I am a high school teacher, but I'm on vacation, so I am not going to mark you guys!
But...remember...a sentence must be a complete thought...and make sense out of context (and have that pesky "subject and verb").
When Will Jesus Bring the Porkchops?
Wherever You Go, There You Are
What's Gnu?
You Can Be Happy No Matter What
I know what it says, What Does it Mean?
Sorry couldn't get touchstones to work.
Message edited by its author, Jul 24, 2007, 11:09am.
Am not sure about Mommy?
Normally it would be dialogue in a context - but as a title?...what do others think?
Pass the Polenta - that's fine; "pass" is the verb.
It's an imperative sentence.
Message edited by its author, Jul 24, 2007, 12:41pm.
>9:mamajoan - yep, slap my hand over the first one you mention but can't get it re the other two. For my self-improvement, do explain. Cheers.
#10 hazelk - "who knew too much" is an adjectival phrase modifying "the man." There is no real verb here ("knew" is part of the adjective phrase) hence it's not a complete sentence. "The man who knew too much" is basically one long noun.
clear as mud? :)
#10
"Who knew too much" just modifies/describes the man, we still need to have him do something, or to say something about him. Same for "the spy who loved me."
"The man knew too much" or "The spy loved me" would be sentences.
Edited to add: Oops, sorry, mamajoan. Didn't know if you were still watching this thread.
Message edited by its author, Jul 24, 2007, 2:15pm.
Thanks, mamjoan and myshelves:unfortunately I shall be much too inhibited now to contribute again. (Went to an English 'Grammar School' but not taught these things.)
PS (a few minutes later) - a pal explained it better i.e.. subject, verb, object - The Spy Who Knew Too Much Information - if such a novel existed would have been OK.
Message edited by its author, Jul 24, 2007, 3:45pm.
#13
Oh dear. "Who knew too much information" is still just a phrase modifying/describing the spy.
"The spy who knew too much information was murdered" would be a sentence.
Message edited by its author, Jul 24, 2007, 3:51pm.
Five Go Down to the Sea by Enid Blyton
Five Go to the Smugglers Top "
Five Go Off in a Caravan "
Five Go to the Mystery Moor "
The Man Who Loved Women by Dorothy Valcarcel
I'm ready for deconstruction again!
#15
:-) The fifth has the same problem. What about the man who loved women? Did he do something? Was something done to him? Was he happy or sad? The only verb is part of the modifier/description, and that doesnt count.
Hmmm. Put it this way. The title really just says "the man." The additional words answer the question "which man?" but we still don't have any action.
Message edited by its author, Jul 24, 2007, 4:07pm.
hazelk -- Sorry!! Didn't mean to scare you off. But yes, "The man who knew too much information" and "the man who loved women" still suffer from the same problem as "The man who knew too much." There is no verb, hence it's not a complete sentence.
Look at it this way -- suppose it were "The man who was smart." You could rephrase that as "The smart man." Clearly, "the smart man" is not a complete sentence. Well, "the man who knew too much" is the same. You could rephrase it as "the too-much-knowing man" (okay, awkward, but it gets my point across I hope). And "the too-much-knowing man" is not a complete sentence.
"a pal explained it better i.e.. subject, verb, object - The Spy Who Knew Too Much Information"
No, if it were "The Spy Knew Too Much" then it would fit that: The Spy (subject) Knew (verb) Too Much (object)
But once you add "Who", you transform everything after that into an adjective, just like "smart." Now "knew" is not a verb any more but is part of the subject.
The Spy (which spy? the one who knew too much) is still the subject. Now we need a verb to complete the sentence. An object is optional.
"The Spy Who Knew Too Much Died" -- now THAT is a complete sentence. "The Spy Who Knew Too Much Killed Himself" -- that too. (himself is the object)
probably talking in circles now, sorry :(
OK, hopefully these all are complete sentences. I threw in a couple of extras just in case...
Age and Guile Beat Youth, Innocence and a Bad Haircut by P. J. O'Rourke
The Calculating Cat Returns
The Lord God Made Them All by James Herriot
Love is Hell by Matt Groening
Miss Manners Rescues Civilization by Judith Christ
Something Under the Bed is Drooling
Touchstones don't seem to be working at the moment.
Message edited by its author, Jul 24, 2007, 7:05pm.
Thanks (mamajoan & myshelves) for your patience. Adjectival function using verbs doesn't count. Finally, as Professor Higgins says/sings in 'My Fair Lady' - "By Jove I think she's got it" but yet to be demonstrated in my case.
Hiram Walker presents : an easy to learn ... easy to use ... guide to mixing drinks by Hiram Walker
Think before you write by
William Gordon LearyMy name is Kathryn by K. C. Findley
Your are not alone by
Cheryn Salazarand at the top of my queue to catalog ...
Light a penny candle by
Maeve BinchySorry #22, Kira, I think they're all okay except ''then he ate my boy entrancers" - thinking this would be a subordinate (aka dependent) clause, i.e. - "The alien blew up his space ship and then he ate ..."
If the "then" was left off, it would be okay.
Please correct me, anyone, if I'm wrong (about the subordinate clause - in this case it is modifying the principal clause)
#25 -- Hmm I see your point (and probably wouldn't start a sentence with 'then' in an essay, for stylistic reasons if not grammatical ones) but I'm not 100% convinced it's not a real sentence, because I think 'then' could be used similarly to 'later', and you could legitimately say: Later he ate my boy entrancers. Or could you? Hmm, thinking about it too long is playing tricks on me. Perhaps you are right.
