one 8-minute quiz taken out of context for people’s amusement. you don’t know what i was taught over the course of a year, no matter where you edit or what you used to teach. again, I appreciate your response, but rest assured that in Wallace’s class I learned lessons well worth learning that I could hardly fully express here.
Listen, coventryk, I appreciate your taking the time to look at the quiz, but really, who are you to tell me what my teacher taught me? this is one 8-minute quiz taken out of context for people’s amusement. you don’t know what i was taught over the course of a year, no matter where you edit or what you used to teach. again, I appreciate your response, but rest assured that in Wallace’s class I learned lessons well worth learning that I could hardly fully express here.
Ms. McDaniel,
I am not dissing what you learned in David Foster Wallace’s course. He’s a hero of my son’s, as a matter of fact, as he is to many interested in serious literature, especially young people. I’m sure you learned plenty that will serve you well as both a writer and editor and probably personally too. From what I’ve read of him, he was a delightful person, a great teacher, an incomparable writer, and someone whose death left many stunned and grieving. You must feel very fortunate to have had him for a teacher.
My ONLY point is that sometimes we put too much emphasis on grammatical correctness, particularly when it is at odds with how people actually use language. If I seemed to denigrate what you learned, I apologize.
[…] closely as discussion has been brewing about David Foster Wallace acolyte Amy McDaniel’s posting of the text of a worksheet from Wallace’s class. Saturday, my brain moved more with Chris […]
Re: #4.
I never did see closure in the discussion of “spent only” vs. “only spent”.
For a demonstration of the fact that there is indeed a difference in actual meaning, read the sentence as the answer to the question, “What did you do on your vacation?”
“I only spent …” says that’s all I did, no more vacation than Napa, despite my original plans.
“I spent only …” leaves open what I did with the rest of my time, having planned for all eight weeks to have been in Napa.
I hope this helps,
August
Re: #4.
I never did see closure in the discussion of “spent only” vs. “only spent”.
For a demonstration of the fact that there is indeed a difference in actual meaning, read the sentence as the answer to the question, “What did you do on your vacation?”
“I only spent …” says that’s all I did, no more vacation than Napa, despite my original plans.
“I spent only …” leaves open what I did with the rest of my time, having planned for all eight weeks to have been in Napa.
I hope this helps,
August
What is all the argument about split infinitives about, really?
If you push grammarians, they have historically retreated to references to Latin grammar to support the idea that there is something wrong with splitting an infinitive. They do the same thing with prepositions that do not have objects or are at the ends of sentences. That is something up with which I will not put.
In Latin languages, infinitives are single words, they cannot be split, so Latin grammar cannot apply. We have to look to the Germanic languages and their verbs with separable prefixes to find the source of English’s splittable infinitives and objectless prepositions ending sentences.
Where classic grammarians get confused is that, in stark, culture-clash, they-don’t-talk-like-us, contrast to Latin, Germanic languages have multi-word verbs. Like the fact that in English, any noun can be verbed, English verbs can include words that may look like prepositions or adverbs but linguistically, in the way we structure meaning using them, they are actually parts of the verb. Where in German, they are prefixes, in English they are suffixes. Thus the “preposition” at the end of the sentence is actually a separable suffix of the verb.
In my second paragraph, In the last sentence, the verb is actually “to put up with” and a native speaker way to say it, without Latin rules, is “That I will not put up with.” But the Latin grammarians say it’s wrong because there are two prepositions without objects, hence they add “something” and “which” to be the prepositional objects and turn the sentence inside out to get them in there. But “up” and “with” are not prepositions with “understood” objects, they are simply parts of the complete verb, “to put up with”.
In Germanic languages, it is common for verb parts to surround other clauses within sentences. As Mark Twain put it, “German is the only language in which you can dive into a sentence on one side of the Atlantic and come up on the other side with the verb in your teeth.”
Conceptually, Germanic sentences set the stage with all the pieces and players, and then finally tell you what happens. It could be argued that that influences the way they think and has created a vulnerability to cultural fatalism where English sentences start with the an actor and an action and then give you the recipients, results, and consequences, creates in English native speakers a more expulsive temperament. But that, too, is another subject.
What it comes down to is that some English verbs have multiple words including objectless prepositions as separable suffixes and some have splittable infinitives, just as in German some verbs have separable prefixes and some do not and those prefixes look just like prepositions. To hear or read a sentence that mixes them up will sound stilted and awkward to a native speaker — of either language. It will identify the speaker as foreign, because they have not grown up with the unconscious rules that nearly every native speaker knows.
