R&S grammar book 7, lesson 77 question

[Colleen in NS]

Usually I can puzzle these things out on my own, but ds and I are stumped on this one! In R&S grammar book 7, lesson 77, it tells us that when more than one individual is described by two adjectives (or named by two nouns, but that's not relevant to my question), use an article for each individual. Here is the sample sentence:

 

"The rich and the powerful king coveted Judah's wealth." (two kings, one rich and one powerful). Well, OK, I can see that it's two kings because of the two "the"s before "rich" and "powerful", but then why does it just say "king"? Wouldn't it be clearer to say "The rich king and the powerful king coveted Judah's wealth" ?? I thought maybe it was a mistake, but then in sections C of class practice and written practice, there are more examples that have the same structure - seemingly plural because of two "the"s before adjectives, but the actual noun is singular. It's very confusing. What am I missing? It sure sounds like the second "the" shouldn't be there, if the noun is going to be singular. Or, the noun should be written after each adjective, if indeed it is two different things. Those samples just don't sound right at all!

[Stacy in NJ]

I'm no grammar maven, but it doesn't sound right to me either. Written as "The rich and the powerful king coveted Judah's weath." sounds to me like one king who is both rich and powerful. If the additional "the" is there to show plurality, it's not doing it's job (imo). If it said, "The rich and the powerful kings....." then I would assume that the kings were both rich and powerful.

 

I hope someone has an answer for you.

[Colleen in NS]

Written as "The rich and the powerful king coveted Judah's weath." sounds to me like one king who is both rich and powerful. If the additional "the" is there to show plurality, it's not doing it's job

 

Exactly! I don't get it. I hope someone can explain it to me.

[Colleen in NS]

:lurk5:

 

I really don't get this. We had more exercises today that contained this concept, so I know it wasn't a printing error in the book.

[Holly in FL]

I hope someone can answer this...because I was thinking of moving on to R&S after FLL. Is this the first time you have found "unexplained issues" like this?

 

~Holly

[Colleen in NS]

I hope someone can answer this...because I was thinking of moving on to R&S after FLL. Is this the first time you have found "unexplained issues" like this?

 

~Holly

 

Yes. Usually, with a concept that is new to me, I can puzzle through it and come to the correct understanding. But this is the first time I haven't been able to. R&S is overall a great grammar program, though.

 

There is another thing in it that is quirky to me (and it may just be cultural). They will say things like "We enjoyed our visit with Uncle Harold's this afternoon." I think to myself, "Uncle Harold's *what*?" After seeing it a few times, I figured it was a Mennonite way of saying "Uncle Harold's family."

 

But mostly, R&S is great. Have no qualms about going to it.

[angela in ohio]

I posted this on the other board, but here's my thought...

 

You are actually saying "The rich (king) and the powerful king coveted Judah's wealth." The first 'king' is understood. We covered this in The Art of Styling Sentences, and I cannot think of what it is called right now, and the book is loaned out this week.

 

You could just say "The rich king and the powerful king coveted Judah's wealth." and it would mean the same thing. Leaving out the first king is a more mature style concept (maybe a bit mature for 7th grade grammar, even.)

 

It is a plural subject, though you can't tell with the past tense verb form. You are talking about two kings, so it is plural. if it was singular, it would say, "The rich and powerful king coveted Judah's wealth." You see that in the answers to the section C problems (singular without the second 'the', plural with it.)

Edited January 21, 2011 by angela in ohio

[angela in ohio]

I hope someone can answer this...because I was thinking of moving on to R&S after FLL. Is this the first time you have found "unexplained issues" like this?

 

~Holly

 

Don't let this dissuade you from R&S. If you are going to have a grammar text that tackles complicated grammar concepts, sometimes you will have things you need to work through and puzzle over. That is a very good thing, both for you and your student. :D

[MomsintheGarden]

Hmm... it looks like the word "rich" causes confusion in this sentence. "The rich" can be a type of people as well as a type of king.

 

Ds 12 (who is better at grammar than I am) and I interpret that sentence as, "The rich people and the powerful king coveted Judah's wealth."

 

which wasn't what they meant.

 

I think it would be easier to comprehend if it read,

"The rich king and the powerful king coveted Judah's wealth."

