Discussion in 'Off Topic Discussion' started by BIV, May 14, 2013.
I'll be honest, this thing kicked my ass. 6/10
Got 8 out of 10.
8-10: Grammar guru
7/10. Completely forgot some of those things. No clue on the Gerund, Modal, Imperative.
I dont trust the BBC, they protect more paedophiles than the catholic church
8/10 - I'm a grammar guru who doesn't like this test.
5/10. Not surprised.
Arent you an English professor? Or did I just make that up?
Grammar Guru. I always had great gramma.
6/10 - My public school education is shining brightly.
Yeah, so I thought I could pull at least 9/10. They got me on the gender of the sibling question and the misplaced modifier. The questions were poorly phrased. That's my excuse.
For the record, I don't teach grammar.
Since you're as good as me, I'll let you know when we're hiring.
I didn't even try to figure out the gender question. Just stop it.
Good looking out, Drew. I have to be honest, I had a very vague memory of some of that shit and it was a total shoot but I can fake it well.
Also, that gender question was so awkwardly worded I didnt even care about Hilary. Fuck her/him in his/her fuck hole.
Hell, for a while I wrote news for a living.
And I'm that guy that gets annoyed by bad grammar.
9/10. I should have known a gerunding would fuck me up.
And number 10 actually has another error. You don't capitalize king and queen unless it's preceding a specific person like Queen Elizabeth or King George. Unless those crazy Brits do it differently over there.
None of the answers have checkboxes or links or anything. Shitty mobile browser.
EDIT: answers at the end derrrrrp
That sentence seemed to be talking about a very specific king and queen, so it's proper to capitalize. We do the same thing talking about Obama here: "The President met today with some shady characters."
9/10. How the hell am I supposed to know what Winston Churchill said about grammar?
You don't have to know. They gave you his alleged quote. All you had to do was figure out which of the listed grammar rules he was mocking.
Good thing the test wasn't on reading comprehension, I guess.
That's not what we call Obama. We say: "The ******** met today with some shady characters."
I guess if it was specific enough in the previous sentence (which we didn't see) technically it's alright maybe. But Wiki even says this:
That's the one grammar rule I most ignore. As was exemplified by Churchill's quote, sometimes it just sounds pretentious or even retarded to say it the right way. I end sentences in "to" all the time.
It doesn't have to be specific enough in the previous sentence. They are clearly talking about a specific king and queen. Point is, nobody's ever really going to argue about it either way. Look at the use of "president" here:
MSNBC: However, the President was not as dismissive about the Internal Revenue Service, calling the reports “outrageous” and “contrary to our traditions.”
Karl Rove, writing for FOX News: The president is getting deeper into trouble. He must come clean by revealing who directed the CIA to remove the language about terrorism and who authorized that person or persons to so direct the CIA.
Again, anyone arguing about it probably has an agenda
It's not a rule. I don't think it ever has been. That's pretty much the joke.