<< NEWS BRIEFLETS ~ MAIN ~ ROCK 'N' ROLLSKI >>
TAKE THE TEST
NRO’s Matt Goldblatt presents an English test for this year’s high school graduates. Link and answers to follow; meanwhile, take a shot at these:
1) Define the terms “independent clause” and “dependent clause.”
2) Find the subject in the following sentence: “Many of my friends drive to school.”
3) What are the three principal parts of the verb “to bite”?
4) “Jane has been dating John for two years.” Is that sentence written in a present tense or a past tense?
5) “Jane has been dating John for two years.” Change that sentence to the corresponding past tense.
6) What three parts of speech can an adverb modify?
7) What is the main use of a semi-colon?
8) “Jane invited John and me.” “Jane invited John and I.” Which is correct?
9) “He should of told me that I wasn’t invited.” What’s the error in that sentence?
10) “Every person is entitled to their own opinion.” What’s the error in that sentence?
Each question is worth ten points. If you scored below 70, you failed.
UPDATE. Answers here.
9) “Should of” should oughta be “shoulda”...
10) Used to be wrong, but in these PC times, I feel saying “their” is better than shoe-horning “his or her” into every sentence. Besides, that’s exlcusive of the transgendered and simply insensitive.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 05 09 at 12:51 AM • permalinkI confess that I would fail this test.
However, if it was being given to me by one of the actual English teachers I studied under, we would have bewildered the poor woman with simple math tricks over the scoring and all come out with a passing grade—or at least distracted her from whatever else it was she intended to bore us with that day. Nothing productive got done.
(I mean, number 10 there? Richard’s answer has GOT to be worth half credit. I could answer about half of these questions confidently, plus another half for number 10 and hey, thay’s 75% percent right? *wink wink*)
I attended the most advanced high school in the city, by the way.
I think my incompetant and math-impaired english teacher ended up shuffled off into some useless administrative position eventually because they couldn’t just fire her after we broke her. Ahh, public education.
2) The subject is, “Daddeeeee, when are you gonna buy me a carrrrrrr….”
4) If Jane’s been dating John for two years with no ring, she’s tense at present; if John’s been dating Jane for two years without getting a leg over, he’s way past tense…
7) The purpose of the semi-colon is to prove you read Patrick O’Brian novels.
Sortelli — It’s not that my answer to 10) was right… it’s that no good NEA member can bring him-, her- or (insert one) self here can possibly challenge it…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 05 09 at 01:11 AM • permalinkUnless I’m mistaken, doesn’t a semi-colon separate two independent clauses while a comma separates dependent and independent clauses?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 05 09 at 01:27 AM • permalinkyojimbo — You can find lots of conjugation on the Internet.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 05 09 at 01:45 AM • permalinkWhat’s with all the ‘dating’ ‘colon’ ‘rectum’ stuff? I thought this was a far-right whacko Christian fundamentalist site?
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 05 09 at 02:36 AM • permalink1-3) Heck, I dunno.
4-5) Who cares?
7) What is the main use of a semi-colon?
Sophisticated Tim Blair readers should know this; it’s a very basic bit o’ punctuation.
The two clauses above are almost like two separate sentences, but from another viewpoint they’re almost saying the same thing in a different way. Id est, they “overlap” alot. Er… well, I think that’s it.
8) “Jane invited John and me.â€? “Jane invited John and I.â€? Which is correct?This one is easy too, if you know the rule—just remove the offending second thing, (in this case Jane), from the equation:
“Jane invited…me” or “Jane invited…I” ?
Duh.
But remember that the verb “to be” is wack. If you’re knocking at the door, and the other guy says, “who is it?” you say, “It is I”. At least, if you’re hell-bent on being archaic and/or snobby-sounding.
9) “He should of told me that I wasn’t invited.�
I hope I don’t need to answer this one.
10) “Every person is entitled to their own opinion.� What’s the error in that sentence?
Well that depends on what university you’re attending. At the University of Chicago, I was told by my professor that my paper was an “A”, except that I would not get that grade without first modifying all the sentences with the gender-neutral “his”, like “every person is entitled to his own opinion”.
It was suggested that I use “his or her”. Never. I compromised with “ones own opinion”.
If you go to alt.usage.English or alt.English.usage you will find fanatical argument over the use of the “singular they”. They’re also a bunch of flaming lefties. Big surprise.
Posted by zeppenwolf on 2005 05 09 at 02:56 AM • permalinkCrap! I got 30. Doesn’t a Masters Degree in Gender Studies count for anything?
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 05 09 at 04:41 AM • permalink30, our education system at work. Especially since I was usually top of the class.