 

Also, in the Class Practice part of the lesson, they have

The old and the young shepherd sought the lost lamb.

This is easier to interpret, probably because it is easier to visualize one old shepherd and one young shepherd seeking a lamb rather than a lot of old people and one young shepherd looking for it.

 

Ah, well, I've been no help - sorry! We have found occasional non-conceptual mistakes in R&S, but I'm sure what they are saying is correct. This just sounds strange because we have not used this advanced construction. Also, I quickly skimmed through the 8th-10th grade books. As far as I can tell, they do not address this topic. Based on my quick search, I would count this as a rather unimportant issue, try to understand what they are saying, and move on.

 

GardenMom

[Colleen in NS]

You are actually saying "The rich (king) and the powerful king coveted Judah's wealth." The first 'king' is understood. We covered this in The Art of Styling Sentences, and I cannot think of what it is called right now, and the book is loaned out this week.

 

I'd like to hear what it is called and why, if you get a chance to explain when you get your book back.

 

And, I do understand, because of the "the" explanation in R&S, that the first "king" is understood. But, the sentence just does NOT sound that way. To me, it is easily misinterpreted. I guess you just have to know the "the" explanation in R&S, in order to know there is another king involved, yes?

 

You could just say "The rich king and the powerful king coveted Judah's wealth." and it would mean the same thing. Leaving out the first king is a more mature style concept (maybe a bit mature for 7th grade grammar, even.)

 

More mature style concept? Hmm...now I'm going to be looking for this in my reading - I wonder if I have been missing meaning because of not knowing how the "the" affects a sentence. It still sounds weird to me, though, lol!

 

It is a plural subject, though you can't tell with the past tense verb form. You are talking about two kings, so it is plural. if it was singular, it would say, "The rich and powerful king coveted Judah's wealth." You see that in the answers to the section C problems (singular without the second 'the', plural with it.)

 

Yes, I understood this from R&S. Thanks for your help! I look forward to hearing a further explanation from your book, if you don't mind! :D

 

Don't let this dissuade you from R&S. If you are going to have a grammar text that tackles complicated grammar concepts, sometimes you will have things you need to work through and puzzle over. That is a very good thing, both for you and your student. :D

 

:iagree: I'm annoyed about this concept right now, lol, but according to Angela, there is something more to it, and I want to know what it is! So my brain is puzzling away.

 

Also, in the Class Practice part of the lesson, they have

The old and the young shepherd sought the lost lamb.

This is easier to interpret, probably because it is easier to visualize one old shepherd and one young shepherd seeking a lamb rather than a lot of old people and one young shepherd looking for it.

 

Exactly!

 

This just sounds strange because we have not used this advanced construction. Also, I quickly skimmed through the 8th-10th grade books. As far as I can tell, they do not address this topic. Based on my quick search, I would count this as a rather unimportant issue, try to understand what they are saying, and move on.

 

GardenMom

 

I think you're right - learn it, do it correctly, and move on. I looked in my R&S Handbook last night and couldn't find anything about it, either.

 

But you know....(now I'm puzzling online).......I just read another example: "The red-haired and the fair-skinned son of Isaac sought the blessing." OK, because of the "the" before fair-skinned, we know it's plural - two sons. I wonder if it's like the "Uncle Harold's" idea, where something is understood? (except, as far as I can remember, this has not been explained in R&S so far - that's why I figured it was cultural). If there is a "the" before each item, then you are to understand that it is plural. But then, why is the noun not pluralized? Or should I just accept that this is the way it is, lol? I don't wanna just accept it - I wanna know why! :D

[Stacy in NJ]

I don't think the rules of language are as concrete as we would sometimes like them to be. There is as aspect of style that can't be limited by grammar rules.

 

I've just read a wonderful book called Winter's Bone, and the author uses some unusual grammar structure throughout. While generally it's a great idea to know the rules of grammar first before we break them, some rules can get awfully pedantic.

 

You might just want to trust your ear on this one.

[AllSmiles]

Colleen, I'm not sure if it will help, but I did find something in the Rod and Staff Handbook. It discusses this topic on the bottom of page 69 and on page 70.

 

BTW, I agree with Angela that the first "king" is understood, and leaving it out is for style.

