Author Spotlight
Grammar Challenge: Answers and Winner
Thanks to all who participated in the Second Grammar Challenge. “essysea” is the winner; if you are “essysea,” contact me in some way that allows me to contact you back, and I’ll do you a prize. There were 47 comments on the post, which is fitting.
Here are my answers and, in cases where I missed something, Wallace’s edits to my answers:
(1) It was the yuletide season like I had never seen it before.
It was the yuletide season as I had never seen it before.
(2) We were in Innsbruck, Austria and we could not find a place to stay the night.
We were in Innsbruck, Austria, and we could not find a place to stay the night. [Comma after Austria]
(3) We passed by the inn.
We passed the inn. [By is redundant]
(4) It has made its way into the mainstream of verbal discourse.
It has made its way into mainstream discourse. [Discourse is already verbal]
(5) Cross burning began in medieval times on the green hills of Scotland, where clans used them to rally their kin and kith against enemies.
Cross burning began in medieval times on the green hills of Scotland, where clans used them to rally their kith and kin against enemies. [The idiom is reversed]
(6) “Get used to it.” I said to myself.
“Get used to it,” I said to myself
(7) As the president is a Christian, he prays every morning.
Since [or because] the president is a Christian, he prays every morning. [As for because is a Britishism, if I remember correctly]
(8) I can support this claim with quotes from several published sources.
I can support this claim with quotations from several published sources.
(9) It consisted of only two brief 50-minute workshops which one speaker enticingly described as “therapy session sized.”
It consisted of only two 50-minute workshops which one speaker enticingly described as “therapy session– sized.” [Brief is redundant; n-dash between session and sized]
(10) How else can we explain such an abomination of human nature to occur?
How else can we explain the occurrence of such an abomination of human nature? [Or others, as long as the poor syntax is fixed]
(11) Bekavac also quoted Jeannette Rankin, which the Internet tells me was the first female representative to Congress.
Bekavac also quoted Jeannette Rankin, who the Internet tells me was the first female representative to Congress. [Not whom because it is a subjective pronoun with the verb “was”]
(12) There were less than a hundred students at the rally.
There were fewer than a hundred students at the rally. [Fewer if you can count it, less if you measure it.]
(13) People often say that Freud’s theories are about nothing but sex. They are generally correct.
People often say that Freud’s theories are about nothing but sex. The people are generally correct.
(14) Timothy McVeigh might be a leader and he has stepped over lines where only a minority of anti-government agitators will follow.
Timothy McVeigh might be a leader, and he has stepped over lines where only a minority of anti-government agitators will follow.
(15) The U.S., Canada, and Mexico comprise North America.
North American comprises the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.
(16) The Dean of Students at Harvey Mudd had the burned cross thrown in a dumpster without notifying its original owner and it looked suspicious.
The Dean of Students at Harvey Mudd had the burned cross thrown in a Dumpster without notifying the original owner, and the situation looked suspicious. [Dumpster is a proper noun; “its” is a vague pronoun reference that could refer to [D]umpster, and “it” is vague as well.]
(17) His name was left off of the list.
HIs name was left off the list.
(18) Drug-induced or not, he’s very inarticulate.
Under the influence of drugs or not, he’s very inarticulate. [Other possibilities here, but “drug-induced” cannot modify “he”]
(19) A person should be honest about their desires.
A person should be honest about his or her desires.
(20) Most people are adverse to cannibalism.
Most people are averse to cannibalism.
(21) I must follow those that I lead.
I must follow those whom I lead.
(22) There was fog outside of our car.
There was fog outside our car.
(23) If one acts, you are a leader.
If one acts, one is a leader.
Tags: david foster wallace, grammar challenge
(1) “seasons“?? (I think: ‘typo’.)
(3) ‘We passed over the inn.’ (in conversation, or by flying) ‘We passed under the inn.’ (by tunneling) ‘We passed by the inn.’ (in a tank (as opposed to running over it))
Prepositional repetition (in, say, an English phrasal verb) is a common Indo-European matter. (I don’t like ‘where is it at‘, for example, but the opportunity to prescribe against that locution might have passed – but not by.) In the case of ‘passing by the inn’, the repetition gives a flavor of deliberate inattention which is, to me, grammatically acceptable. ?
(4) and (9) Are semantic redundancies – which repeat information already in another word or words in the sentence – fairly called issues of grammar?
(7) “As” for ‘because’ might be an official Britishism, but enough Americans turn to it for it not to be an error, in my view.
