More Grammar For xTKOx

[Our House]

These were given to me a long time (10 years) ago ... when I was in college.


By adding the correct punctuation, the following sentences will make complete sense:


1) There should be more space between ham and and and and and eggs. (spoken to the sign painter)


2) Mary where John had had had had had had had had had had had the teacher's approval Mary would have been correct.



I'm not sure if anyone here has seen these before. It will surprise me if the first one isn't really simple for all of you. The second one is very tough. At the time this was given out, only 3 students in the NYC area answered correctly (either NYC students aren't that smart, or my english professor made up that fact). I have a lot of faith in the 2+2 community, so this should be a breeze.

[_TKO_]

There should be more space between "ham" and "and", and "and" and "eggs".

I'll get back to you on the second one after lunch.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
There should be more space between "ham" and "and", and "and" and "eggs".

[/ QUOTE ]
This is correctly punctuated in British English.

In American English, it would be: There should be more space between "ham" and "and," and "and" and "eggs."

(I personally think the British way makes more sense.)

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
(I personally think the British way makes more sense.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely.

The American way is silly IMO also. Why would the comma belong on the sign? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]

This is correctly punctuated in British English.

[/ QUOTE ]

I live in Canada.

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
It will surprise me if the first one isn't really simple for all of you.

[/ QUOTE ]

The parenthesized hint does help.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There should be more space between "ham" and "and", and "and" and "eggs".

[/ QUOTE ]
This is correctly punctuated in British English.

In American English, it would be: There should be more space between "ham" and "and," and "and" and "eggs."

(I personally think the British way makes more sense.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I was not aware the difference was because of Brit/American. I also prefer outside the quote. It gets frustrating when using spell check (the quotes get turned around when one doesn't use the American way). (There is a way around this, though.)

The same when using parenthesis.

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
The second one is very tough.

[/ QUOTE ]

...to say the least. I can't even begin to comprehend the intention of the sentence. That said, if I ever read this sentence in a book, I will burn it. But thanks for the challenge. I guess I'm going to have to resort to Google.

EDIT: Scrap the book burning (no pun intended). I just looked up the answer and it blew my mind. There are much clearer ways to phrase the sentence, though.

[billygrippo]

ill give it a shot


"Mary. where! John, "had" had' had, had. had! had! had! had! had! had! had; "the" teacher's approval' "Mary" would. have. been. correct!"

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
ill give it a shot


"Mary. where! John, "had" had' had, had. had! had! had! had! had! had! had; "the" teacher's approval' "Mary" would. have. been. correct!"

[/ QUOTE ]
So close. I think you may have missed a comma.

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
By adding the correct punctuation, the following sentences will make complete sense:


2) Mary where John had had had had had had had had had had had the teacher's approval Mary would have been correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

For those of you that don't feel like googling it, here's a hint:

Mary and John each wrote a sentence.

John wrote, "Mary had a little lamb."
Mary wrote, "Mary had had a little lamb."

Mary was wrong.

[mostsmooth]

Mary, where John had had "had", had had "had had". had "had had" had the teacher's approval, Mary would have been correct.

[billygrippo]

Mary, where John had had "had" had had "had had", had had "had" had the teacher's approval, Mary would have been correct.


um, is this right? or close?

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
Mary, where John had had "had" had had "had had", had had "had" had the teacher's approval, Mary would have been correct.


um, is this right? or close?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's close. Clearly, the context helps out a lot. mostsmooth's answer is almost correct. Just capitalize the "had" at the beginning of the second sentence.

[billygrippo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mary, where John had had "had" had had "had had", had had "had" had the teacher's approval, Mary would have been correct.


um, is this right? or close?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's close. Clearly, the context helps out a lot. mostsmooth's answer is almost correct. Just capitalize the "had" at the beginning of the second sentence.

[/ QUOTE ]

isnt it suposed to be only 1 sentance? that being said i think my answer needs a ;

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mary, where John had had "had" had had "had had", had had "had" had the teacher's approval, Mary would have been correct.


um, is this right? or close?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's close. Clearly, the context helps out a lot. mostsmooth's answer is almost correct. Just capitalize the "had" at the beginning of the second sentence.

[/ QUOTE ]
100% correct.

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
isnt it suposed to be only 1 sentance? that being said i think my answer needs a ;

[/ QUOTE ]
The result didn't have to be one sentence. You're more than welcome to add a ';' if you'd like, but I'm not sure if it's grammatically correct.

