Various questions

hirashin · 5 Jul 2014

Hello, native English speakers.

I am an English teacher. I have some questions about the exams that my colleagues made for the first term final exam.

1) Put the words in the parentheses in the correct order.
They (their him whatever for child buy wants).

[ I can't solve this problem.]

2) Which is correct?
a) The gorilla lay on his stomach, his chin resting on his folded arms.
b) The gorilla lay on his stomach, his chin rested on his folded arms.

3) Which is correct?
a) Oil and water don't mix up.
b) Oil and water never mix up.
c) Oil and water do not mix.
d) Oil and water can't mix.
e) Oil and water can't be mixed.

4) Which is correct?
a) All things considered, it's not the right time to start a new enterprise.
b) All things considered, it's not the correct time to start a new enterprise.
c) All things considered, it's not the good time to start a new enterprise.
d) All things considered, it's not the appropriate time to start a new enterprise.
e) All things considered, it's not the best time to start a new enterprise.
f) All things considered, it's the wrong time to start a new enterprise.
g) All things considered, it's the bad time to start a new enterprise.

5) Are both correct?
a) Reading is to the mind what exercising is to the body.
b) Reading is to the mind what exercise is to the body.

6) Does this conversation sound right?
A: Where did he work for the first time in his life?
B: It was a nearby farm.
[Should B say, "He worked for a nearby farm"?]

7) Which is correct?
a) I fell off my bike.
b) I fell from my bike.
c) I fell off from my bike.
d) I dropped from my bike.
e) I dropped off my bike.
f) I dropped off from my bike.

8) Select the correct word for the blank from the word list.
Shall we throw away this chair of ( ) is broken?
[ what which who whom where when whose that ]

[I can't solve this problem.]

9) Are all of them correct?
a) I make it a rule to draw a line between public and private affairs.
b) I make it a rule to draw a line between public and private things.
c) I make it a rule to draw a line between public and private matters.

Thanks in advance.

Hirashin

Mike Cash · 5 Jul 2014

The ones you can't solve are unsolvable. Most of the "which is correct?" have several correct answers.

1. Unsolvable. "Him" should be "he"

2. "a" is correct. "b" would be correct if the comma were changed to a semicolon

3. c,d,e are all correct

4. a,b,d,e,f are all correct

5. Yes

6. Yes

7. a, b are correct in the sense of 自転車から落ちた and "e" is correct in the sense of 自転車をどこどこに預けた

8. Unsolvable. Doesn't need "of"

9. Yes

johnnyG · 5 Jul 2014

Hirashin,

I've been teaching in Japan for a little less than 30 years now. For about ten years of that I was pretty much in charge of the English section of the entrance exams at my small uni. That ended about 8-9 yrs ago when they used the excuse of taking me off the committee since my older kid was 受験生.

At first I was kind of miffed, but during that first year off, by the time printing time came around (October), I was never so thankful to be done with something as that.

Imagine a half dozen people or so going back and forth on things like you've presented, above...!

(I hope I don't dream about this tonight.)

hirashin · 6 Jul 2014

Thanks for your ongoing help, Mike. I appreciate it.

Mike Cash said:
The ones you can't solve are unsolvable. Most of the "which is correct?" have several correct answers.

1. Unsolvable. "Him" should be "he"

If "him" were "he", what would the answer be? Do you need "for"?

2. "a" is correct. "b" would be correct if the comma were changed to a semicolon

I see.

7. a, b are correct in the sense of 自転車から落ちた and "e" is correct in the sense of 自転車をどこどこに預けた

Oh, really? I didn't know that. Thanks for giving me a new piece of knowledge.

Then, how would you translate わたしは自転車を有料駐輪場に預けた into English?

How about "I dropped off my bike to a/the toll bike parking lot"?

Thanks in advance.

Hirashin

hirashin · 6 Jul 2014

Thanks for the responce, JohnnyG.

Are you teaching English at a college in Ishikawa Prefecture?

The system of the English education in Japan is crazy. Don't you think so?

I hate to teach English at schools.