I find the real answer to 10 makes no sense whatsoever.
Posted by Aging Gamer on 2005 05 09 at 05:13 AM • permalinkI find the real answer to 10 makes no sense whatsoever.
Well, ‘person’ is singular, ‘their’ is plural. (If you said, “there are ten people who own this chicken jointly” it would be “their chicken”. If Joe owns 100% of the chicken, there is no way whatsoever Joe’s chicken can be “their chicken”.)
Using “their” for a gender-ambiguous person is a lame concession to political correctness. The technically correct term for a gender-ambiguous person would be “it”, rather than “him” or “her”, but that would sound stupid. We don’t call people “it”, so you can correctly say “him or her”, or, as our ancestors did before the looneys took over our asylum, use the male pronoun as a default pronoun. (“Mankind”, after all, includes the women too.)
It’s the political correctness that makes the sentences stupid, though, not the language.
Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2005 05 09 at 05:53 AM • permalinkAlso, I suppose you could revise the sentence to read “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion”. While “every person” refers to each individual person (singular), “everyone”, I think, refers to a group (plural), meaning you could correctly use “their”.
Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2005 05 09 at 05:55 AM • permalinkEven where I knew the answers, my answers were mostly “who cares?”. Questions 1,2,3,6 and 7 all test knowledge of language jargon rather than ability to use language. I write perfectly serviceable English without having the slightest idea what a “dependent clause” is.
Question 10 is bollocks. “Their” for singular is well and truly accepted usage now. Pedantic rubbish of this ilk is the reason I have to endure newscasters here stumbling over clumsy constructions like “an horrific accident”.
Question 11 should be “Inability to write acceptable English would directly follow from inability to answer which of the preceding questions?”. The answer being: “8 and 9”. I get along fine without “principal parts”, thanks.
John and Jane have been an item for two years but little sign of commitment from John.
Next Jane invites ‘John and me’.
Getting the message John? You think threesome dates are weird? Well for once in your arse-dragging life make a bloody decision!
John’s response - a pathetic deception. On the sly, he tells the intruder (‘me’) that he wasn’t actually invited.
‘Every person is entitled to their opinion.’
John, John, John ...
What about I simply “do a Tycho”
“Every human is entitled to their own opinion.”
Posted by Aging Gamer on 2005 05 09 at 07:42 AM • permalinkTotally off topic, but anywho.
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1357632.htmGo now.
Your favourite progam and mine, Media Watch, is providing us with great value for our 8c a day by doing the job on the Good News From Iraq.
Privitise the ABC. Right Now.
I’m not sure about independent and dependent clauses but I know that Santa’s helpers are subordinate clauses.
Posted by Bruneidaze on 2005 05 09 at 08:06 AM • permalinkEven where I knew the answers, my answers were mostly “who cares?�. Questions 1,2,3,6 and 7 all test knowledge of language jargon rather than ability to use language. I write perfectly serviceable English without having the slightest idea what a “dependent clause� is.
I’m inclined to agree with you, but I was taught in school that I didn’t need to know what a semi-colon is for because no one uses it anymore. These are things that even if they aren’t useful, *should* be driven home in the language curriculum (because it *is* an English class wherein you should learn language jardon), to help protect the integrity of our literature and culture. People who can’t write can’t properly read, either, no matter how well they fake it, and unlike you or I, most people who walk out of school not knowing how the language works never learn, either. In America at least, colleges spend more and more time doing remedial education to catch kids up on what the public schools flopped on.
Question 10 is bollocks. “Their� for singular is well and truly accepted usage now. Pedantic rubbish of this ilk is the reason I have to endure newscasters here stumbling over clumsy constructions like “an horrific accident�.
It may be accepted usage, like “should of”, but it’s still just plain wrong. What horror is next, blurring the line between too, two, and to?! We must draw a line! A line in the sand! They can take our sentence diagrams, but they’ll never take our FREEEEEDOM!
Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2005 05 09 at 08:15 AM • permalinkI’m sure the pedants would have taken Charles Dickens to task for his use of the semi-colon.
In the hardest working part of Coketown; in the innermost fortifications of that ugly citadel, where Nature was as strongly bricked out as killing airs and gases were bricked in; at the heart of the labyrinth of narrow courts upon courts, and close streets upon streets, which had come into existence piecemeal, every piece in a violent hurry for some one man’s purpose, and the whole an unnatural family, shouldering, and trampling, and pressing one another to death; in the last close nook of this great exhausted receiver, where the chimneys, for want of air to make a draught, were built in an immense variety of stunted and crooked shapes, as though every house put out a sign of the kind of people who might be expected to be born in it; among the multitude of Coketown, generically called ‘the Hands,’ — a race who would have found mere favour with some people, if Providence had seen fit to make them only hands, or, like the lower creatures of the seashore, only hands and stomachs — lived a certain Stephen Blackpool, forty years of age.
