Social Question

absalom's avatar

Will you take this short grammar challenge?

Asked by absalom (7552points) December 17th, 2009

Disclaimer of sorts: The sentences of this “challenge” were created by David Foster Wallace and taught in a nonfiction workshop in 2004.

I know some Flutherites enjoy talking and/or complaining about grammar and/or grammatical errors. I’m often guilty of the same, and I thought that because I enjoyed this little exercise so might they. Somehow, however, I’m expecting less of a response than, say, @rangerr’s grammar question of yesterdayish.

Each of the ten sentences below has an error in usage or grammar. I.e., there are no trick sentences. They are all, however, a little tricky. WITHOUT cheating or googling, then, can you correct them? (You can look at and copy others’ responses if you want to, but they may be wrong.)

The offending sentences:

1. He and I hardly see one another.

2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.

3. My brother called to find out if I was over the flu yet.

4. I only spent six weeks in Napa.

5. In my own mind, I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.

6. From whence had his new faith come?

7. Please spare me your arguments of why all religions are unfounded and contrived.

8. She didn’t seem to ever stop talking.

9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more and more aggravating.

10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after Christ’s resurrection.

Be warned some of the violated rules here are, um, somewhat obscure or hypercritical. But they’re kind of interesting and you may even learn something.

I will provide the correct answers when no one cares to respond anymore. Hopefully that’s not immediately after I post the question. If you want to know the answers sooner, PM me and I’ll tell you.

Have fun!~

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

15 Answers

Poopy's avatar

No, I will not. I am on winter break. My mind does not do school work until January.

King_of_Sexytown's avatar

I think 7 might be redundant with “unfounded and contrived”. The rest I don’t know right now. I’ll have to really think about it.

LostInParadise's avatar

1 “hardly” should probably be replaced by “hardly ever” but I think that would be kind of nitpicky

2 is generally awkward. It could be improved by adding commas before and after the phrase “left wandering without periods”

5 is redundant. Where else can you understand something other than in your own mind?

4 should probably reworded to “I spent only six weeks in Napa” but again this is nitpicky. In colloquial use, the original sentence is okay

7 “unfounded” might apply to an argument but not to a religion

8 should probably be reworded to say something like “She seemed to never stop talking” ,but this is more awkward than the original even if it is technically more correct

10. I am not sure of this one. The problem may be that the sentence can be construed to be saying that the account took place shortly after the resurrection rather than the ministry.

I can’t find anything wrong with the others though some of them sound awkward.

LostInParadise's avatar

I recall an argument against being overly critical of grammar mistakes. The person pointed out that technically speaking Shakespeare’s statement, “All that glitters is not gold” should be changed to “Not all that glitters is gold.”

absalom's avatar

@LostInParadise: That is true, and I try not to be too critical of anyone’s grammar. In the Shakespeare, for example, he’s not making a grammatical error so much as ignoring the rule so the line scans properly (and anyway I’m pretty sure the line is not originally his). I enjoy seeing writers manipulate grammar purposefully. As long as we’re still aware of the rules. Thanks for your answers!

Edit: Your solution to number 2 works in that it improves clarity, for sure, but it’s also a nonstandard solution (according to David Foster Wallace). You definitely got at least two others correct though, which is pretty good.

DominicX's avatar

1. I’m guessing hardly should just be changed to another adverb. Not sure which one, though. Maybe “barely” or “rarely”? Or change “one another” to “each other”?
3. Maybe delete “yet” altogether?
6. “From whence” is redundant. You can just say “Whence had his new faith come?”
9. I don’t see anything wrong with this sentence. All you could add I guess would be “I found her facial tic to be more and more…” That doesn’t really “fix” anything, though. Or maybe get rid of “and more”?
10. “which” doesn’t relate to “Nephites”, yet it follows “Nephites”. It really relates to “ministry”. I don’t know how to fix it, though.

Laina's avatar

The third one should probably be changed to
My brother called to find out whether I was over the flu yet.

gailcalled's avatar

Are we allowed to correct your writing errors? Not that I have time, but still….

#9 contains a dangling particle.

absalom's avatar

@gailcalled

By all means.

Incorrect though.

DominicX's avatar

@gailcalled

Wait, did you mean “participle”? I don’t think English has any particles aside from “to” or “not”.

gailcalled's avatar

Hoist on my own petard, again, guys.

Trillian's avatar

1. He and I hardly see each other. 2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods, and at the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t“s. (Ridiculous sentence, by the way. Definitely leaves a participle dangling further than I’d want to risk. Not to mention the utter inappropriateness and misuse of the language.) 3. My brother called to find out whether I were over the flu. 4. I spent only six weeks in Napa. 5. I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening. 6. Whence had his new faith come? 7. Please spare me your arguments about why all religions are unfounded and contrived. 8. Hmmmm, split infinitive? I get the issue, but since we use stupid Latin rules simply because we always have is not a good reason. Split away. In English, the rule is unnecessary. 9 ??? What? 10. The book of Mormon, yadda yadda yadda, soon after HIS resurrection. Really? Do we HAVE to use a pronoun? This is obviously written for stupid people who may very well forget about whom the author is speaking long before the end of the sentence. How’d I do?

absalom's avatar

@Trillian

Very well.

For number three, though, was remains. Number nine is nitpicking: to aggravate means to make worse (think exacerbate), not to irritate, although today the word’s probably used more often in the latter sense than the former. (Even Wiktionary marks the irritate denotation as formerly colloquial.)

Great job on this!

absalom's avatar

@morphail

It’s just kibitzing (if I can borrow that word here), but I’m glad you had fun googling.

And kibitzing.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther