HARD: Grammar questions for the 2400's out there...

Test Preparation
1

<p>^ or just plain solid grammar students:</p>

<p>There are two questions I would like to ask. Please do NOT reply unless you know answers definitively (not to be rude; I'm simply frustrated with pointless responses). In case there is some fantastic debate within the English guru community, PLEASE GIVE ME WHAT THE SAT THINKS.</p>

<p>1) There seems to be a debate to whether the past perfect tense is optional in certain cases. For example, the EnglishPage site (googling that will get you there if necessary) claims that when a temporal indicator is given, the simple past tense can be used instead. However, other sources indicate that it is ALWAYS necessary to use the past perfect tense when there are two past events that happen in order. Consider the following sentence: </p>

<p>"I had eaten the cake by the time you arrived." <---always correct
"I ate the cake by the time you arrived." <--- in the eyes of the SAT, does the temporal indicator "by" make "had eaten" optional (substituted here with the simple past "ate")?</p>

<p>I'm pretty sure that temporal indicators, through SAT eyes, make past perfect optional. On the PSAT '08, section 5 #30 reads: </p>

<p>Perhaps as ([A] a consequence of) warfare (** that erupted) when natural resources became scarce, many of Easter Island's large stone statues, called Moai, ([C] have been toppled) by the islanders ([D] themselves) three centuries ago. [E] No error </p>

<p>The answer is C because present perfect progressive cannot be used for an event that ended in the past (3 centuries ago). I'm guessing that since the answer is not B, which could be substituted with "that had erupted" because it happened before another past event (the toppling), past perfect is optional here due to the temporal indicator "as a consequence of". Please reassure me with this.</p>

<p>2) Copular verbs, which are presumably the conjugations of "to be" (is, am, are), are often used as "equal signs" in certain sentences. Consider the following sentences:</p>

<p>I am a boy. Boys are fierce human beings. Interpretive dancing and falconry are my favorite activities.</p>

<p>Correct so far. Alright, now it gets semi-complicated when I say something like:</p>

<p>We are the new team. </p>

<p>Now the so-called "sides of the equation" are unequal. "We" is plural, while the "team" is singular. (I'm pretty sure the sentence I gave is correctly written) </p>

<p>In the blue book, p.846 # 14 (I've already read the explanations given on the consolidated writing solutions thread and posted there about this) the problem reads:</p>

<p>"([A] Introducing) new ideas and replacing (** old ones) ([C] is) always a highly controversial matter, ([D] especially when) there is already tension between an older and a younger generation. No error"</p>

<p>The answer here is E, not C! On the original thread on this question, Xitammarg says that "is" can be used for the multiple subjects because "are" would only be necessary if "a highly controversial matter" became "highly controversial matters". When both sides of the copular verb are unequal, he maintains that either "is" or "are" is okay. </p>

<p>Xitammarg gave me so much relief in his explanation but I still have to be reassured because certain sentences seem so wrong even if they abide by his rule. For example:</p>

<p>We is the new team.</p>

<p>That, at the very least, sounds absolutely terrible.
What is the grammar rule here? Am I not seeing something? Are sentences with copular verbs really separate from simple subject-verb agreement problems? </p>

<p>I'm sorry my post was so long. I probably violated like 82395 forum rules in this...</p>

<p>ENGLISH GURUS, PLEASE HELP. I'M SO FRUSTRATED LGHAIRLJLFG</p>

2

<p>We are the new team. > Team is a collective noun. So it’s ‘plural’ in that sense.</p>

<p>‘introducing and replacing’ is ONE subject, one collective action because it is a ‘matter’ not two separate ‘matters’. Thus, ‘is’ is appropriate.</p>

3

<p>2) “Introducing and replacing [ideas]” is one subject. Whenever you have a verb ending in -ing, it’s a singular.
Running is my favorite activity. Not: Running are my favorite activity.
Even if you add the word “marathons” after running, the sentence would still read “Running marathons is my favorite activity” because marathons is not the subject, but the subject’s modifier.</p>

4

<p>@ karabee. True, but not all ‘-ing’s are singular, not if you have two or more. The singular ‘matter’ is important because if it could be like:
" Flying like a bird and running like a cheetah ARE two wishes she had."
If the ‘wishes’ is replaced by ’ one wish’ then it is one subject.
It depends on whether its like a collective action.</p>