Edited January 21, 2011 by AllSmiles

[Colleen in NS]

I don't think the rules of language are as concrete as we would sometimes like them to be. There is as aspect of style that can't be limited by grammar rules.

 

I've just read a wonderful book called Winter's Bone, and the author uses some unusual grammar structure throughout. While generally it's a great idea to know the rules of grammar first before we break them, some rules can get awfully pedantic.

 

You might just want to trust your ear on this one.

 

Thanks for these thoughts. I had to look up "pedantic" in the dictionary, so now I get what you're saying. That makes sense. So this concept is probably more style-related, eh? I *am* still in the learning stage of grammar - most things from book 5 and beyond are new to me, and I do want everything to make sense, lol. Probably on the other side of our R&S study, we'll figure out that rules can be broken, if we understand them.

 

Colleen, I'm not sure if it will help, but I did find something in the Rod and Staff Handbook. It discusses this topic on the bottom of page 69 and on page 70.

 

BTW, I agree with Angela that the first "king" is understood, and leaving it out is for style.

 

I'm not seeing what you're seeing on pp. 69-70. I have a 2006 copyright, if that makes a difference...In my book, pp. 69-70 are about usage (bad/badly, believe/feel, beside/besides).

[AllSmiles]

 

I'm not seeing what you're seeing on pp. 69-70. I have a 2006 copyright, if that makes a difference...In my book, pp. 69-70 are about usage (bad/badly, believe/feel, beside/besides).

 

My book has a 1983 copyright. The information can be found in sections D32e & D32f.

[Colleen in NS]

My book has a 1983 copyright. The information can be found in sections D32e & D32f.

 

I think our books may be set up differently from each other. The two major divisions are Grammar and Composition. Grammar is further divided into Parts of Speech, Usage, and Sentence Elements. Then, Parts of Speech is divided out into parts of speech - the Adjectives section is labeled D, but not those numbers you indicated. I'm guessing that your info. is in an adjective section of your book? But it's not in mine. I read the whole adjective section, and I looked up "articles" in the index. Nada. I can't find anything that remotely resembles what we learned in lesson 77 this week.

 

What are your sections D32e and D32f labeled/titled as? I feel like I'm on a ridiculous wild goose chase with trying to understand this thing! Thank you for your help!

[AllSmiles]

What are your sections D32e and D32f labeled/titled as? I feel like I'm on a ridiculous wild goose chase with trying to understand this thing! Thank you for your help!

 

They are making this hard for us :)

 

My book:

 

Section D - AdjectivesSubsection 32 - Usage Guidelines for Adjectives

32e - Use an article with every noun in a sentence

32f - Other determiners (words that signal nouns) need not be repeated unless necessary for clairty, or to show that nouns are considered as individuals, not as a unit

[Colleen in NS]

They are making this hard for us :)

 

My book:

 

Section D - AdjectivesSubsection 32 - Usage Guidelines for Adjectives

32e - Use an article with every noun in a sentence

32f - Other determiners (words that signal nouns) need not be repeated unless necessary for clairty, or to show that nouns are considered as individuals, not as a unit

 

Uh, try "they are making it impossible!" It's just not in my book! I wonder why. I also scoured the Usage section, but nope, nothing. I wonder if they took it out of this 2006 Handbook, and just haven't gotten around to updating the R&S 7 book (which is 1996, but which I just bought last spring).

 

Thanks for typing that out. I now see that I have more to think about, because I'm not sure what a "determiner" is (is it not an article?), and those two rules above seem to contradict each other. I'll be dreaming about grammar tonight. :D I should just heed Stacy's advice and not get all hung up on it.

[AllSmiles]

I sent you a PM.

[johnandtinagilbert]

 

But you know....(now I'm puzzling online).......I just read another example: "The red-haired and the fair-skinned son of Isaac sought the blessing." OK, because of the "the" before fair-skinned, we know it's plural - two sons. I wonder if it's like the "Uncle Harold's" idea, where something is understood? (except, as far as I can remember, this has not been explained in R&S so far - that's why I figured it was cultural). If there is a "the" before each item, then you are to understand that it is plural. But then, why is the noun not pluralized? Or should I just accept that this is the way it is, lol? I don't wanna just accept it - I wanna know why! :D

What you have is a Compound Subject, not a plural subject (2 singular subjects combined to remove repetition in writing). Each element of the subject is singular, therefore to have noun and verb agreement, everything must be the same number (1st person in this case).

