Grammar Wok Needed!

September 8, 2006 11:55 AM

Weird grammar question that's been bugging me for a while with regards to reversing questioning clauses at the end of declarative sentences.

"My approach wouldn't exactly have been original, would it have?"

What is the appropriate way to phrase what happens after the comma but before the question mark?

" ... original, would it have?"

" ... original, would it not have been?"

Or something else?

How the hell is that parsed?

Is there a formal name for that kind of a twist-around at the end?

And what are the grammar procedures behind how those reversals are formed?

I need a real grammar wonk.

posted by WCityMike to writing & language (22 comments total)

i'm not a grammar wonk.

but i believe you are diving into the subjunctive mood. try googling around with that.
posted by YoBananaBoy at 12:09 PM on September 8, 2006

I would phrase that as "..., would it?" Optionally, with a 'now' in front of 'would'. The 'have' rings false to my ear, though I'm not sure why.

I'm probably all wrong too. I was once very good at grammar, but I have gotten sloppy after all these years online.
posted by Malor at 12:12 PM on September 8, 2006

"Would it" would be appropriate, and I think all you're doing is avoiding the double negative, really.
posted by occhiblu at 12:15 PM on September 8, 2006

Is there a formal name for that kind of a twist-around at the end?

Dependent clause, I think.

My suggestion: "My approach wouldn't have been exactly original, would it?"

I am a bit of a grammar wonk, and the answer to most problems is to "write around" the problem. Otherwise, you might end up with a sentence up with which you will not put. ;-)
posted by frogan at 12:15 PM on September 8, 2006

Those are tag questions. And in the example you gave, "would" is in the conditional voice.

I'd have said: "My approach wouldn't exactly have been original, would it?"
posted by wryly at 12:16 PM on September 8, 2006

I'm not a 'grammar wonk' either (great term, by the way YoBananaBoy. I hope you don't mind, I'm gonna steal that for future use).

If I were to parse the statement, I'd parse it into two separate sentences -- one that asks the question, and one that presumptively answers it. So (adverb omitted), "Would my approach have been original? [I believe that] my approach would not have been original."

Based on that parsing, I believe the correct phraseology is "...original, would it have?"

Of course, I've been burned in the past by trying to apply logic where logic had no business... so, your mileage may vary.
posted by jknecht at 12:17 PM on September 8, 2006

Yup, that's a "Tag Question."
posted by MarshallPoe at 12:21 PM on September 8, 2006

Googling has turned up what wryly is talking about, though I got the term "negative tag questions."

In something like I'm going, aren't I? or Aren't I going?, the negation serves to turn the statement into a question. In the first, with the construction you're talking about, it's just sticking the negation at the end, in the tag part of the sentence.
posted by occhiblu at 12:22 PM on September 8, 2006

jknecht: "grammar wonk" was used by the OP.

I may not be a grammar wonk, but i do site my sources.
posted by YoBananaBoy at 12:30 PM on September 8, 2006

Tag questions, or question tags. Take the the auxilliary verb and change negative to positive or vice versa.

Here's a guide for ESL students that's a little easier to follow than the wikipedia page. You've got two auxilliary verbs in your case. The guide says to use the first auxilliary verb (see under "Special Cases").
My approach wouldn't exactly have been original, would it?

But to me that seems confusing, so I'd take both auxillaries.
My approach wouldn't exactly have been original, wouldn't it have?

Try removing the negative from the statement and seeing how it sounds.
My approach would have been original, wouldn't it?
My approach would have been original, wouldn't it have?

For emphasis, you can skip the negative/positive switch. (See "Same-way question tags" on the linked page.) So,
My approach wouldn't exactly have been original, wouldn't it?
or,
My approach wouldn't exactly have been original, wouldn't it have?

But either way the tag seems awkward, so I wouldn't use one at all.
posted by hydrophonic at 12:44 PM on September 8, 2006

Canada has a very efficient answer for all such situations:

"My approach wouldn't exactly have been original, eh?"
posted by scheptech at 12:48 PM on September 8, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

My approach wouldn't exactly have been original, wouldn't it have?

Are you a native English speaker? "... wouldn't it have" is not English.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 1:32 PM on September 8, 2006

jknecht: "grammar wonk" was used by the OP.

Oops - sorry, WCityMike. I guess I should have read your entire post before going off half-cocked and attributing your turn of phrase to someone else.
posted by jknecht at 1:45 PM on September 8, 2006

IANAGW either, but: jumping off of occhiblu's "negative tag questions" idea, intuitively to me the tag question should be the negation of the sentence, even for a sentence with a "not". For your consideration:

It could've happened like that, couldn't it (have)?
It couldn't possibly have happened that way, could it (have)?

The (have) at the end of those sentences sounds unnatural to my ear, but not wrong. I agree with everyone else to lose it.
posted by Khalad at 1:56 PM on September 8, 2006

If you insist on this type of construction (and I think of all the options discussed above, Malor's "now would it?" works best), try replacing your tag with "right?".
posted by rob511 at 2:12 PM on September 8, 2006

try replacing your tag with "right?".

Yeah, both "right?" and "eh?" are closer to what's happening, the speaker is making a statment and asking for agreement... no?
posted by scheptech at 2:14 PM on September 8, 2006

"...,would it". Tag question => Seeks confirmation from the listener.

Check Wikipedia's comment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_question
posted by mynameismandab at 3:12 PM on September 8, 2006

Are you a native English speaker? "... wouldn't it have" is not English.

You can understand it, can't you? It may be incorrect and/or awkward, but you can hardly say it's not English.
posted by Malor at 4:26 PM on September 8, 2006

Amateur grammar wonk here. I subscribe to the Occam's Razor school of sentence construction: i.e., keep it simple. So...

"My approach wouldn't exactly have been original, would it have?"

becomes...

"My approach isn't exactly original, is it?"

All that conditional/future imperfect stuff cancels itself out.

What you're calling a "questioning clause" is technically a conversational form of a separate sentence. (Is it?) While there may be a name for it, it's not "standard" sentence construction.
posted by turducken at 5:07 PM on September 8, 2006

Also, if you really need a "grammar wok," head on down to Chinanoun.
posted by turducken at 5:10 PM on September 8, 2006

I think what you've got is simply a run-on sentence. They're actually two sentences but spoken so closely they seem like they're the same.

"My approach wouldn't exactly have been original, would it have?"

"My approach wouldn't exactly have been original. Would it?"

If you use two sentences, it doesn't matter if they agree.
posted by vanoakenfold at 5:55 PM on September 8, 2006

"My approach wouldn't exactly have been original, would it have?"

becomes...

"My approach isn't exactly original, is it?"

That's not simplifying, that's changing the whole thing.

"Wouldn't have been" is a purely theoretical construction, about something that never happened. "Isn't" is about something that is happening right now.

The short version of the answer to this question is: "question tags omit the auxiliary verb from the question".

"I coulda been a contender" with a question tag is "I coulda been a contender, couldn't I?" not "I coulda been a contender, couldn't Ia?".
posted by AmbroseChapel at 8:59 PM on September 8, 2006