How can a language construction which has been in use in English since the 1300s be considered a lame concession to political correctness?...I have my doubts that being politically correct was high on the agenda at the time.
If it was used in the 1300’s (more on that below), it was wrong then and it’s still wrong now. The difference is that now, people are actually *taught* to force the plural in order to avoid gender-specific terms, creating the kind of linguistic anarchy that we’ve all become guilty of.
The people of the 1300’s only barely spoke a language we would recognize as English (try the original text of “Everyman”, circa 1525, on for size). However, it has been standard practice for several centuries now (as long as the English language has had standardized rules) to default to the male pronoun, which may not be polite to our modern sensibilities, but the only other options available are “him or her” and “it”. “They” is undeniably plural, and simply can’t be used to describe the singular.
All I’m saying is that in a time when students are turning in essays written in instant message shorthand and “ebonics” is considered a language in some places, we should probably emphasize grammatical correctness over progressive sensibilities.
Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2005 05 09 at 09:29 AM • permalinkThere has for many years been a practice of abbreviating “she, he or it” as “s/h/it”. Although for some reason it hasn’t really caught on yet, I suggest we should all do our bit to spread it around.
Posted by Jim Geones on 2005 05 09 at 09:42 AM • permalink“Should of” isn’t accepted usage and never has been. It arises from mishearing “should’ve” (obviously) and is akin to a misspelling. It’s sort of like using the wrong their/they’re/there - the construction ceases to make semantic sense, a more serious problem than “their” in question 10, which only really amounts to a syntactical abuse, if anything.
I don’t know about “they” being strictly plural - it, like “their”, is occasionally adapted for use as a unisex singlar pronoun. When the person under discussion is hypothetical, using “he” or “she” is OK (e.g. “An expert chess player spends a long time studying. He will have a very good grasp of opening theory”). When the person under discussion is not hypothetical, this seems to me inappropriate. If someone submitted a form to me and there was no gender indication, i would use sentences like “They failed to fill the form in correctly”. The syntactic error here is less serious to me than the semantic error of using “he” or “she” and implying I know their gender when I don’t. In written language I would probably substitute something like “The applicant” but in spoken language that seems too formal.
The syntactic error here is less serious to me than the semantic error of using “he� or “she� and implying I know their gender when I don’t.
Note how naturally I used “their” here - I didn’t even notice it until after I had submitted the comment. What are you going to substitute for “their” in that sentence? “...implying I know his gender when I don’t”? “...implying I know the gender of the person who filled the form in when I don’t?”. Horribly clumsy. You’ll prise my singular “their” out of my cold dead hands.
Note how naturally I used “their� here - I didn’t even notice it until after I had submitted the comment. What are you going to substitute for “their� in that sentence? “...implying I know his gender when I don’t�? “
Bingo! The accepted standard practice before the modern era was to default to “he”. While it may be a semantic error, it’s proper: If you don’t know the gender, you treat it as though it were male. Then came the modern age, and we were to say “he or she”, “(s)he” or “he/she”.
“They failed to fill the form in correctly�.
The correct form there would be “It failed to fill the form in correctly.” Singular neutral. However, that’d probably be an even bigger semantic error than assuming it to be male, which is probably why they took to doing that. Heh.
Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2005 05 09 at 11:04 AM • permalinkAaron and the rest of “us”. “It” “They” All one hundred percent. It makes no nevermind. It’s a post-modernist world out there. Everything is in play. So we can all stick it up our respective periphrastic conjugaions and “bend it like Beckham”
Queries forthcoming.
Does a prof in a class on post-modernism correct a student’s spelling?
Does an editor correct a “grammatical inconsistency” in a post-modernist book?Let’s not even talk about post-capitalism.
The yojimbo will take his meds now.The big impetus for the “generic he” instead of the “singular they” was the Latinization of English grammar; Latin used a “generic he”, and in the Renaissance, Latin grammar was applied to English.
Accordingly, due to several centuries where educated people knew Latin and were taught a Latin-derived English grammar, the correct formal use is the “generic he”. However, at no point in all that time was the “singular they” driven from the common language; it is accordingly quite defensible as proper usage in the context of informal use of English. The “singular they” does not cause any more confusion, nor does it trample on any more nuances of meaning, than the “generic he”.
As to the diehard defenders of “once plural, always plural”, they are invited to cease using “you” for the second person singluar, and reacquaint themselves with “thou”. That was a useful distinction that has been unfortunately lost, and would be useful to regain.