Edited to add a question: Your example added an 'and'.... could it just say: "The alien blew up his space ship, then he ate"? That seems more awkward, which is what leads me to think it could be corrected by making two distinct sentences OR adding the and to connect the clauses.
Message edited by its author, Jul 24, 2007, 7:12pm.
Don't think you could say "Later I ate my shoes" any more than you could say "Then I ate my shoes" (as complete sentences, that is).
Out of context, the group of words doesn't make sense. It leaves the reader wondering - what happened before? So....
"At noon I ate my hat. Later I ate my shoes".
"At noon I ate my hat and later I ate my shoes" - "and" is a conjunction joining a subordinate clause to the main clause (the latter can stand on its own as a sentence - the thought is complete and does not leave the reader asking questions of meaning except perhaps - why did this person eat her hat?!)
Not to hijack this board too much more, (sorry!) but the grammar discussion interests me, especially as this question isn't a very easy one to just look up in a grammar book and get an answer to (they seem to focus on answering whether you can start sentences with because) ... I don't think a sentence needs to explain everything, as long as it is explained within the context of a paragraph. Later (and "then" too?) is an adverb, so it should be able to modify a verb without anything else added. Yes, it leaves the reader wondering after what, but the sentence as a grammatical structure is complete I think. For that matter sentences can be very ambiguous and still correct. "He ate my socks" theoretically leaves one wondering 'who is he' but that should have been answered in a preceding sentence. So in a list of things like: "He ate my socks. He ate my tie. Then he ate my shoes." I think could be complete because the previous sentences make clear what the 'then' refers to.
"He ate my socks later." Looks like a complete sentence to me. "He ate my socks then." Needs context, but I think it is a sentence. I can imagine Hemingway writing "He hit him. Then he kicked him." :-)
I believe that "then", used in this context, is a conjunctive adverb. Just as you can begin a sentence with "however", "therefore", "besides", "later", you can also begin it with "then" (and "and", "but", "yet", etc.). However, I believe that if you start with a conjuctive adverb, you have to put a comma after it. (Just as I did after the "however"). And, you would put a comma after regular conjunctions, wouldn't you?
So, if the sentence were "Then, he ate. . . ", I don't think anyone here would have any doubts that it is a complete sentence, right?
(I understand there are some English teachers here, so forgive and correct me if I'm wrong. It's been so long. . . .)
Message edited by its author, Jul 24, 2007, 8:34pm.
Grammatically a sentence can be correct but it also needs to make sense to be a true sentence. Grammatically you can say, "The rug waltzes" - i.e. rug is the subject and waltzes is the verb - but it has no real meaning. This falls under semantics.
Grammar provides us with a structure that allows our communication, especially formal communication, to make sense. Sentences uttered in context (i.e. going back to the socks - they must have been referred to at some time earlier in the discourse) are okay if the reader or listener knows what the speaker is referring to. When they are uttered outside of context, they lose their meaning, and therefore, their true value as a "sentence".
Dialogue is different - we don't have to be so precise because we use body language a lot more which helps with meaning.
In the context of this game, I think that Kira's title is a sentence. :-)
Lol in the context of the game I think it's all pretty irrelevent, but fun to discuss :)
Oh, dear, I feel compelled to re-open the "what is a sentence?" debate. You need a subject and an object. "A prayer for Owen Meany" isn't a sentence. Neither is "My best friend's girl". (Not picking on those who posted these....there are other errors, too).
The Trees and Fields Went the Other Way : Evelyn Eaton
I Capture the Castle: Dodie Smith
The Heart is a Lonely Hunter: Carson McCullers
Still Glides the Stream: Flora Thompson
Death Comes tothe Archbishop: Willa Cather
Ride With Me, Maria Montana: Ivan Doig
Add these: "Shadows Move Among Them" Edgar Mittleholzer
"I served the King of England" Bohumil Hrabal
"I Dream a World" Brian Laker
"I Sought My Brother" Counter & Evans
"Earth Abides" George Stewart
"I'm Expecting to Live Quite Soon" Paul West
"Oranges Aren't the Only Fruit" Jeanette Winterson
Message edited by its author, Apr 16, 2008, 12:39pm.
As to the rarity of the past tense in a title, I don't find it so rare. A famous example:
Brideshead Revisited The Sacred and Profane Memories of Captain Charles Ryder, by Evelyn Waugh (read 18 Mar 1947 - re-read 27 Nov 1982)
Hi Schmerguls:
When I said the past is rare in a title, I didn't mean past participles (a titleparallel to
Brideshead Revisited) are rare -- only that a main verb in the past is rare.
One that I listed B.Wolfe's
The Great Prince Died had its title changed, in its second editiion to
Trotsky Dead, which I took tobe a sign that publishers don't like past tenses.
As to Message #92, I don't think Assumptions that Affect Our Lives by Christian Overman
is a complete sentence, is it? The last four words are merely a descriptive clause modifying "Assumptions"
It struck me in this thread, that there are many very famous authors who never,or only once, used a complete sentence in their titles: Homer, Vergil, Horace, the Greek tragic poets, Aristophanes, Milton, S. Johnson, Fielding, Smollett. Dickens, G. Eliot, Thackeray (Trollope seems to be an exception for this era), Hardy,
Hemingway, et al.
Only once: Shakespeare (Allʻs Well that Ends well), Steinbeck (
The Moon is Down), Fitzgerald (
Tender is the Night), and Updike (
Rabbit is Rich)
Am I forgetting any titles by the above?
(back to top)