5

<p>Re: 2)
“Introducing new ideas and replacing old ones is always a highly controversial matter.” Correct.
“Introducing new ideas and replacing old ones are always highly controversial matters.”
Also correct. The reason is because in this sentence, it’s like you’re saying: Introducing new ideas is a highly controversial matter. Replacing old ideas is [also] a highly controversial matter. Because both things are highly controversial, we can combine them into one pluralized sentence. Agreement is key.</p>

<p>Re: 1)
“Perhaps as ([A] a consequence of) warfare (** that erupted) when natural resources became scarce, many of Easter Island’s large stone statues, called Moai, ([C] have been toppled) by the islanders ([D] themselves) three centuries ago. [E] No error.”</p>

<p>This confuses me a little too, which is why I’ll give you some advice instead of the reassurance you’re looking for. While I think your reasoning is right, I do want to add that should you come across a question like this, look at the big picture and go with the choice that’s clearly incorrect (C) because there’s only ever one error in these sentences. Don’t get too caught up with the smaller, more subtle errors like (B), where you think they’re correct but they seem like they could be more correct, because that’s when you trip up.</p>

6

<p>

</p>

<p>I think your reasoning is correct. If all else fails, trust your ear on questions like this. I wouldn’t worry too much about seeing a question testing a rule like this.</p>

<p>As for your second question, one must distinguish between two different cases when evaluating compound subjects composed of gerunds. If the gerunds are two separate activities, the subject is considered plural and hence a plural verb is used. If the two gerunds can be conceived of as a single united act, they collectively form a singular noun and hence a singular verb is used.</p>

7

<p>Thanks a lot, guys. As you can see, I may have gone delusional without you with the whole copular verb thing. I will keep the collectivity concept in mind lol</p>

8

<p>Here’s my input:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This should be I had eaten the cake by the time you arrived.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>C is indeed an error, but you make a good point. I think B should also be an error to keep the tense consistent.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The subject is “introducing” (singular)</p>

9

<p>Can I ask a question, for</p>

<p>Perhaps as ([A] a consequence of) warfare (** that erupted) when natural resources became scarce, many of Easter Island’s large stone statues, called Moai, ([C] have been toppled) by the islanders ([D] themselves) three centuries ago. [E] No error </p>

<p>What should [C] be replaced with then? I don’t get what’s wrong. The toppling happened after the warfare erupted (past) in the past, so its right in between the present and the past, so present perfect makes sense. :(</p>

<p>Were toppled seems interchangable, but I dunno. Does it have anything to do with the specific time period mentioned? Because present perfect is supposed to be like “unspecified” time.</p>

<p>Jason has eaten cookies 2 years ago doesn’t make sense, so i’m guessing that’s why have toppled is wrong 3 centuries ago.</p>

10

<p>Damn I guess this is how people prepare for the sats :O</p>

11

<p>Multiple gerunds act as a single subject. Plural nouns/pronouns do not.</p>

<p>Introducing… is.
We are.</p>

12

<p>Incidentally, this:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>is a point where British and American English differ. In British English, collective nouns are plural, especially when they’re sports teams. An American will say “Italy has won the World Cup”, whereas a Brit will say “Italy have won the World Cup.”</p>

13

<p>@ cjgone:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Even if the toppling happened after the warfare, it doesn’t change the fact that the islanders still toppled the statues three centuries ago… which I think would qualify as being fully in the past. I think either “Perhaps as a consequence of warfare that erupted when natural resources became scarce, many of Easter Island’s large stone statues, called Moai, were toppled by the islanders themselves three centuries ago” or “Perhaps as a consequence of warfare that erupted when natural resources became scarce, many of Easter Island’s large stone statues, called Moai, had been toppled by the islanders themselves there centuries ago” would work.</p>

14

<p>@asfh09,</p>

<p>I know exactly what you mean about avoiding getting tripped up with picky “errors”.what I meant to ask was if this same question were asked with “were toppled” given instead of “have been toppled”, would you mark no error? I’m looking for a definitive answer to whether the sat necessitates past perfect if a temporal indicator like “as a consequence of” is given.</p>

<p>Any extra help on this regard is greatly appreciated.</p>

15

<p>For the first one, it must be in the past perfect. This becomes more evident when you switch the clauses to make a subordinate:</p>

<p>By the time you arrived, I had eaten the cake.</p>

<p>“By the time you arrived, I ate the cake,” doesn’t work because it is unclear if the cake had been eaten before the person arrived or at the time of their arrival.</p>

16

<p>I disagree.
Running, climbing, and reading are fun activities.
In this case, multiple gerunds act as 3 different actions.</p>