Well, that's put me in my place. 33%. Dear oh dear.
www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationquestions/9987757/Good-grammar-test-can-you-pass.html
I comfort myself with the thought that I may not have anything to say, and it may not be grammatically correct when I say it, but I think it generally has a style of sorts that marks it as mine. I could be wrong.
|
I scored 45%.
But still won't buy the book it was trying to promote :-)
PS: I agree with one of the comments there.
An academic exercise of no practical value in day to day communication.
Last edited by: movilogo on Mon 15 Apr 13 at 11:54
|
Hmm. 58%. Totally let myself down on the adverb stuff. Interesting. And I still don't understand the Evelyn question (I got it wrong but can't see why).
I shall be less critical of others, seeing as that's roughly a C score at O Level, I imagine. Perhaps a B on a good day. I did, however, get a real A grade O Level in English Language in 1986. Maybe I got lucky.
|
>> Hmm. 58%. Totally let myself down on the adverb stuff. Interesting.
>>
>>
They seem to have widened the definition of adverb since the days when I leared grammar.
Nowadays it seems to mean anything that isn't clearly a noun, adjective or preposition.
I learned that an adverb "ads" to a verb.
I don't understand how "near" can be an adverb - it's a preposition surely, like in or on?
|
58% too. Fell over on some of the adverb stuff, the Evelyn question (how the hell do you know he's male? (more to the point 99% of people you said it to wouldn't), and the Latin.
I never did parsing. O level in 1969, grade 3 I think.
I'll settle for being able to spell and use lose & loose, to & too, their & there; knowing where and when to use an apostrophe in its, the difference between the subjective and objective personal pronouns, that none is singular, and the difference between fewer and less!
Learn those and you will probably be at the 99th percentile rank.
|
I'm on the dunce's step with 17%. I learned by grammar by usage not form a text book. I may not know the precise technical term for all the bits of a bike, particularly where they have changed over time or by usage.
I can still do repairs with absolute confidence I won't need a bike shop.
And I still cannot work out how:
I should like to introduce you to my sister Amanda, who lives in New York, to my brother Mark who doesn't, and to my only other sibling, Evelyn
tells me Evelyn is male.
Unless there's a female version of sibling, as in executrix/aviatrix or their plural versions, that I'm unaware of.
|
>>I'm on the dunce's step with 17%.
17% - good godfathers! ... you should have gorn to an 'approved' school Brompto.
:}
|
>>tells me Evelyn is male.
It's because "Hetty Ket" requires that when introducing groups of people one should always give ladies priority.
The correct form of the above would have been to introduce Amanda and Evelyn before Mark had Evelyn been female.
( I got 50% by the way ! )
|
>> And I still cannot work out how:
>>
>> I should like to introduce you to my sister Amanda, who lives in New York,
>> to my brother Mark who doesn't, and to my only other sibling, Evelyn
>>
>> tells me Evelyn is male.
Firstly, take out the names so that you have;
I should like to introduce you to my sister, who lives in New York, to my brother who doesn't, and to my only other sibling, Evelyn
The comma after the word "sister" implies that the description is complete and sufficient thus further implying that there is only one sister.
The lack of comma after the word "brother" implies that the description was not complete and further clarification was required which in this case was "who doesn't [live in New York]" which further implies that there is more than one brother.
If this was not the case then the word "brother"would have been sufficient and a comma would have been placed after the word "brother" and before "who doesn't"..
Thus if there is a further sibling it is a brother.
Simples.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 15 Apr 13 at 14:37
|
>> Firstly, take out the names so that you have;
>>
>> I should like to introduce you to my sister, who lives in New York, to
>> my brother who doesn't, and to my only other sibling, Evelyn
>>
>> The comma after the word "sister" implies that the description is complete and sufficient thus
>> further implying that there is only one sister.
>>
>> The lack of comma after the word "brother" implies that the description was not complete
>> and further clarification was required which in this case was "who doesn't [live in New
>> York]" which further implies that there is more than one brother.
>>
>> If this was not the case then the word "brother"would have been sufficient and a
>> comma would have been placed after the word "brother" and before "who doesn't"..
>>
>> Thus if there is a further sibling it is a brother.
>>
>> Simples.
I like your explanation but it's a bit of an exam question.
If you were speaking, it might be advisable to pause and say "comma" with a meaningful lift of the brow.
And shouldn't it be first, not firstly ;-)
>>
|
>>And shouldn't it be first, not firstly ;-)
Oh dear, one negative per sentence please.
However, "first" would have been more correct.
8-) (I HATE smileys, but it seemed important somehow).