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mary, where John had had "had" had had "had had", had had "had" had the teacher's approval, Mary would have been correct.


um, is this right? or close?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's close. Clearly, the context helps out a lot. mostsmooth's answer is almost correct. Just capitalize the "had" at the beginning of the second sentence.

[/ QUOTE ]
i dont use capitals, so consider it perfect. the only reason theres any capitals in the answer at all is because i pasted it from the op. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Go Blue]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mary, where John had had "had" had had "had had", had had "had" had the teacher's approval, Mary would have been correct.


um, is this right? or close?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's close. Clearly, the context helps out a lot. mostsmooth's answer is almost correct. Just capitalize the "had" at the beginning of the second sentence.

[/ QUOTE ]
i dont use capitals, so consider it perfect. the only reason theres any capitals in the answer at all is because i pasted it from the op. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I got the first answer but the second answer didn't make sense to me at all (even after rereading it several times) until I rearranged it somewhat; then it made I think. I think that this is a better way to write it:

Mary (where John had had "had") had had "had had." Had "had had" had the teacher's approval, Mary would have been correct.

Or:

Mary - where John had had "had" - had had "had had." Had "had had" had the teacher's approval, Mary would have been correct.

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]

I got the first answer but the second answer didn't make sense to me at all (even after rereading it several times) until I rearranged it somewhat; then it made I think. I think that this is a better way to write it:

Mary (where John had had "had") had had "had had." Had "had had" had the teacher's approval, Mary would have been correct.

Or:

Mary - where John had had "had" - had had "had had." Had "had had" had the teacher's approval, Mary would have been correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither is correct. While the sentence makes sense without the parenthesized clause, the information in the clause is fairly important to the meaning of the sentence (it is our only way of inferring that John was correct), so we can't exactly take it out.

Here's a note on parentheses on dashes: "If the material is important enough, use some other means of including it within your text[...] Note that parentheses tend to de-emphasize text whereas dashes tend to make material seem even more important." (source (http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/parentheses.htm))

I don't think the clause deserves any special attention.

Maybe this makes is clearer:
"Mary wrote "had had", while John wrote "had". Mary would have been correct if the teacher approved "had had" as an answer; however, this was not the case."

[Go Blue]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I got the first answer but the second answer didn't make sense to me at all (even after rereading it several times) until I rearranged it somewhat; then it made I think. I think that this is a better way to write it:

Mary (where John had had "had") had had "had had." Had "had had" had the teacher's approval, Mary would have been correct.

Or:

Mary - where John had had "had" - had had "had had." Had "had had" had the teacher's approval, Mary would have been correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither is correct. While the sentence makes sense without the parenthesized clause, the information in the clause is fairly important to the meaning of the sentence (it is our only way of inferring that John was correct), so we can't exactly take it out.

Here's a note on parentheses on dashes: "If the material is important enough, use some other means of including it within your text[...] Note that parentheses tend to de-emphasize text whereas dashes tend to make material seem even more important." (source (http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/parentheses.htm))

I don't think the clause deserves any special attention.

Maybe this makes is clearer:
"Mary wrote "had had", while John wrote "had". Mary would have been correct if the teacher approved "had had" as an answer; however, this was not the case."

[/ QUOTE ]

TKO, what you wrote in the end makes sense, but my point was that I already figured it out. When I used the parentheses and the hyphens, I was trying to figure out a clearer way to write it while maintaining the original word order. If you want to change the word order and make it easier, simply move the word "Mary" like so:

Where John had had "had," Mary had had "had had," etc.

But anyway, I guess if parentheses can't be used, commas will do?

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
But anyway, I guess if parentheses can't be used, commas will do?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I think commas are the only possible punctuation in that spot.

[PokerPadawan]

xTKOx, since you enjoy grammar so much, you should check out Garner's Dictionary of Modern American Usage. Even if you're not American, this guy has a great understanding of why certain grammar is and why it changes. This same guy edits Black's Law Dictionary.

[maurile]

Garner is awesome. I've got a number of usage dictionaries (Garner, Fowler, Merriam-Webster, Follett, Oxford), and Garner is by far my favorite.

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
xTKOx, since you enjoy grammar so much, you should check out Garner's Dictionary of Modern American Usage. Even if you're not American, this guy has a great understanding of why certain grammar is and why it changes. This same guy edits Black's Law Dictionary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds interesting; I'll have to take a look sometime.