Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: Weird exercise

The exercise says
"Present participle clauses are often used to create a formal style. 
Decide whether the following sentence has used it appropriately and if 
not, rewrite it using a word from the box."
 
Here are a few sentences where "X" means incorrect and "V" correct:
X) The car broke down again, making me really mad!
V) The car broke down again, which made me really mad!
X) Feeling tired, I decided to go to bed early.
V) Because I felt tired, I decided to go to bed early.
X) On my entering the room, they all laughed.
V) When I entered the room, they all laughed.
 
Why are the "X-sentences" incorrect?
 
Kiuhnm


On the contrary, this sentence is already correct:
V) Having lost several thousand pounds at the casino,
the accused proceeded to argue with the manager.
 
BTW, this is a CAE exercise.
 
Kiuhnm


The directions appear to define as correct, usages that are 
"appropriate" to create a formal style. That doesn't mean that the 
phrases themselves are grammatically incorrect. But, they may be 
incorrect as examples of appropriate usage to create a formal style. 
Given that standard, I understand the discrimination between "correct" 
and "incorrect" in the examples given and I'm in agreement. It is an 
issue of style, not grammar.
 
In regard to the last example you gave, however, I would write "After 
having lost..." to meet the same standard of formality.

> V) When I entered the room, they all laughed.
 
In my very humble opinion, here the former sentence sounds more formal 
than the latter.

 than the latter.
 
Non dimenticarti che "formal" in questo contesto non significa formale, 
ne educato, ne poetico, ne ufficiale, ne da sera, ne da cerimonia, ma 
invece istruito nel senso della communicazione chiara.

 "appropriate" to create a formal style.
 
Unfortunately, I can't tell correct and incorrect usages apart. I'll 
search for some prescriptive rules on the Internet :)
 
Kiuhnm

 search for some prescriptive rules on the Internet :)
 
Because you are interested in a high level of compliance with what is 
considered correct usage, I suggest that you consider getting a copy of 
the Chicago Manual of Style. This is the standard reference for editors 
who work in the American publishing industry. You can pick up a used 
copy of an earlier edition (the 16th edition is current, and I have the 
14th edition) for a few dollars.
 
http://www.amazon.com/Chicago-Manual-Style-Essential-Publishers/dp/0226103897
 
 
It includes not only grammar conventions but also usage conventions for 
publishing. Of course, these days, not even publishers maintain a high 
level compliance with formal conventions so if you master an old edition 
you will be more qualified than many of the dying breed of American editors.

 the Chicago Manual of Style.
 
There is an online edition, too (with a 30-days free trial): 
www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Thank you both, but that's too much for me. I'm just doing some CAE 
exercises and picking up some grammar along the way.
 
Kiuhnm


 
Given that CAE and similar are British and not American English you'd
probably
want a British equivalent anyway. Perhaps the Oxford one.
 
I find some CAE and CPE exercises a bit startling. I often don't think
anyone
would "correct" the supposedly incorrect answers in some of these
exercises
or think they sounded wrong. However, it may well be the case that
native
speakers would almost universally use the notionally correct answer in
real life,
even if when presented with the choice of which to use they would
claim both seemed fine.
 
Perhaps CPE in particular is aiming for that sort of level of "getting
stuff right".
 
Trying to think of an Italian example... you _can_ always make direct
object pronouns
agree with past participles. "Ti ho vista", "Ci hanno uccisi" and so
on. But it's
only _obligatory_ in certain cases (third person singular and plural
for sure) and
given that in real life I mostly _don't_ hear Italians use agreements
in the non-obligatory
cases I suspect it would sound a bit odd if I _always_ made "ti", "ci"
and "vi" agree
with past participles.

 with past participles.
 
But at least there is a rule you can adhere to.
I did find rules about present participle clauses but none of them 
disqualify most of the sentences in my first post from being correct.
Here's the exception:
  - The car broke down again, making me really mad! (the car made me mad)
  - The car broke down again, which made me really mad! (the situation 
made me mad)
The latter is probably better.
 
Kiuhnm


Try reversing the clauses in the sentences of your first post. Does that 
help?
 
