We have noticed that a number of our students used few when they meant a few. For example:
(1) ?She has few close friends, and they should be able to help her.
(The question mark ? indicates oddity.)
The word few means very few or none at all. For example:
(2) Even though she has spent more than a year in Tokyo, she knows few words of Japanese.
(3) He is happy because there were few complaints today.
A few, on the other hand, means a small number but not a lot. Yes, that little a makes a difference:
(3) She knows a few words of Japanese, and that proved a great help.
(4) He is unhappy because there were a few complaints today.
Do you see the difference now?
A subtle difference no doubt, but it's what makes sentence (1) semantically odd.
The clause "they should be able to help her" indicates a desirable consequence of having some close friends, and we use a few rather than few to emphasize the bigger number:
(4) She has a few close friends, and they should be able to help her.
Wednesday, 27 June 2012
Wednesday, 20 June 2012
Marked wrongly?
A reader thought that the student's answer to the Synthesis question below was acceptable, and asked for our opinion.
The only difference between the student's answer in blue and the correction in green is the use of should concentrate in the former and the use of should have concentrated in the latter.
Which is correct?
The past tense modal should does not need changing when reporting the speech, so the student's answer is correct.
If a modal auxiliary in the direct speech is already in the past tense form, then the same form remains in the indirect speech (Quirk et al. 301):
(1) John said, "I jogged yesterday."
(2) John said that he had jogged the previous day.
The past tense verb jogged is backshifted to the past perfect had jogged.
However, past tense modals such as should and could in direct speech do not undergo tense backshift and remain the same in indirect speech.
 |
| Primary 6 English Language Paper 2 |
Which is correct?
The past tense modal should does not need changing when reporting the speech, so the student's answer is correct.
If a modal auxiliary in the direct speech is already in the past tense form, then the same form remains in the indirect speech (Quirk et al. 301):
"You shouldn't smoke in the bedroom," he told them.The answer given for correction seems to have been the result of an overgeneralisation of the backshift rule that applies to verbs and present tense modals. The following pair illustrates this tense backshift:
~ He told them that they shouldn't smoke in the bedroom.
(1) John said, "I jogged yesterday."
(2) John said that he had jogged the previous day.
The past tense verb jogged is backshifted to the past perfect had jogged.
However, past tense modals such as should and could in direct speech do not undergo tense backshift and remain the same in indirect speech.
Sunday, 17 June 2012
Complain is a verb
The word complain is a verb. The noun is complaint, as used correctly in the next sentence:
In the story below the auxiliary verb have does not agree in grammatical number with the singular noun cost. The correct auxiliary verb is has:
 |
| ChannelNewsAsia - 16 June 2012 |
 |
| ChannelNewsAsia - 16 June 2012 |
Saturday, 16 June 2012
Well-known or well known?
A student asked whether the two words well and known are always hyphenated when they appear next to each other.
He was probably thinking about a sentence such as (1) below:
(1) The well-known author visited our school.
No, they are not always hyphenated.
When the Adverb + Participle pair precedes a noun as in (1), we hyphenate the two words to make them into a single adjective modifying the noun.
When the Adverb + Participle sequence follows a noun, we do not need to hyphenate:
(2) The author is well known.
However, with adverbs ending in -ly, no hyphenation is needed whether the Adverb + Participle sequence precedes or follows the noun:
(3) He is a highly paid employee.
(4) That employee is highly paid.
He was probably thinking about a sentence such as (1) below:
(1) The well-known author visited our school.
No, they are not always hyphenated.
When the Adverb + Participle pair precedes a noun as in (1), we hyphenate the two words to make them into a single adjective modifying the noun.
When the Adverb + Participle sequence follows a noun, we do not need to hyphenate:
(2) The author is well known.
However, with adverbs ending in -ly, no hyphenation is needed whether the Adverb + Participle sequence precedes or follows the noun:
(3) He is a highly paid employee.
(4) That employee is highly paid.
Monday, 11 June 2012
A number of vs the number of
Why is a number of plural, but the number of singular?
We get asked this question frequently by our students.
The confusion arises because, overtly, there seems to be little difference between the two except for the indefinite article in one and the definite article in the other.
Yet, small though the difference is, the two differ in subject-verb agreement. The expression a number of takes a plural verb, whereas the number of takes a singular verb:
(1) A number of students have raised this question.
(2) The number of students has increased over the years.
Why?