Those unconscious rules are how we define what sounds better or prettier. One of us instead of one of them.
I hope this helps,
August
What is all the argument about split infinitives about, really?
If you push grammarians, they have historically retreated to references to Latin grammar to support the idea that there is something wrong with splitting an infinitive. They do the same thing with prepositions that do not have objects or are at the ends of sentences. That is something up with which I will not put.
In Latin languages, infinitives are single words, they cannot be split, so Latin grammar cannot apply. We have to look to the Germanic languages and their verbs with separable prefixes to find the source of English’s splittable infinitives and objectless prepositions ending sentences.
Where classic grammarians get confused is that, in stark, culture-clash, they-don’t-talk-like-us, contrast to Latin, Germanic languages have multi-word verbs. Like the fact that in English, any noun can be verbed, English verbs can include words that may look like prepositions or adverbs but linguistically, in the way we structure meaning using them, they are actually parts of the verb. Where in German, they are prefixes, in English they are suffixes. Thus the “preposition” at the end of the sentence is actually a separable suffix of the verb.
In my second paragraph, In the last sentence, the verb is actually “to put up with” and a native speaker way to say it, without Latin rules, is “That I will not put up with.” But the Latin grammarians say it’s wrong because there are two prepositions without objects, hence they add “something” and “which” to be the prepositional objects and turn the sentence inside out to get them in there. But “up” and “with” are not prepositions with “understood” objects, they are simply parts of the complete verb, “to put up with”.
In Germanic languages, it is common for verb parts to surround other clauses within sentences. As Mark Twain put it, “German is the only language in which you can dive into a sentence on one side of the Atlantic and come up on the other side with the verb in your teeth.”
Conceptually, Germanic sentences set the stage with all the pieces and players, and then finally tell you what happens. It could be argued that that influences the way they think and has created a vulnerability to cultural fatalism where English sentences start with the an actor and an action and then give you the recipients, results, and consequences, creates in English native speakers a more expulsive temperament. But that, too, is another subject.
What it comes down to is that some English verbs have multiple words including objectless prepositions as separable suffixes and some have splittable infinitives, just as in German some verbs have separable prefixes and some do not and those prefixes look just like prepositions. To hear or read a sentence that mixes them up will sound stilted and awkward to a native speaker — of either language. It will identify the speaker as foreign, because they have not grown up with the unconscious rules that nearly every native speaker knows.
Those unconscious rules are how we define what sounds better or prettier. One of us instead of one of them.
I hope this helps,
August
Oops. “creates” –> “thus creating”
Oops. “creates” –> “thus creating”
[…] apparently made his students learn a style sheet/grammar sheet. I will be implementing a version of this in my syllabus next time I teach advanced poetry workshop. Read it if for no other reason than […]
[…] and a grammar test. […]
[…] December 8, 2009, 5:26 pm Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: David Foster Wallace, grammar A grammar challenge from the late David Foster Wallace. Say it with me: Wheeee! Grammar challenge! Leave a Comment […]
1. He and I rarely see one another.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and the ambiguity of his uncrossed t’s.
3. My brother called to find out if I were over the flu yet.
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
6. Whence had his new faith come?
7. Please spare me your argument that all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She seemed to never stop talking.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more and more irritating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which is alleged to have taken place soon after Christ’s resurrection.
1. He and I rarely see one another.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and the ambiguity of his uncrossed t’s.
3. My brother called to find out if I were over the flu yet.
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
6. Whence had his new faith come?
7. Please spare me your argument that all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She seemed to never stop talking.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more and more irritating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which is alleged to have taken place soon after Christ’s resurrection.
Forgive me for being redundant, if I am, but I leapt over the comments to make my own.
1. I initially had “each other” but changed it. I’ve never heard of the “one another” rule that links it to “among,” but I’m only 61.
Parallel structure I love.
3. I changed this one to “called me” because the original is vague: did she call my brother? did she call out the window? If my brother is calling, I’m not going to insist on such formality as “whether”; I’d like him to bring me some chicken soup.
4. Yes–let’s put the modifiers next to the modifiees.
5. Some of my students don’t know that there ideas come from their own minds, so they have to remind themselves, but I agree with this one.
6. Whence. Does anyone use “whence” any more?
7. I changed it to “that” which I believe would be the more often used version.
8. Yes, modifier again.
9. I changed “more and more” to “more”; I’m not that easily aggravated or irritated.
10. I prefer fixing the modifier: “a ministry which . . .”
N.B. Many of these are personal bugaboos. They have little to do with correct or incorrect, though a few do. The real problem here is clarity. If this is not a formal essay, if people are simply writing to each other, and the meaning is clear, who cares? I talk to my students about code-switching: if they can write as they have here informally and still follow the rules of formal academic writing when required to, and they know the difference between the two, that’s all I care about. It’s not my job to correct the way they speak to one another or each other or even to themselves.