I decided to go to bed early, feeling tired.
I decided to go to bed early, because I felt tired.
They all laughed on my entering the room.
They all laughed when I entered the room.

 The latter is probably better.
 
I fear this is one of the times when both could well be "correct" but
one
is more usual or they mean different things and you might say one
but mean another.
 
When students of mine in Rome said "One of my brothers is a girl" or
"I was saved
by a lion." they may have meant what they said, but on the whole I
doubt it.

 doubt it.
 
lol
 
Kiuhnm

 They all laughed when I entered the room.
 
Nope, sorry. I have no problem rephrasing a sentence but I still don't 
understand /when/ I should do it.
To me they all seem equally correct.
Why is "Having lost several thousand pounds at the casino,
the accused proceeded to argue with the manager." the only sentence 
already correct?
 
Kiuhnm


Here correct means CAE-correct, not just correct.
 
Kiuhnm

 Here correct means CAE-correct, not just correct.
 
That is inconsistent with the previous assessments. The sentence would 
have to be "After having lost..." to remain consistent with the other 
sentences assessed as CAE-correct. I would construct sentences in this 
manner if I were writing a formal paper which required a high degree of 
clarity in style. This "casino" variation may be be the result of human 
error in the preparation of the sentences.
 
By the way, in the sentence "The car broke down again, making me really 
mad!" it doesn't necessarily imply that the car made me mad instead of 
the situation, it is only less clear in identifying the culprit. That's 
the reason one takes fewer shortcuts in formal writing.

 invece istruito nel senso della communicazione chiara.
 
Aaaaaaaaah. Is that so? Freak!
 
-- 
Enrico il Pentolaio.
My blog: 
http://vousavezunaccent.blogspot.com/
 

    E infatti ti ho vista.
 
"atono" e' particolarmente significativo qui?
 
Non e' vero che tutti dicono, sempre, "Ci hanno visti", "Vi hanno
seguite" e cosi' via, come
ho gia' detto. Con "lo", "la", "li" e "le", si'. Altrimenti? La pagina
che citi sembra dire
di farlo sempre. Ma non credo che l'uso effettivo sia questo.


I really don't think this is a "correct" vs "incorrect" exercise.
 
It's a "register" exercise.
 
For example, would you use "bislacco" in a speech given to the Senate?
It wouldn't be
gramatically incorrect per se to do so.
 
"Feeling tired, I decided to go to bed early." doesn't sound wrong to
me, but it does
seem like something I would expect to see in a newspaper article or
hear in a talk
on the radio, or a speech given by Stephen Fry or something. It
doesn't feel like
something I would expect to hear in normal conversation.
 
Similary, "On my entering the room,..". Stephen Fry giving a speech,
yes. Article in
"The Times", yes. Normal conversation, probably not.

 who work in the American publishing industry.
 
Proprio l'altro giorno stavo guardando un manuale simile, edito pero' 
dall'economist.  Nella pagina di amazon pareva fosse piu' che altro un 
insieme di chiarimenti su parole poco usate o spesso usate male. Erano 
quasi tutti termini derivanti dal latino, quindi quasi uguali ai 
corrispettivi in italiano, e il che non mi ha spinto a un eventuale 
acquisto.
 
Questa guida e' fatta meglio?


 Questa guida e' fatta meglio?
 
I have a copy of this and rarely use it. I also have "The New York Times 
Manual of Style and Usage," which I NEVER use any more.
 
IMHO, The New York Times's style is stilted and cumbersome: The "Gray Lady" 
is unutterably conservative. The Chicago Manual is slightly better, and at 
least it is updated regularly, unlike the NYT which was last published in 
1999.
 
Language and usage change so very frequently that printed manuals, like 
dictionaries, are out of style soon after publication.
 
I'm not a radical neologist; I have my limits, but when I read The New York 
Times and see things like "... using A.T.M.'s can make life easier" (instead 
of "... using ATMs can make life...") I cringe at all those needless dots and 
swipes. In particular, the apostrophe is terribly confusing. Does it mean 
possessive? Or does it mean letters are missing? Well, YES: there are a lot 
of letters missing... but why the apostrophe on only the last term?
 