(12) Is “measure” the correct action to call ‘sizing’ something uncountable? It seems to me that “measure” is also what is done with many countables, like ‘inches’. Whether the ‘measured’ thing comes in units – that’s the question, right?
(13) “Those people”, referring to ‘the (specific) people who were just indicated’.
(15) My Webster’s New Collegiate has, for “comprise”, both “2 : to be made up of” and “3 : to make up”. Has the “comprise” battle been lost already on the field of common usage?
(16) Some particular “dumpster” has become as de-branded as ‘to xerox’ and ‘kleenex’, in my view.
“[T]he” refers to the dumpster as easily as “its” does; to make clear what the “original owner” owned, I think you’d have to say: “without notifying the cross’s original owner” – or change the sentence around.
(19) I thought “someone” could be referred to as “they”: ‘Someone came; they left the door unlocked.’ I try to keep impersonal numbers straight, but I thought this battle, too, had already been prescriptively lost.
(23) Here, I prefer ‘she or he’, though the impersonal “one” is often a convenient way to avoid gender bias, misnumbering, or clumsily correct expression.
–
That was fun; thanks.
Fixed the typo, thanks. I agree with you about as, dumpster, and someone–>they. But of course Wallace was testing our knowledge of prescriptive rules, so that, as writers, we could be in control of it, and be consistent. Comprise to mean compose still bugs me, personally, too. I make sure not to misuse comprise, but I don’t capitalize dumpster. That is one of two that I didn’t catch originally and that he marked on my paper. As for the redundancy, the original quiz instructions makes clear that it isn’t just grammar but also usage, style, mechanics; that’s just a title shortcut. “Those people” is definitely better but I wanted to reproduce my original answers as he graded them, and he didn’t mark that. Wallace preferred “she” to “he or she” but again, he didn’t mark it, since “he or she” is also correct. He put a smiley face next to my number 18 edit, probably more of a smirk than a smiley since my correction is probably unnecessarily wordy.
Glad you enjoyed!
(9) Is that actually redundant? Isn’t the “only” in that sentence only addressing the amount of meetings and not the lengths?
Yes, “only” modifies “two”, but I think Amy and Wallace mean that “brief” is unnecessary because the ‘brevity’ of the “50-minute workshops” in this sentence is already clear in this sentence.
For (9), I would put a hyphen between “therapy” and “session” as well: “therapy-session-sized.” I think the New Yorker would too. I know Garner requires one, not sure about the Chicago Manual.
I agree – I thought of this detail and wish I’d said it first, ha ha. The first hyphen would be on the thinking that a compound noun (or nominal phrase) is hyphenated when it’s made into an adjective: kitchen table –> kitchen-table conversation.
In (5), there is an ambiguous/incorrect pronoun reference. What can “them” refer to? “Hills” or “times”, neither of which seems correct. Perhaps: “Cross burning began in medieval times on the green hills of Scotland, where clans used the spectacle to rally their kith and kin against enemies.”
deadgod, are you trying to agree with me again? how dare you, ha ha
Likewise “cross-burning” in (5). I know this is a style question, but just saying.
Also, “kith and kin” is a cliche. I would use “kin.”
(16): ??? Surely “its” is meant to refer back to the dumpster. The abandoned remnant of a burned cross doesn’t have an owner, unless it’s campus security or the local police or whoever is charged with preserving the evidence for investigative purposes. You guys know what a cross-burning is, right? But then the word “original” doesn’t make sense. I don’t understand this sentence in either version. Or why there’s so much cross-burning on this quiz.
In any case, thanks for this, Amy. Got any more?
it isn’t a hyphen, it’s an n-dash, which can be used in this way to eliminate the need for so many hyphens. i felt a little iffy about this one when i typed up the answers (i can never remember the rules with open compound adjectives and where exactly the n-dash goes) but he didn’t correct it on my paper, and at least one website i found seemed to support this usage.
Why cross burning? Cross modifies burning, a gerund.
as for 16, its does not refer back to the dumpster, it refers to the cross. why wouldn’t the person who originally owned the cross still own it after it is burned?
of course, we students all had more context for this quiz, and all the cross burning on it. he probably took the sentences from the student newspaper, or possibly he made them up to be topical. for a cross had just been burned on our campus, and campus security disposed of it, and the owner of the cross was upset by this. it wasn’t just any cross, the owner was an artist and had MADE the cross, and then some idiots broke into the art building and burned it, afterwards claiming that they had no idea the historical implications of cross burning, not to mention cross-burning.
oh, and yes, i have lots more. here is one for you:
Paris is the capital of France, and the word Paris has five letters in it.