Forgive me for being redundant, if I am, but I leapt over the comments to make my own.
1. I initially had “each other” but changed it. I’ve never heard of the “one another” rule that links it to “among,” but I’m only 61.
Parallel structure I love.
3. I changed this one to “called me” because the original is vague: did she call my brother? did she call out the window? If my brother is calling, I’m not going to insist on such formality as “whether”; I’d like him to bring me some chicken soup.
4. Yes–let’s put the modifiers next to the modifiees.
5. Some of my students don’t know that there ideas come from their own minds, so they have to remind themselves, but I agree with this one.
6. Whence. Does anyone use “whence” any more?
7. I changed it to “that” which I believe would be the more often used version.
8. Yes, modifier again.
9. I changed “more and more” to “more”; I’m not that easily aggravated or irritated.
10. I prefer fixing the modifier: “a ministry which . . .”
N.B. Many of these are personal bugaboos. They have little to do with correct or incorrect, though a few do. The real problem here is clarity. If this is not a formal essay, if people are simply writing to each other, and the meaning is clear, who cares? I talk to my students about code-switching: if they can write as they have here informally and still follow the rules of formal academic writing when required to, and they know the difference between the two, that’s all I care about. It’s not my job to correct the way they speak to one another or each other or even to themselves.
Of course I meant “their”–I’ve been grading research papers too long. There is a difference between SWE and formal academic English.
The nature of the sentences seems to imply a lack of formality. These were all in one assignment?
Of course I meant “their”–I’ve been grading research papers too long. There is a difference between SWE and formal academic English.
The nature of the sentences seems to imply a lack of formality. These were all in one assignment?
“. . . with whomever paid your tuition.”
“. . . with whomever paid your tuition.”
Corrected for grammar only; many could also do with correction for style.
1. He and I hardly see each other.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and at the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
3. My brother called to find out whether I was over the flu yet.
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. In my own mind, I can understand why its implications might appear somewhat threatening.
6. From where had his new faith come?
or
Whence had his new faith come?
7. Please spare me your arguments as to why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She didn’t ever seem to stop talking.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic increasingly aggravating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which he allegedly conducted soon after his resurrection.
Corrected for grammar only; many could also do with correction for style.
1. He and I hardly see each other.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and at the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
3. My brother called to find out whether I was over the flu yet.
4. I spent only six weeks in Napa.
5. In my own mind, I can understand why its implications might appear somewhat threatening.
6. From where had his new faith come?
or
Whence had his new faith come?
7. Please spare me your arguments as to why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
8. She didn’t ever seem to stop talking.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic increasingly aggravating.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which he allegedly conducted soon after his resurrection.
“They have little to do with correct or incorrect, though a few do.”
You what? (grin)
“They have little to do with correct or incorrect, though a few do.”
You what? (grin)
Another take on this: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1939 .
Another take on this: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1939 .
[…] Jason points to a 10-question grammar challenge given to the students of a non-fiction workshop held by David Foster…. […]
I worked my way through all ten, without looking at the various answers people have offered, and rapidly came to the conclusion that the problems with the sentences could far more easily be resolved by rewriting the sentences, rather than attempting unwieldy grammar fixes. For instance, #1, “He and I hardly see one another” may be entirely correct, depending on the context. The problem lies with the use of the word ‘hardly’. Does this mean ‘barely’, or ‘infrequently’? And why must we assert that ‘He and I’ are the only two players in this scenario? For example, “The crowd is dense and enormous. He and I hardly see one another.” Or perhaps “Meetings of the whole family are rare. He and I hardly see one another.” “He and I hardly see each other” is only correct if the context supports that construction. My counterexamples show that this need not be so.
Also, as a Brit, I thought at first that sentence #2 was talking about menstruation (I needed a mental reboot to get from ‘periods’ to ‘full stops’), and as for the full horror of #8 – can we not just agree that the woman (no gender stereotyping here, no sirree) in question just never seemed to shut up?
Grammar is important. But it’s more important to write well. If the fix is ungainly – and some of them are – and if the fixed sentence resembles nothing so much as an abortion on the page – #2, I’m looking at you – then change the damn sentence already. Fail better, as Beckett put it.