I also have a copy of The Gregg Manual of Style and Swan's Practical English 
Usage, both of which get cursory glances from me from time to time.
 
These are manuals of STYLE, as their names express. They can be valuable in 
circumstances where knowing the proper abbreviation is important, or the 
proper way to address an official and similar situations, but they can also 
mislead you.
 
In my own publications, I like to strike a balance between the staid and prim 
and the up-to-date and efficient, making use of some of the best terminology 
to appear.
 
IMHO it's better to appear modern than stale.
 
Just my two cents.
(That's just my humble opinion.)
 
-- 
Joey from New York
Among those whom I like or admire, I can find no common denominator,
but among those whom I love, I can: all of them make me laugh.
   -- WH Auden
 

 di farlo sempre. Ma non credo che l'uso effettivo sia questo.
 
You're right: I say "Ci hanno visto entrare", but "Ci hanno visti 
entrare" doesn't sound wrong to me.
 
Kiuhnm


So, those sentences *are* supposed to be formal.
And then it says (for each sentence):
"Decide whether the following sentence has used it appropriately and if
not, rewrite it using a word from the box."
You're asked to decide whether the sentence is *correct* or *incorrect*. 
We already know it is formal, but is it correct or has the present 
participle been misused?
 
Kiuhnm

 So, those sentences *are* supposed to be formal.
 
This is not clear to me, really. Perhaps you are supposed to feel that
"make me mad"
is so informal that it is not appropriate to put it in a formal
sentence, so a less
formal construction is appropriate when saying what happened to make
you mad.

):

I agree, Adam. I see little difference in most of the pairs of sentences.
 
In the first pair:
X) The car broke down again, making me really mad!
V) The car broke down again, which made me really mad!
the only difference I can infer is that the 'incorrect' sentence implies that 
in making me mad, the car broke down again.
 
X) Feeling tired, I decided to go to bed early.
V) Because I felt tired, I decided to go to bed early.
No difference in meaning, and a real stretch to find a 'formal' element to 
the second.
 
X) On my entering the room, they all laughed.
V) When I entered the room, they all laughed.
Not an issue of formality, but the first sentence almost provides an 
incorrecte antecedent: without "my" it would be totally incorrect, implying 
that "they" were entering the room. In the sentence as given, "my" mitigates 
that confusion but the sentence is still a little "off," confusing.
However, I do not feel that the second sentence is any bit more formal, which 
I thought was the purpose of the exercise.


 Questa guida e' fatta meglio?
 
� ben scritto, ma come ho detto The Chicago Manual of Style � un po' 
troppo per la persona comune. L'ho menzionato solo per la gente che ha 
l'interessamento d'essere sempre "correct." Sapiamo che corretto non � 
sempre adatto.
 
Il CMS � ben conosciuto e usato nelle societ� editrice e dagli editori e 
gli scrittori professionali, infatti � la norma, anche se in questo 
periodo il grado di professionalimo diminuise nelle societ� editrice 
americane (per ragioni di tagliare la spesa). Di solito, il CMS � 
l'ultima fonte per dissensi tra editori professionalisti. Ma ogni 
societ� e magari ogni progetto ha il proprio supplemento che definisce 
il stile per l'applicazione particulare, perch� non c'� un modo generale 
che va bene per ogni situazione. La lingua e l'uso cambiano ma il CMS � 
un grand nave nella tempesta che batte il campo d'editoria. Si dovrebbe 
capire la sua funzione alla luce di questa comprensione e non si 
dovrebbe dependerne per ogni responsabilit�. Il libro � aggiornato 
spesso per seguire i cambiamenti nel campo d'editoria. Dire cos�, ci 
sono anche qualche editori che non lo consultano mai perch� pensano che 
la propria esperienza loro sia l'ultima norma.
 
In Wikipedia c'� un descrizione adatta.
 