I’d set the second “Paris” off with single quotation marks:
Paris is the capital of France, and the word ‘Paris’ has five letters in it.
(I set off the first mention of Paris in this post with double quotation marks because, in that usage, I was directly quoting.)
why single quotation marks? double quotation marks would be standard here.
there’s still one more problem with the sentence.
Paris is the capital of France, and the word “Paris” is five letters. ? or maybe “comprises five letters”? Or am I on the wrong track?
I really like this. I did terribly on the first round, but if you ever post any more I’d love to play. Also, now I know to look for more subtle errors; the other time I think I over-revised.
if you’re interested in playing just for your own enjoyment, Amy posted another one a while back. I don’t remember exactly how long ago (maybe a year? more?), but if you look through her posts a bit it shouldn’t be hard to find. or maybe you already knew this.
Thanks, Trey!
It’s here http://htmlgiant.com/craft-notes/grammar-challenge/ for anyone else who’s interested.
You don’t need “in it”?
You’re right about “cross burning.” I know I see it like that sometimes but yeah, you wouldn’t normally need to hyphenate a phrase like that.
And thanks for explaining the context to that sentence. I had never heard of a cross-burning case where theft and vandalism of the actual cross was an issue. But Googling it I see that it can be. I still think it’s usually just an ad hoc cross-shaped construction burned as a symbol. When I Googled “cross burning” and “stolen” I found this, which (a) bears out my assumption that that was a special situation since otherwise what are the chances of my coming across it and (b) shows that I’m not crazy, “cross burning” as a noun sometimes is hyphenated in print for whatever reason.
Right, it should read:
Paris is the capital of France, and the word “Paris” has five letters.
It didn’t even occur to me that the cross burning sentence would be different out of context, and that knowing the backstory would make the pronoun reference clear. Weird how such short sentences can have so much in them.
Single quotation marks because the word is not being quoted, but rather distinguished as the five-letter word. (I thought that, in American usage, double quotation marks are reserved for verbatim quotations; single quotation marks are used in cases like this one. That’s the understanding that I’d meant the parenthetical remark to depend on. British English has reversed usage rules for quotation marks, was my understanding.)
‘How many letters are in the word “cat”?’ ‘Three letters are in it.’ ‘Oh? The word “cat” has three letters in it?’ — Is there really a “problem” (of redundancy) with this fourth sentence?
Deadgod, I hadn’t heard of that rule but I like the idea a lot. I also really like how (to my understanding at least, which could be wrong in British English they put the punctuation outside the quotation marks vs. always insisting that the quotation marks have to come outside the punctuation no matter what. Like
I love the short story “The Metamorphosis”.
where we’d have to write
I love the short story “The Metamorphosis.” even though to my mind the period goes with the rest of the sentence and not the title.
Well, that’s my way and I’m sticking to it – though, if kids are presented with teaching materials (keyed to standardized tests) that only use single quotation marks to mark quotations nested inside other (double-quotation-marked [hypenated (or n-dashed) like alan said first for (9), ha ha]) quotations, I’d point out the official way, my way, why I prefer my way, and the fact that standardized-test graders are almost certainly trained to go by the ‘official’ usage.
I’m pretty stubborn about being idiosyncratic with punctuation inside quotation marks: if the punctuation isn’t part of what’s being quoted – or set off by quotation marks – , then it doesn’t belong or go in. I was taught the way you say: a (sentence) period [Br. ‘full stop’] goes inside quotation marks if that’s the end of the sentence, even if it’s not the ‘end’ of the quoted material. – but I agree with you: the period should come at the real end of the whole of the unit it ‘stops’. [<– like right there]
I (mis)spell ‘judgement’ and ‘acknowledgement’ in the British way – maybe because of eye/ear similarity to ‘knowledge‘, though the squiggly red line under an onscreen [on-screen?] ‘judgement’ is slowly making me less comfortable with that “e”. – but mostly I’m used to American English and prefer it for that reason, as with the “__“ around direct quotations.
I just ran across an example of this distinction! – on pages 6 and 7 of The Most Human Human:
“freshhyphenfaced academic” (p.6)
“Deep Blueem dashand soon” (p. 6)
“The Matrixen dashtype” (p. 7)
I can’t tell hyphens from en dashes here – I only guess that HTML has en and em dashes (??); I double-hyphenate for em dashes – , but, in the typeface of this book, there’s a clear Goldilocks progression (as recorded above): short, long, medium-length.
Good rule, but only usable if one’s machine and skilz have en dash capability.