Gavin
I worked my way through all ten, without looking at the various answers people have offered, and rapidly came to the conclusion that the problems with the sentences could far more easily be resolved by rewriting the sentences, rather than attempting unwieldy grammar fixes. For instance, #1, “He and I hardly see one another” may be entirely correct, depending on the context. The problem lies with the use of the word ‘hardly’. Does this mean ‘barely’, or ‘infrequently’? And why must we assert that ‘He and I’ are the only two players in this scenario? For example, “The crowd is dense and enormous. He and I hardly see one another.” Or perhaps “Meetings of the whole family are rare. He and I hardly see one another.” “He and I hardly see each other” is only correct if the context supports that construction. My counterexamples show that this need not be so.
Also, as a Brit, I thought at first that sentence #2 was talking about menstruation (I needed a mental reboot to get from ‘periods’ to ‘full stops’), and as for the full horror of #8 – can we not just agree that the woman (no gender stereotyping here, no sirree) in question just never seemed to shut up?
Grammar is important. But it’s more important to write well. If the fix is ungainly – and some of them are – and if the fixed sentence resembles nothing so much as an abortion on the page – #2, I’m looking at you – then change the damn sentence already. Fail better, as Beckett put it.
Gavin
[…] HTMLGIANT / Grammar Challenge! […]
[…] 2009 December 15 tags: beckett, david foster wallace, grammar, joyce by oho A former student posts a grammar test from a nonfiction workshop that David Foster Wallace taught in 2004. She calls DFW “the most […]
[…] HTMLGIANT / Grammar Challenge! […]
[…] Amy McDaniel, a former student of Wallace’s, posted a grammar challenge at htmlgiant that Wallace had used in class. You can read the answers […]
[…] Try the David Foster Wallace grammar challenge. Ten questions, each with a glaring (to him) error. It’s tougher than it looks. I got a couple right, whiffed on a couple more, and couldn’t spot anything wrong with the bulk of them. […]
[…] a grammar obsessive and good postmodernist, Wallace was exceedingly concerned with vocabulary; Infinite Jest is filled […]
[…] so I’d figured. But then Amy McDaniel posted a worksheet from a class taught by David Foster Wallace, who very well may have been a talented writer, but […]
I would agree with some of the other posters that the issues here are not really ones with grammar, as most of the sentences would be accurate in some non-standard contexts. For example, ‘he and I hardly see one another’ is accurate in a situation in which two people have obscured views of one another. What we have here are issues with precise word usage in standard contexts rather than grammar per se.
I would agree with some of the other posters that the issues here are not really ones with grammar, as most of the sentences would be accurate in some non-standard contexts. For example, ‘he and I hardly see one another’ is accurate in a situation in which two people have obscured views of one another. What we have here are issues with precise word usage in standard contexts rather than grammar per se.
Hey Amy thanks for posting this, it was interesting to read, but more interesting was the response it generated. Any chance of posting more tests/quizes from Wallace’s class. I ask not out of some voyeuristic impulse, but because these are didactic documents, with enough star power to make grammar lessons not only exciting to sit through and read, but engaging to unpack (to use a Wallacian verb) and discuss. Thanks again for posting this, it’s great to see Wallace as Dave the teacher and not just a DFW the writer.
Hey Amy thanks for posting this, it was interesting to read, but more interesting was the response it generated. Any chance of posting more tests/quizes from Wallace’s class. I ask not out of some voyeuristic impulse, but because these are didactic documents, with enough star power to make grammar lessons not only exciting to sit through and read, but engaging to unpack (to use a Wallacian verb) and discuss. Thanks again for posting this, it’s great to see Wallace as Dave the teacher and not just a DFW the writer.
[…] student Amy McDaniel (and, incidentally, a college classmate of my own) has published a grammar quiz at HTMLGIANT that the late master once presented to students of his creative writing […]
[…] David Foster Wallace Grammar Challenge (I got 2/10, although I’d argue that #10 also has an incorrectly placed modifier.) […]
[…] to mourn David Foster Wallace, but his passion for grammar will sorely be missed (see and take his grammar challenge for one example), as will his satiric […]
[…] HTMLGIANT / Grammar Challenge! […]
did david foster wallace pop himself?
his mental health could not have been very good if he came up with this list of supposed errors
did david foster wallace pop himself?