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 15 Apr 13 at 18:20
|
|
33% ... some of the questions were double Dutch to me Tbh!
|
Gave up bothering at Q6. It is not a good grammar quiz, but mostly a quiz on terminology and definitions within grammar and bears little relationship to how English is used and misused.
|
|
50% - haven't a clue all guesses for most!
|
Oh dear; only 58%. Usage all OK, but definitions not so OK.
Pedant duly humbled. :-0
|
|
Shirley someone's going to beat us 58%ers? AC, are you out of bed yet?
|
|
Yes, where is Shirley? Push him to the front, he can represent us.
|
I didn't do very well at all, but I think understood the Evelyn question:
the other sibling genders are specified in the statement, Evelyn's isn't, and the name isn't gender specific these days (although it was male originally).
for instance
Evelyn Waugh
Evelyn Glennie (deaf lady drummer)
|
>> I didn't do very well at all, but I think understood the Evelyn question:
>>
>> the other sibling genders are specified in the statement, Evelyn's isn't, and the name isn't
>> gender specific these days (although it was male originally).
>>
>> for instance
>>
>> Evelyn Waugh
>> Evelyn Glennie (deaf lady drummer)
As the name is not gender specific these days I'm still not clear how the querstion setter assumes a gender related correct answer.
|
>> As the name is not gender specific these days I'm still not clear how
>> the querstion setter assumes a gender related correct answer.
There are three given answers
Evelyn is male
Evelyn is female
Impossible to know from the wording of the sentence whether Evelyn is male or female.
As I can't tell from the statement given:
"I should like to introduce you to my sister Amanda, who lives in New York, to my brother Mark who doesn't, and to my only other sibling, Evelyn."
The last answer is correct, AIUI. You can't tell the gender.
|
The Evelyn thing works because the writer first defines one sibling as female, and the next as male. This is effectively throwing a "gender toggle" between female and male. Because he hasn't said anything else, we can assume that the toggle remains on "male", which is the correct and only logical answer.
While I was tempted to plump for the "we can't tell" option, I suspect that if you guessed based on the content you'd be correct far more than 50% of the time, implying that "we can't tell" isn't accurate.
|
>>This is effectively throwing a "gender toggle" between female and male. Because
>> he hasn't said anything else, we can assume that the toggle remains on "male", which
>> is the correct and only logical answer.
>>
You're having us on - what's a gender toggle - is that a grammatical rule ?
Do toggles apply to other categories - eg if I say "This is my Ford, this is my Triumph, and this is my only other car" we can assume it is British Leyland because there is a marque toggle still turned on ?
:)
What rule says males and females have to be introduced in like batches? Perhaps they were sitting round a dinner table and the sexes alternated? So he said - this is Fred, this is Jennifer, this is Mark, this is Maud,....... and this is Evelyn.
|
>> >> As the name is not gender specific these days I'm still not clear how
>>
>> >> the querstion setter assumes a gender related correct answer.
>>
>> There are three given answers
>>
>> Evelyn is male
>> Evelyn is female
>> Impossible to know from the wording of the sentence whether Evelyn is male or
>> female.
>>
>> As I can't tell from the statement given:
>>
>> "I should like to introduce you to my sister Amanda, who lives in New York,
>> to my brother Mark who doesn't, and to my only other sibling, Evelyn."
>>
>> The last answer is correct, AIUI. You can't tell the gender.
Humph suggests a matter of etiquete rather than strictly grammar. Thus if E was female she'd have been introduced before Mark.
|
>> Humph suggests a matter of etiquette rather than strictly grammar.
>> Thus if E was female she'd have been introduced before Mark.
That's a good point which I hadn't considered.
I suppose you can blame equality, or my ignorance, both are valid. ;-)
|
>>
>>
>> "I should like to introduce you to my sister Amanda, who lives in New York,
>> to my brother Mark who doesn't, and to my only other sibling, Evelyn."
>>
>> The last answer is correct, AIUI. You can't tell the gender.
>>
That what it says in the answer, but it also ticks "Evelyn is male".
Some mistake there.
|
75% - but I'm an English graduate, so should it have been 100%?
I agree with many of the criticisms - that the quiz is about labels, some of which are dubiously applied. Labels which work in Latin, in which the relationships between parts of a sentence are explicitly shown by inflections (i.e. the endings of the words change), very often don't work in English. The question in the quiz about Latin is not about English grammar, so why include it?
The questions largely ignore functional syntax - that is, the dynamic way in which the various parts of a sentence interact - and, more importantly, ignore "deep" grammar - the implied relationships between words which lie below the surface and which English is full of.
You don't need to know grammar in a theoretical sense to be able to use English effectively.
Last edited by: FocalPoint on Mon 15 Apr 13 at 13:11
|
|
Exactly. My English grammar was taught to me (at a grammar school) some 60+ years ago, so whilst I can use the language pretty well, the technical definitions are lost in the mists of time!
|
|
67%, but what a pain these things are. I'm too old for them.
|
|
I wonder how Lynne Truss would do?
|
>> I wonder how Lynne Truss would do?
she'd probably shoot the compiler, than leave.
|
75%....Smartass here !