 

I think what is also confusing you is the verbage being one of those verbs where the past tense forms of 1st and 3rd persons are identical.

 

Undo the sentence again:

The red-haired son of Isaac sought the blessing."

 

The fair-skinned son of Isaac sought the blessing."

 

Or change the verb tense:

The red-haired and the fair-skinned son of Isaac seeks the blessing." This clarifies they are 2 separate sons.

[Colleen in NS]

"The red-haired and the fair-skinned son of Isaac sought the blessing."

"The rich and the powerful king coveted Judah's wealth."

 

What you have is a Compound Subject, not a plural subject (2 singular subjects combined to remove repetition in writing). Each element of the subject is singular, therefore to have noun and verb agreement, everything must be the same number (1st person in this case).

 

When you refer to "number," do you mean "singular" instead of "1st person?" If not, I'm confused.

 

But if so, then according to R&S 7, lesson 48, if two subjects (and R&S 8, lesson 60 calls this "compound subjects") are joined by "and," then use a plural verb. The example is "The carpenter and the mason are here." (Both are here.) In my understanding, both a compound subject joined by "and" and a plural subject take a plural form of verb. (see, I even wrote that last sentence using that understanding)

 

I think what is also confusing you is the verbage being one of those verbs where the past tense forms of 1st and 3rd persons are identical.

 

Undo the sentence again:

The red-haired son of Isaac sought the blessing."

 

The fair-skinned son of Isaac sought the blessing."

 

Or change the verb tense:

The red-haired and the fair-skinned son of Isaac seeks the blessing." This clarifies they are 2 separate sons.

 

If I'm understanding the subject-verb agreement rules correctly, I think it should be "seek," (if we're changing the tense to help me understand) because of the two "the", if it's meant to be a compound subject. THEN it clarifies to me that they are two separate sons.

 

But my real problem is WHY can't they either write "sons" once, or "son" twice????? Or "kings" once, or "king" twice (in the original sentence I asked about) They are telling me how to use the articles to indicate two things in a compound subject, but they are not telling me why one of the nouns (which is the same word) disappears. I can't find out *why* anywhere, and so the sentence sounds stupid to me, lol, except for now knowing the "the" rule.

 

And if it's some kind of simplifying style thing, why don't they say so and explain it, instead of leaving me hanging??? I just don't get it. :banghead: It's the same thing as me not being able to figure out why they write "Uncle Harold's", leaving out a mysterious noun, instead of "Uncle Harold's family" or whatever the heck they are implying! I have searched for answers in my R&S Handbook, and my R&S 8, 9, and 10 books, to no avail.

 

My frustration is not directed at you, Tina - it's towards the R&S book. Maybe I should just send my R&S seller an e-mail and ask her, lol. Unless someone can explain the styling thing to me....

 

I appreciate your help.

 

I better post this before my power goes out - we have a wind storm going on. I hope this post makes sense - I've edited so many times! Thanks, Tina!

[angela in ohio]

"The red-haired and the fair-skinned son of Isaac sought the blessing."

"The rich and the powerful king coveted Judah's wealth."

 

 

If I'm understanding the subject-verb agreement rules correctly, I think it should be "seek," (if we're changing the tense to help me understand) because of the two "the", if it's meant to be a compound subject. THEN it clarifies to me that they are two separate sons.

 

But my real problem is WHY can't they either write "sons" once, or "son" twice????? Or "kings" once, or "king" twice (in the original sentence I asked about) They are telling me how to use the articles to indicate two things in a compound subject, but they are not telling me why one of the nouns (which is the same word) disappears. I can't find out *why* anywhere, and so the sentence sounds stupid to me, lol, except for now knowing the "the" rule.

 

And if it's some kind of simplifying style thing, why don't they say so and explain it, instead of leaving me hanging??? I just don't get it. :banghead: It's the same thing as me not being able to figure out why they write "Uncle Harold's", leaving out a mysterious noun, instead of "Uncle Harold's family" or whatever the heck they are implying! I have searched for answers in my R&S Handbook, and my R&S 8, 9, and 10 books, to no avail.

 

My frustration is not directed at you, Tina - it's towards the R&S book. Maybe I should just send my R&S seller an e-mail and ask her, lol. Unless someone can explain the styling thing to me....

