Eh. I guess I don’t see a problem with how the language works here. “Correction as question” probably takes longer but if people are getting confused by the process then I consider that a weakness of the particular implementation.
For example:
Each of the apples are green.
Should “each” be used with “are” or “is”? As in, “Each of the apples is green.”
Your challenge is that this is now ambiguous with regards to whether or not I know the answer. Except, the point isn’t what I know. The point is that there is a contention of each+are and the two separate goals of “teach correct grammar” and “learn correct grammar” can move forward in the conversation:
Each of the apples are green.
Should “each” be used with “are” or “is”? As in, “Each of the apples is green.”
It should be used with are.
If you needed to know the answer, you got as much information as you could from this speaker. If you have questions you can continue down that path.
If, on the other had, you happen to know the answer, the conversation now forks into a direct confrontation:
Each of the apples are green.
Should “each” be used with “are” or “is”? As in, “Each of the apples is green.”
It should be used with are.
I was told that each is always treated as singular and, therefore, it should be “each of the apples is green.”
So, other than the inconvenience of having to insert a few sentences into the conversation, we haven’t lost anything. There isn’t any ambiguity and this transition was much smoother than simply saying:
Each of the apples are green.
“Each” be used with “is”: “Each of the apples is green.”
There are plenty of reasons why phrasing the correction as a question is helpful — your point (as I understand it) was that the ambiguity between “correction as question” and “query for information” makes the former not worth it. My counterpoint is that the ambiguity isn’t a necessary component of “correction as question”.
For what it is worth, I am mostly thinking of corrections that are not direct claims of fact. For instance:
Swedish is not the official language of Sweden.
I don’t see any advantage to responding to this with a question and, personally, favor the more direct approach:
Swedish is not the official language of Sweden.
Yes it is.
If I felt obligated to take the less direct approach, I would do as such:
Swedish is not the official language of Sweden.
Oh? I thought it was.
This can stall out if the other person doesn’t offer anything useful in response. (And, by the way, Swedish is the official language according to Wikipedia.)
Also of note, this all changes depending on who is making the mistake. If I happened to be talking with someone I knew favored a direct approach, I would just point out the error because they are more likely to consider that polite than beating around the bush.
Eh. I guess I don’t see a problem with how the language works here. “Correction as question” probably takes longer but if people are getting confused by the process then I consider that a weakness of the particular implementation.
For example:
Each of the apples are green.
Should “each” be used with “are” or “is”? As in, “Each of the apples is green.”
Your challenge is that this is now ambiguous with regards to whether or not I know the answer. Except, the point isn’t what I know. The point is that there is a contention of each+are and the two separate goals of “teach correct grammar” and “learn correct grammar” can move forward in the conversation:
Each of the apples are green.
Should “each” be used with “are” or “is”? As in, “Each of the apples is green.”
It should be used with are.
If you needed to know the answer, you got as much information as you could from this speaker. If you have questions you can continue down that path.
If, on the other had, you happen to know the answer, the conversation now forks into a direct confrontation:
Each of the apples are green.
Should “each” be used with “are” or “is”? As in, “Each of the apples is green.”
It should be used with are.
I was told that each is always treated as singular and, therefore, it should be “each of the apples is green.”
So, other than the inconvenience of having to insert a few sentences into the conversation, we haven’t lost anything. There isn’t any ambiguity and this transition was much smoother than simply saying:
Each of the apples are green.
“Each” be used with “is”: “Each of the apples is green.”
There are plenty of reasons why phrasing the correction as a question is helpful — your point (as I understand it) was that the ambiguity between “correction as question” and “query for information” makes the former not worth it. My counterpoint is that the ambiguity isn’t a necessary component of “correction as question”.
For what it is worth, I am mostly thinking of corrections that are not direct claims of fact. For instance:
Swedish is not the official language of Sweden.
I don’t see any advantage to responding to this with a question and, personally, favor the more direct approach:
Swedish is not the official language of Sweden.
Yes it is.
If I felt obligated to take the less direct approach, I would do as such:
Swedish is not the official language of Sweden.
Oh? I thought it was.
This can stall out if the other person doesn’t offer anything useful in response. (And, by the way, Swedish is the official language according to Wikipedia.)
Also of note, this all changes depending on who is making the mistake. If I happened to be talking with someone I knew favored a direct approach, I would just point out the error because they are more likely to consider that polite than beating around the bush.