Queue up at my door for tutoring, apart from FP. Not cheap, though.
Ted
|
67%, but 4 of the questions I hadn't a clue and guessed, getting 3 of them right :)
Back to work
|
|
never bothered with english at school, born ere rayne eye
|
Mr A: I should like to introduce you to my sister Amanda, who lives in New York, to my brother Mark who doesn't, and to my only other sibling, Evelyn.
Mr B: Oh! so, Evelyn is your brother, then.
Mr A: What are you talking about, you plank! Evelyn is my sister.
Mr B: But the sentence you uttered implies that Evelyn is male. I've read all about it on an internet forum, and --
Mr A: (Thumps Mr B)
|
In my (obviously twisted) mind, the fact that the Evelyn sentence contains the word sibling rather than brother or sister would imply to me that the speaker is being deliberately secretive about the gender of Evelyn, for whatever reason, best known to himself/herself.
That, to me, would trump all thoughts of the possibility of some arcane bit of grammar revealing the truth of Evelyn's gender to me.
|
>> That, to me, would trump all thoughts of the possibility of some arcane bit of grammar revealing the truth of Evelyn's gender to me.
Yes, that's an extremely annoying trick question, nothing to do with grammar or language but much to do with having an efficient, desk-calculator-like brain. I got it wrong by the way. But have a strong feeling that that is more right than getting it right. So there...
:o}
|
Thing is, I realised it was a trick question, but still couldn't see any way that the gender could be implied, even though I knew it was trying to tell me it was. NoFM's explanation is a good one, and not one I'd have thought of independently.
Although I still can't see why it would be wrong to replace the word sibling with sister and I am similarly unconvinced that I'm wrong.
Last edited by: Alanović on Mon 15 Apr 13 at 16:22
|
What I thought was that it was a question of formal manners - if Evelyn had been a sister, younger than Amanda, she would have been mentioned before the brother. Ladies first as a general rule, except when entering an unknown pub or descending a staircase. Perhaps there are other exceptions. When introducing two people, you address the 'senior' one and introduce the junior one to them; and ladies are very often the honorary senior person, being ladies. But it's not the sort of detail one bothers to remember in the event. And these things apply patchily with intimates. No one cares much after all.
Good idea to let the young know what is regarded as formally correct though. You don't want them to seem any more gormless than they have to.
|
58% ......
Must try harder .....
My old headmaster , who wrote the textbook on English Grammar will be spinning in his grave.....
|
|
But I did get the Evelyn one correct......
|
Well, for the Telegraph's explanation-that-isn't-much-help to a peabrain like me, see
www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationquestions/9994905/Good-grammar-test-the-results.html
where you will see why Evelyn is male. Apparently.
|
>> where you will see why Evelyn is male. Apparently.
Either I'm going mad, or they've been reading this site and changed their answer, as they like NoFMR's explanation.
|
50% and I won't bother trying harder....I'm well satisfied with that seeing some of the scores on here:)
Pat
|
>> You don't need to know grammar in a theoretical sense to be able to use English effectively.
That is usually true for whom English is a native language. Those learn English as second language, learning grammar is essential to get a good grasp of the language.
|
HA 58%!
See, few of yous lot is betterer than the rest, and I am no worse than the rest of yous. So you can all shut your traps when you try and pick holes in other peoples grammar.
DEPORT THE PEDANTS.
|
>> HA 58%!
>> DEPORT THE PEDANTS.
Calm down dear, and stop bawling.
Looks as if Iffy has decided to stay away. I think it's a pity. A bit of one.
|
Wifey got 50% :)
She's from Essex :(
|
|
42%, mostly guesses to be honest
|
Blimey, that was tough - and rather silly. As the others have said, you could know all that and still not write coherently or understand what you read.
As I read the Evelyn one, it could just as easily be addressed to an interlocutor named Evelyn and not even tell us the third sib's name.
67%, incidentally - and me a mere biology graduate. But given that four of the questions are two-way multiple choice, I reckon you need a minimum of 7 out of 12 to be sure you did better than guesswork, so only FP from this group emerges with any real credit.
|
Woa, lets not start handing out credit where it's due, not on here, need to nip that nasty little habit in the bud right away.
What are you thinking.
|
|
did zeddo get a bad score?
|
Might just want to re-look at your capitals old son...
:-))
|
>> did zeddo get a bad score?
>>
No, he got a very commendable 58%. He has produced some good work this term, and is easily capable of further steady improvement if he puts his mind to it.
|
42%
Better than I expected to be honest
|
Grammar quiz - movilogo
