 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2004lead to (noun)
I think both of the following are correct. However, the text book says the first one is wrong. (1) This led to many of the dishes cooked in a wrong order. or (2) This led to many of the dishes being cooked in a wrong order. While it was 23/1/04 6:11 pm throughout the UK, TOY sprinkled little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus: > I think both of the following are correct. However, the text book says the > first one is wrong. > > (1) This led to many of the dishes cooked in a wrong order. If that means anything, it's "This led to many of the dishes, which were cooked in a wrong order". > or > > (2) This led to many of the dishes being cooked in a wrong order. This means that, as a consequence of this, the dishes were cooked in a wrong order. Which is the consequence: the dishes, or their being cooked? That determines which is the "correct" sentence. Stewart.  SignatureMy e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit. > I think both of the following are correct. However, the text book says the > first one is wrong. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > (2) This led to many of the dishes being cooked in a wrong order. Case 2 is idiomatic English (case 1 is unidiomatic) but case 2 has another error. English speakers say very nearly always "in the wrong order" not "in a wrong order." (This idiom is downright paradoxical. We may mean a series has only one right order but never that it has only one wrong order. Nevertheless English speakers usually say "the wrong order.") -- Don Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) > but case 2 has another error. English speakers say > very nearly always "in the wrong order" not "in a wrong [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that it has only one wrong order. Nevertheless > English speakers usually say "the wrong order.") It is not implying there is only one wrong order. It is merely saying the order was wrong. Which order? The order in which the dishes were cooked. What is it saying about that order? That it was wrong. So the order was wrong. It was the wrong order. SignatureAlec McKenzie mckenzie@despammed.com > > but case 2 has another error. English speakers say > > very nearly always "in the wrong order" not "in a wrong [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It is not implying there is only one wrong order. It is merely > saying the order was wrong. Not quite. The definite article in English commonly implies uniqueness (at least in the immediate context). "I saw the dog" indicates one unique dog. The indefinite article differs: "I saw a dog" indicates any of several dogs. Where right and wrong orders may exist, we commonly assume the right order is unique (there is only one right sequence) although there may be various wrong orders. The logic of consistency would therefore suggest that we say usually "the right order" because it is a unique sequence and "a wrong order" to indicate one of several possible sequences. (But English is not governed by the logic of consistency.) Apologies if I was unclear earlier. -- Don Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) > > > but case 2 has another error. English speakers say > > > very nearly always "in the wrong order" not "in a wrong [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > The indefinite article differs: "I saw a dog" > indicates any of several dogs. Not quite. The definite article guarantees the the hearer can uniquely identify the intended meaning, either because it is fully specified (as you indicate) or because he has the world view of a normal speaker of English (the way it is often also used). So it does not guarantee that the uniqueness has been fully spelled out in words. Gary >I think both of the following are correct. However, the text book says the >first one is wrong. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >(2) This led to many of the dishes being cooked in a wrong order. The text book is right. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > >I think both of the following are correct. However, the text book says the > >first one is wrong. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The text book is right. So, I'd wager, is the textbook. Version (2) is reasonably idiomatic, but it has a fused participle that would make Fowler -- and many an American -- wince. I'll bet, even with no context, that "As a result, many of the dishes were cooked in the wrong order" is equally factual, and it sounds a lot better. SignatureBob Lieblich Fussbudget manque > I think both of the following are correct. However, the text book says the > first one is wrong. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > (2) This led to many of the dishes being cooked in a wrong order. Only (2) is English, as others have told you. Think of it like this. "Lead to" is not being used as an exotic idiom here, but as an ordinary verb followed by a prepositional phrase, just as in: "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink". So you need to have a noun or noun-equivalent as the object of the preposition (something corresponding to "water" in my example). The ing- form ("gerund") "being cooked" is capable of serving as a noun- substitute, the participle "cooked" isn't. If you want to confuse your teacher totally, you could even claim that there should be an apostrophe after the word "dishes", since the subject of a gerund is supposed to be a possessive form, so that the sentence should read: This led to many of the dishes' being cooked in a wrong order. Gary But does (1) imply this one : This led to many of the dishes (being) cooked in a wrong order. Since the dishes must be cooked, "being" should be understood by the audience. "Gary Vellenzer" <nycram@seznam.cz> ???????:MPG.1a7c5acbed309927989b94@news.CIS.DFN.DE... > > I think both of the following are correct. However, the text book says the > > first one is wrong. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Gary |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.