Well, a number of means several:
(3) Several students have raised this question
On the other hand, the number of refers to a specific number of something:
(4) The number of participants (at over 12,000) is high.
(5) The number of stray cats has grown in our neighbourhood. (It was 20 last year, but it is now 35.)
We get asked this question frequently by our students.
The confusion arises because, overtly, there seems to be little difference between the two except for the indefinite article in one and the definite article in the other.
Yet, small though the difference is, the two differ in subject-verb agreement. The expression a number of takes a plural verb, whereas the number of takes a singular verb:
(1) A number of students have raised this question.
(2) The number of students has increased over the years.
Why?
Well, a number of means several:
(3) Several students have raised this question
On the other hand, the number of refers to a specific number of something:
(4) The number of participants (at over 12,000) is high.
(5) The number of stray cats has grown in our neighbourhood. (It was 20 last year, but it is now 35.)
Tuesday, 5 June 2012
Between needs and
The crime story below contains a few mistakes.
The preposition between is used with and, not to: Between May 17 and 21.
The verb convicted is followed by of, not for: convicted of the offence.
In the next highlighted text in purple, the two clauses joined by or are unequal i.e. "shall be punished with a fine not exceeding $2,000" is a verb phrase and "to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years" is a prepositional phrase. One possible rephrase is: A person convicted of the offence faces a fine not exceeding $2,000 or a jail term not exceeding three years.
The phrase exceeding to 3 years seems wrong with to: exceeding three years.
The last bit in green is problematic. I would rephrase it as: shall be liable to caning, subject to Criminal Procedure Code 2010. The phrasal verb subjected to is often used in the passive: The victim was subjected to torture both mentally and physically.
 |
| AsiaOne - 4 June 2012 |
The verb convicted is followed by of, not for: convicted of the offence.
In the next highlighted text in purple, the two clauses joined by or are unequal i.e. "shall be punished with a fine not exceeding $2,000" is a verb phrase and "to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years" is a prepositional phrase. One possible rephrase is: A person convicted of the offence faces a fine not exceeding $2,000 or a jail term not exceeding three years.
The phrase exceeding to 3 years seems wrong with to: exceeding three years.
The last bit in green is problematic. I would rephrase it as: shall be liable to caning, subject to Criminal Procedure Code 2010. The phrasal verb subjected to is often used in the passive: The victim was subjected to torture both mentally and physically.
Sunday, 3 June 2012
Microsoft grammar checker
In my previous post, I hinted at the inaccuracy of Microsoft Word's grammar program. I wrote that after complaining so much about wordiness, it failed to detect the genuine subject-verb agreement error below:
(1) The quality of these voices matter.
As we pointed out, the correct verb is matters.
It was a relatively simple sentence, yet the mistake went undetected.
Though I have never used any grammar checker for my writings, except perhaps to check for spelling, my interest was nevertheless piqued. How accurate or reliable is the grammar program? I wondered, and decided to test it out.
A total of 12 error cases were used in the test. The last case, sentence (12), was deliberately chosen and positioned to verify that the grammar checker had not stopped working after sentence (4).
For anyone not familiar with Microsoft Word's grammar checker, the green squiggly line indicates a possible grammar mistake. The corrections in red were added by me after the check was completed, using a separate graphical software so as not to confuse the grammar checker.
Though it was only a limited test with contrived sentences, the result has nonetheless revealed the vast inadequacy of the grammar program. Many of the straightforward, non-tricky error cases passed the check without a single complaint. For being such a nag over perfectly fine structures such as passive and cleft constructions, it cannot even reliably handle rudimentary mistakes.
(1) The quality of these voices matter.
As we pointed out, the correct verb is matters.
It was a relatively simple sentence, yet the mistake went undetected.
Though I have never used any grammar checker for my writings, except perhaps to check for spelling, my interest was nevertheless piqued. How accurate or reliable is the grammar program? I wondered, and decided to test it out.
 |
| Microsoft Word 2010 Spelling & Grammar: English (United Kingdom) |
For anyone not familiar with Microsoft Word's grammar checker, the green squiggly line indicates a possible grammar mistake. The corrections in red were added by me after the check was completed, using a separate graphical software so as not to confuse the grammar checker.
Though it was only a limited test with contrived sentences, the result has nonetheless revealed the vast inadequacy of the grammar program. Many of the straightforward, non-tricky error cases passed the check without a single complaint. For being such a nag over perfectly fine structures such as passive and cleft constructions, it cannot even reliably handle rudimentary mistakes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)