Hirashin

Mike Cash · 6 Jul 2014

1. They buy for their child whatever he wants.

In the case of "drop off" as a phrasal verb (verb + following adjective functioning as a set), it can be used in two ways that come to mind at the moment:

A. To leave an item with no intention of returning to collect it again: "The delivery man dropped off a package at my house".

B. To leave an item with an intention of returning to collect it again, and an expectation that something will be done to the item or some task/purpose will be fulfilled by the item (person) which is left: "I dropped off my bicycle at the repair shop (so it can be repaired)" ; "I dropped my kids off at the pool (so they can swim)" {note that phrasal verbs can be split}.

"Drop off" is very similar to "leave" in terms of a physical action. The difference lies in the associated expectations. One major point of difference is that "left" can sometimes mean "forgot an item at [place]" while "dropped off" never has that connotation (due to the element of intent associated with it).

It would be more natural, I think, to use "left" in the case of the bicycle parking lot, although "dropped off" wouldn't be technically wrong. I might for a moment subconsciously wonder just what it is the bicycle parking lot is going to do to the bicycle, though.

hirashin · 6 Jul 2014

Mike Cash said:
1. They buy for their child whatever he wants.

If "for" were omitted, would the sentence "They buy their child whatever he wants" still make sense?

In the case of "drop off" as a phrasal verb (verb + following adjective functioning as a set), it can be used in two ways that come to mind at the moment:

A. To leave an item with no intention of returning to collect it again: "The delivery man dropped off a package at my house".

B. To leave an item with an intention of returning to collect it again, and an expectation that something will be done to the item or some task/purpose will be fulfilled by the item (person) which is left: "I dropped off my bicycle at the repair shop (so it can be repaired)" ; "I dropped my kids off at the pool (so they can swim)" {note that phrasal verbs can be split}.

"Drop off" is very similar to "leave" in terms of a physical action. The difference lies in the associated expectations. One major point of difference is that "left" can sometimes mean "forgot an item at [place]" while "dropped off" never has that connotation (due to the element of intent associated with it).

It would be more natural, I think, to use "left" in the case of the bicycle parking lot, although "dropped off" wouldn't be technically wrong. I might for a moment subconsciously wonder just what it is the bicycle parking lot is going to do to the bicycle, though.

I see. I'll make a mental note of your explanations.

Hirashin

Mike Cash · 6 Jul 2014

Yes, it would still make sense and be perfectly fine.

hirashin · 12 Jul 2014

Thanks, Mike.

SusuKacangSoya · 14 Jul 2014

"8) Select the correct word for the blank from the word list.
Shall we throw away this chair of ( ) is broken?
[ what which who whom where when whose that ]"

A bit of a late reply, but I'm sure that, although saying it this way would sound strange, "Shall we throw away this chair of which is broken?" would be a perfectly fine sentence to use. Definitely a strange way to say what you mean, considering it sounds a bit like Old English or simply just unnecessarily inefficient wording, but it would grammatically work.

Mike Cash · 14 Jul 2014

SusuKacangSoya said:
"8) Select the correct word for the blank from the word list.
Shall we throw away this chair of ( ) is broken?
[ what which who whom where when whose that ]"

A bit of a late reply, but I'm sure that, although saying it this way would sound strange, "Shall we throw away this chair of which is broken?" would be a perfectly fine sentence to use. Definitely a strange way to say what you mean, considering it sounds a bit like Old English or simply just unnecessarily inefficient wording, but it would grammatically work.

That is NOT grammatically correct. Can you tell why it isn't?

SusuKacangSoya · 14 Jul 2014

No. I've looked over it again and I'm very sure that "Shall we throw away this chair of which is broken?" is a perfectly fine sentence.

Mike Cash · 14 Jul 2014

SusuKacangSoya said:
No. I've looked over it again and I'm very sure that "Shall we throw away this chair of which is broken?" is a perfectly fine sentence.

Do you live in an area where the schools no longer teach English grammar? That is such a perfectly NOT fine sentence that it makes me want to weep to see a young person who thinks it is grammatically correct. You have been ill-served by those who are supposed to be educating you.

What is the object of the preposition "of" in that sentence?

SusuKacangSoya · 14 Jul 2014

The chair. I do not see how one would not be able to discern that.