<<The Chicago Manual of Style (abbreviated in writing as CMS or CMOS, or 
verbally as Chicago) is a style guide for American English published 
since 1906 by the University of Chicago Press. Its 16 editions have 
prescribed writing and citation styles widely used in publishing. It is 
"one of the most widely used and respected style guides in the United 
States,"[1] and is considered the de facto guide for American English 
style, grammar, and punctuation. The CMS deals with aspects of editorial 
practice, from American English grammar and usage to document preparation.>>
 
 
 

 la propria esperienza loro sia l'ultima norma.
 
qualche editore che lo consulta mai perché pensa che la sua...
 
Don't misjudge my understanding of the publishing industry by my crude 
Italian. I've worked with most of the major textbook publishing 
companies in the US and many in England, even if the total number grows 
smaller every year through takeovers.

 I thought was the purpose of the exercise.
 
No, I think the _first_ sentence is more formal in each case. You have
to say if
this is appropriate. "On my entering the room, they all laughed" is
more high-falutin'
than "When I entered the room, they all laughed" but I don't think
it's inappropriate
if you are giving a talk in a formal setting and recounting an amusing
anecdote, or
writing an article in the Times in which you include an amusing
anecdote. In everyday
conversation, yes, it would sound a bit peculiar coming from most
people. I wouldn't
say it was just flat out "inappropriate", though.


I thought the exercise was about grammar, but it must be about register 
as you (and others) said because I can't see any other way to justify 
the answers.
 
Here's the entire exercise, answers included:
 
Present participle clauses are often used to create a formal style. 
Decide which of the following sentences have used them inappropriately 
and rewrite them using a word from the box. Pay attention to your use of 
tenses!
 
[after so when which]
 
1) Having addressed the conference, the minister left for Brussels.
OK
 
2) Having washed the car, I made myself a cup of tea.
After I had washed the car...
 
3) A: Did you see the film last night?
    B: No. Feeling tired, I decided to go to bed early.
... Because I felt tired, ...
 
4) Having lost several thousand pounds at the casino, the accused 
proceeded to argue with the manager.
OK
 
5) A: Does everyone like your new suit?
    B: I don't think so. On my entering the room, the all laughed.
When I entered the room...
 
6) Placing the ring on her finger, he noticed that Samantha's hand was 
trembling.
OK
 
7) The ignition then lights the flame, causing the boiler's main jets to 
open.
OK
 
8) The car broke down again, making me really mad!
... which made me really mad!
 
Kiuhnm

 ... Because I felt tired, ...
 
You could have saved everyone a lot of time if you had included the
entire
exercise to start with. Please do so in future. This is clearly almost
certainly a normal conversation and not someone giving a speech
to the National Academy of Sciences including an amusing anecdote
about how the idea for Quantum Snorkels came to them.
 
If you'd included the whole thing we could have all said with much
more confidence that this was a register thing.
 


After seeing the instructions, I can say that you shouldn't beat 
yourself up over your confusion. The emphasis on "formal style" is 
ambiguous at a minimum and likely misleading. They could have just as 
easily asked you to correct those sentences which were not internally 
consistent in expressing cause and effect (although that's also not a 
great instruction). In any case, the suggestion that I gave you about 
clarity still holds true under this expanded version of instructions. 
However, I would accept their version of question 2, now that I 
understand their intent.

 understand their intent.
 
I should explain. The exercise isn't about register. That is, it isn't 
an exercise in choosing which phrase fits a particular register. The 
comment about "formal style" was essentially an aside that justified the 
preference for present participle clauses WHEN THEY ARE USED CORRECTLY 
for this exercise. Your task, should you have decided to accept it, was 
to make more intelligible those sentences which used the present 
participle when they were written without consistent clarity.
 

 exercise to start with. Please do so in future.
 
You should give me more credit.
I was doing an exercise I found on the web but it was incomplete and 
finding the book it was taken from (I knew it was taken from a CAE book) 
took me a few days. Sorry for causing you any inconvenience :)
 
Kiuhnm

 You should give me more credit.
 
I mean your time as well. If you're trying to do exercises where you
don't even
know what the point is, then you are making life quite hard for
yourself. And if you
ask for help you don't know what help to ask for.