 

I appreciate your help.

 

I better post this before my power goes out - we have a wind storm going on. I hope this post makes sense - I've edited so many times! Thanks, Tina!

 

Yes, it would be 'seek.' If it was "The red-haried OR the fair-skinned son of Isaac..." then it would be seeks. That's going back to the rules for compounding subjects.

 

I think we have to look at it from a different angle. R&S is not teaching writing in this chapter; they are teaching grammar. So they are teaching a students what the correct grammar would be IF they read or used this construction. They need to be prepared for it. If they were teaching writing, they would tell the reasoning for it; but since they are teaching grammar, they are telling the student how to deal with it. I'm sure the word is omitted in order to sound less wordy and redundant; R&S is just showing that if you are going to do that, you better be sure to put in 'the,' or your readers will be confused.

 

AND... I have my book back! It is called elliptical construction. I don't actually think it applies in this case, though :blush:, because it uses a comma: "His mother told him to rent a car; his sister, to pack his suitcases." The comma takes the place of the words "told him to." So it wouldn't be elliptical construction, but it would be in the same grammar family. :D

[Colleen in NS]

Yes, it would be 'seek.' If it was "The red-haried OR the fair-skinned son of Isaac..." then it would be seeks. That's going back to the rules for compounding subjects.

 

Thanks, that's what I thought.

 

I think we have to look at it from a different angle. R&S is not teaching writing in this chapter; they are teaching grammar. So they are teaching a students what the correct grammar would be IF they read or used this construction. They need to be prepared for it. If they were teaching writing, they would tell the reasoning for it; but since they are teaching grammar, they are telling the student how to deal with it.

 

Yes! That totally makes sense. The style thing was taking me off-track.

 

I'm sure the word is omitted in order to sound less wordy and redundant; R&S is just showing that if you are going to do that, you better be sure to put in 'the,' or your readers will be confused.

 

OK, that makes sense, only because I now know about the "the" concept. I guess I just have to accept it, even though those sentences sound weird to me. Actually, the more I say them aloud, the less weird-sounding they are, lol! Same as when you learn about and practice proper verb usage (lie/lay, etc.).

 

I still don't like the sound of (notice the verb tense change):

"The red-haired and the fair-skinned son of Isaac seek the blessing."

"The rich and the powerful king covet Judah's wealth."

 

But I guess that's why the "the" concept is there, to help me know why the verb is plural, right?

 

:lol::lol::lol:

 

AND... I have my book back! It is called elliptical construction. I don't actually think it applies in this case, though :blush:, because it uses a comma: "His mother told him to rent a car; his sister, to pack his suitcases." The comma takes the place of the words "told him to." So it wouldn't be elliptical construction, but it would be in the same grammar family. :D

Thanks, Angela! You're the Grammar Queen! And, oooo, you've just pricked my interest with yet another new concept!

[angela in ohio]

Maybe the folks at R&S weren't sure if it sounded right in the present tense, so they just put them all in the past tense in case. ;) :D

[Colleen in NS]

Maybe the folks at R&S weren't sure if it sounded right in the present tense, so they just put them all in the past tense in case. ;) :D

 

HA!! Last night I did look through all the examples of this sing/plu in R&S 7 and 8 (and saw that 9 and 10 didn't even treat the topic), and they WERE all in past tense!!!!

[johnandtinagilbert]

I'm glad it all worked out! I'm too tired from reading the other 2 threads, so I can't go backwards here! I may have to reread later, though just so I know I was making sense...for good measure, you know!

[Colleen in NS]

I'm glad it all worked out! I'm too tired from reading the other 2 threads, so I can't go backwards here! I may have to reread later, though just so I know I was making sense...for good measure, you know!

 

You're a dear to check back in here.

 

I enjoyed reading your posts on the other threads today.

 

I was going to send you a pm and ask you to explain your understanding on the writing style thing. After I finally got the grammar rule worked out in my mind, and accepted that that was just the way it was, and that we needed to just learn it, the other part still bugged me. I still don't get why R&S have to leave out the other identical noun in the sample sentences I printed here! :lol: I even explained it all to dh, who doesn't keep up with our grammar studies, and even he thought it sounded weird.