Mike Cash · 14 Jul 2014

SusuKacangSoya said:
The chair. I do not see how one would not be able to discern that.

That answers my question about living in an area that doesn't teach English grammar.....

Since when in English do objects precede their associated prepositions? PREposition, hint hint hint.

"Chair" is the direct object of "throw away". "Which" is a relative pronoun introducing a relative phrase describing the chair ("which is broken"). "Of" has no function in the sentence.

Now, if it were something like, "Shall we throw away this chair, the legs of which are broken?"then it would be fine.

SusuKacangSoya · 14 Jul 2014

Well explained. I'm still very sure that I've seen sentences similarly formed like mine that have had no complaints lodged against their grammar, but what you've said made sense.

Also as much as it is always good to fix grammar, I don't think it would be such a crippling detail. Of course, the OP of this thread is an English teacher and obviously is looking to be a good one. I still hold my opinion that my sentence is fine, however.

Mike Cash · 14 Jul 2014

SusuKacangSoya said:
Well explained. I'm still very sure that I've seen sentences similarly formed like mine that have had no complaints lodged against their grammar, but what you've said made sense.

Also as much as it is always good to fix grammar, I don't think it would be such a crippling detail. Of course, the OP of this thread is an English teacher and obviously is looking to be a good one. I still hold my opinion that my sentence is fine, however.

And sadly you are just as wrong as wrong can be. Go ask one of your English teachers at school. Preferably one over fifty.

johnnyG · 14 Jul 2014

Susu--MIke's explanation is spot on. If a student wrote what you suggested ("of which"), I would simply cross out the "of".

WonkoTheSane · 15 Jul 2014

SusuKacangSoya said:
Well explained. I'm still very sure that I've seen sentences similarly formed like mine that have had no complaints lodged against their grammar, but what you've said made sense.

Also as much as it is always good to fix grammar, I don't think it would be such a crippling detail. Of course, the OP of this thread is an English teacher and obviously is looking to be a good one. I still hold my opinion that my sentence is fine, however.

I'm sorry, but no. It is absolutely the type of grammatical error which cripples the nativity of the sentence.

nekojita · 15 Jul 2014

sounds a bit like Old English

<pet peeve> Old English is a much older language, it doesn't mean that "ye olde" bollocks. </pet peeve>

This is Old English:

Leodum is minum swylce him mon lac gife;
willaあ hy hine aecgan, gif he on reat cymeあ.

If by "not crippling" you mean "can still be understood", then yes, the meaning would get through, but even a native speaker without formal grammar education should recognise that it doesn't quite sound right. It's the sort of thing it would be an a*hole move to correct if chatting to someone who hadn't asked for feedback on their English, but should be corrected if someone asks you to proofread something.

nekojita · 15 Jul 2014

sounds a bit like Old English

<pet peeve> Old English is a much older language, it doesn't mean that "ye olde" bollocks. </pet peeve>

This is Old English:

Leodum is minum swylce him mon lac gife;
willað hy hine aþecgan, gif he on þreat cymeð.

If by "not crippling" you mean "can still be understood", then yes, the meaning would get through, but even a native speaker without formal grammar education should recognise that it doesn't quite sound right. It's the sort of thing it would be an a*hole move to correct if chatting to someone who hadn't asked for feedback on their English, but should be corrected if someone asks you to proofread something.

nekojita · 15 Jul 2014

Double post and the forum doesn't recognise Old English letters (damn you, the thorn is the best letter). I swear I only clicked post once.

Mike Cash · 15 Jul 2014

nekojita said:
Double post and the forum doesn't recognise Old English letters (damn you, the thorn is the best letter). I swear I only clicked post once.

What you had to say bore repeating.

Various questions

Sempai

骨も命も皆此の土地に埋めよう

Sempai

Sempai

Sempai

骨も命も皆此の土地に埋めよう

Sempai

骨も命も皆此の土地に埋めよう

Sempai

先輩

骨も命も皆此の土地に埋めよう

先輩

骨も命も皆此の土地に埋めよう

先輩

骨も命も皆此の土地に埋めよう

先輩

骨も命も皆此の土地に埋めよう

Sempai

先輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

骨も命も皆此の土地に埋めよう

Similar threads