his mental health could not have been very good if he came up with this list of supposed errors
[…] single person in the world (or, rather, 20,249 people in the world) decided they wanted in on the DFW Grammar Challenge (part 2, part 3). So what was it that brought the teeming hordes over our way? Was it Jeremy […]
http://healthportalonline.in/cefuroxime/cefuroxime-for-infants
[url=http://healthportalonline.in/carbohydrate/functions-of-carbohydrate-according-to-sugar-units]cvs pharmacy gift card new prescription[/url] drug testing in third world nations [url=http://healthportalonline.in/ceftin/can-i-give-ceftin-to-my-cat]can i give ceftin to my cat[/url]
lipoic acid and drug interactions http://healthportalonline.in/carafate/carafate-overdose
[url=http://healthportalonline.in/ceftin/cefuroxime-ceftin]medicine cabinet 25w x 36 t[/url] drug pentasa [url=http://healthportalonline.in/cardizem/cardizem-cd-canada-online-pharmacy-cardizem-cd-actos-norvasc]cardizem cd canada online pharmacy cardizem cd actos norvasc[/url]
michigan drug free workplace policy http://healthportalonline.in/cefdinir/klebsiella-oxytoca-cefdinir
[url=http://healthportalonline.in/celebrex/celebrex-lawyer-tx]otc recreational drugs[/url] uprima cialis viagra [url=http://healthportalonline.in/ceftin/ceftin-dosing]ceftin dosing[/url] drug aleve [url=http://healthportalonline.in/celebrex/cheap-celebrex-celecoxib]cheap celebrex celecoxib[/url]
http://healthportalonline.in/cefuroxime/cefuroxime-for-infants
[url=http://healthportalonline.in/carbohydrate/functions-of-carbohydrate-according-to-sugar-units]cvs pharmacy gift card new prescription[/url] drug testing in third world nations [url=http://healthportalonline.in/ceftin/can-i-give-ceftin-to-my-cat]can i give ceftin to my cat[/url]
lipoic acid and drug interactions http://healthportalonline.in/carafate/carafate-overdose
[url=http://healthportalonline.in/ceftin/cefuroxime-ceftin]medicine cabinet 25w x 36 t[/url] drug pentasa [url=http://healthportalonline.in/cardizem/cardizem-cd-canada-online-pharmacy-cardizem-cd-actos-norvasc]cardizem cd canada online pharmacy cardizem cd actos norvasc[/url]
michigan drug free workplace policy http://healthportalonline.in/cefdinir/klebsiella-oxytoca-cefdinir
[url=http://healthportalonline.in/celebrex/celebrex-lawyer-tx]otc recreational drugs[/url] uprima cialis viagra [url=http://healthportalonline.in/ceftin/ceftin-dosing]ceftin dosing[/url] drug aleve [url=http://healthportalonline.in/celebrex/cheap-celebrex-celecoxib]cheap celebrex celecoxib[/url]
I couldn’t read all of this but does it not strike you as bizarre that you spend all of this time correcting grammar that is not actually in need of correction and yet you don’t follow one of the most basic rules of written English – capitalisation?
I couldn’t read all of this but does it not strike you as bizarre that you spend all of this time correcting grammar that is not actually in need of correction and yet you don’t follow one of the most basic rules of written English – capitalisation?
You are British.
You are British.
I can not understand No.2 :-(
There is lots of mistakas in this text :-(
I think No.4 is correct :-)
I can not understand No.2 :-(
There is lots of mistakas in this text :-(
I think No.4 is correct :-)
[…] the tips, describes him as “the most obsessively precise user of English” she’s ever known. Here are the sentences. See if you can find the errors, then check your answers here. Don’t feel bad […]
BOBBY SKIEL;SDKJ BJSUVLVFBHBV;VCH S;’FVJBJ J
WHERE ARE YOU DOING ? i AM READING
WUDJFYSLA;S;DPSFIFUEW
WIFF8WFDSS,
[…] Amy McDaniel never misses an opportunity to remind us that she studied with David Foster Wallace, which somehow endowed her with a magical (foolproof) grammar […]
[…] Indeed it is from such a discussion that I chose the title of this post, a lengthy thread about a quiz written by one of my writing heroes, David Foster […]
[…] I thought we’d have a little fun today and take one of DFW’s grammar tests that I found online–over at HTML Giant. […]
[…] the literary folks at HTML Giant launched an informal grammar contest based on David Foster Wallace‘s work– publishing an actual worksheet from a nonfiction […]
[…] HTMLGIANT / Grammar Challenge! Share this:EmailRedditDiggStumbleUpon ← “The statistical evidence from this study therefore suggests that as far as happiness is concerned, it is better to give than to receive aid.” You can’t tell from that photo, but Junior’s smiling*. Since Warren’s triple-slap of blog post, tweet and Bad Signal, the sizzle reel up on Vimeo has had some 36,000 views. I… → […]
[…] posted here, answers and explanations here) This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. […]
[…] Grammar Quiz# […]