(Note the above does not mean I would discourage teaching of the “generic he” in our schools; it is established by centuries of grammatical education as the correct usage for formal communication. But it is a Latin imposition on English, no more defensible in the context of English qua English than the prohibitions on ending sentences with prepositions or splitting infinitives. Let us focus our efforts on saving “literal” from those who use it to mean “figurative”, instead.)
Posted by Warmongering Lunatic on 2005 05 09 at 01:07 PM • permalinkSortelli: After grading waaaaaay too many undergraduate papers over the past years, I can tell you that the “majority of semi-colons” are attached to the word “however.” Undergrads routinely treat (and have been taught to do so) however as a conjunction (properly used I believe it may be an adjectival conjunction) that is used when separating with a semicolon a declarative sentence from another declarative sentence which either contradicts or weakens the first. That is, it apparently is a way of presenting two sides of an argument without actually being argumentative.
It is not at all apparent the the two sentences have to be all that closely related or of equal value. It is rather more obviously a tactic by which one softens a perceived stance. It will show up from 2 to 5-6 six times in any 3+ page paper requiring a student to exhibit any values.
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2005 05 09 at 01:25 PM • permalinkOK, it’s 1420 not the 1300s: Iche mon in thayre degre - but that’s singular their, and a little earlier in usage than the term “politically correct”.
Shakespeare used it, Austin used it, Chaucer, Eliot, Lewis, Wilde, the King James Bible, and so on and so on. It’s wasn’t uncommon - yes it makes no sense if you think English should use Latin grammar for no apparent reason as seemed to be the fashion in the 18th century.
Why don’t people have the same hatred of singular “you”? Then again what’s a language without grammar flame wars…
I find this suppression of my hereditary speaking patterns to be offensive, oppressive and damaging to my self-esteem. Reparations demand to follow.
Posted by nofixedabode on 2005 05 09 at 02:10 PM • permalinkFor an entertaining look at proper grammar and punctuation, there’s Eats, Shoots & Leaves.
What the…?
It’s “Jane and me” now?
When did that happen?
Back when I was in school (and pretty good in English, I might add), saying “Jane and me” was almost a life sentence in the teacher’s doghouse. Not quite as bad as saying “it ain’t”, but not far behind!
OK, Richard Nixon was in office at the time of my last college English course! So what!
OMG, I’ve become “that old fart!”.
Back when I was in school (and pretty good in English, I might add), saying “Jane and me� was almost a life sentence in the teacher’s doghouse. Not quite as bad as saying “it ain’t�, but not far behind!
Err, you’re mixing up two different concepts here.
“Jane and me” as subject (nominative case) = technically wrong, although seen pretty much everywhere these days
“Jane and me” as object (dative or accusative case) = perfectly right
There’s something to be said for teaching this stuff in elementary school. Of course, my first language being German, they pretty much have to teach it here, since we still distinguish between all those pesky cases by adding weird little suffixes to anything and everything.
BTW, what’s the native speaker consensus on usage of who/whom these days?
rinardman: The simple rule is that you use “me” or “I” depending on what is correct in the sentence if you remove the other person from it. In this case, “Jane invited me” not “Jane invited I”. But because it is “I went to the party” not “Me went to the party”, then it is “John and I went to the party” not “John and me went to the party”.
Regarding he/she/they:
I could swear I read many of these same comments/arguments (in several threads) on alt.usage.english some years ago.
IIRC, the general consensus on those threads went with Sam and Warmonger Lunatic. Though I must admit there were many rather adamant holdouts on the subject.
I shall continue to use ‘they/their’ in situations where I am unsure of sex.
I’ll admit I kind of like the “s/h/it” construction (it is a good way to point out why so many of us use the singular ‘they’) but I don’t think it will ever gain wide acceptance… for some reason or other ;)
How did he arrive at many as the subject in Many of my friends drive to school?
The traditional way is:
First, find the verb (the action word)- which is drive.
Then ask “Who or what drive?”
Answer: “Many of my friends”.
Thus the subject is “many of my friends”.
stumbling over clumsy constructions like “an horrific accident�.
Let me read the news! This is the way I speak.BTW, what’s the native speaker consensus on usage of who/whom these days?
This little native speaker always uses whom after a preposition, e.g. to whom (notto who).
Not so fussy in sentences like “Who did you see yesterday?”When I write, I used whom/who according to traditional grammar.
Learning some Latin at school, and studying German at uni equipped me to know the difference.Posted by pog-ma-thon on 2005 05 10 at 12:29 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Doesn’t 5 give away the answer to 4?
Or is it all crazy macho head games?