# What kind of "error" is it?



## majlo

_I was so excited and I fell down. 
_I do not know if this is grammatical error but it sounds really odd to me, and perhaps not only to me. I'd be grateful if anyone could confirm if it is an error and what kind of error it is. 
Thanks in advance


----------



## virr2

Hi Majlo,

I wouldn't call it a mistake nor an error. To me, this "and" is used to say that something was a cause of something else, e.g. "I missed lunch and I am starving."
Another thing is that your sentence may sound better if you replace "and" with "(so) that", but it is - at least to me - a question of style not grammar.
Let's wait what native speakers have to say on this,

Cheers, Virr


----------



## french4beth

majlo said:


> _I was so excited *that *I fell down. _


There were 2 separate actions - it sounded kind of awkard because there was no link between the two thoughts. If you use the construction in this example, you can better understand why you fell down (you were _so_ excited).


----------



## dontaskme

"I was so excited I fell down." would also be ok


----------



## majlo

Thank you guys for your input but it seems you misunderstood me. I know that there should be _that _instead of _and _since the adverb _so _doesn't, as if, go together with the conjunction _and_. _I was so excited *that *I fell down _sounds perfectly fine to me non-native-speaker ears. _I was so excited _*and *_I fell down _does not. And therefore I suspect this might some kind of an error and what I need is a confirmation  Perhaps, teachers could provide some explanation?


----------



## dontaskme

_I was so excited *and *I fell down _does not sound right. 

Saying "I was so drunk .... " usually precedes something that is a result of being drunk. "I was so drunk that I slurred my words".


----------



## french4beth

I think it's a matter of 'cause' + 'effect' - _excited_ + _fell down_ - you need something besides the word 'and' to clarify.


----------



## maxiogee

There is an Irish expression which transliterates as "he fell out of his standing" which seems to fit here.
I would leave the "and" out — I was so excited I fell down.


----------



## french4beth

I don't know, kids, the sentence _still_ doesn't sound right - if you're really excited, you could possibly faint from all of the excitement, but I don't know of any occasion in which I was so excited that I actually fell over. Usually people only fall over if they've lost their balance, have been drinking themselves into a stupor (but I've seen people fall off of bar stools and _still_ not spill their drink), or if they trip or lose their footing.



The only time that I've been excited enough to nearly pass out was when I was in a horizontal position


----------



## ireney

Two sentences related to each other can have two kinds of relation
1. Be equal (parataxis)
2. One is dependent of the other (subordination)

In case #1, we use certain kind of conjuntions whose name I don't remember right now (and, but, or)

In case # 2 we use the conjuctions that will show the relation between the two sentences. 
In this case we don't have parataxis. The second phrase is the result of the first so we need a word that will show that (in English and some other languages) you can leave this word/conjuction out if it is easily inferred)

For more technical terminology wait for a native (or for me to get back home in a couple of days  )

P.S. Someone check my spelling!


----------



## virr2

ireney said:


> Two sentences related to each other can have two kinds of relation
> 1. Be equal (parataxis)
> 2. One is dependent of the other (subordination)
> 
> In case #1, we use certain kind of conjuntions whose name I don't remember right now (and, but, or)
> 
> In case # 2 we use the conjuctions that will show the relation between the two sentences.
> In this case we don't have parataxis. The second phrase is the result of the first so we need a word that will show that (in English and some other languages) you can leave this word/conjuction out if it is easily inferred)
> 
> For more technical terminology wait for a native (or for me to get back home in a couple of days  )
> 
> P.S. Someone check my spelling!



Ireney, I like your explanation very much. As far as I know "and", "but", "or" are called coordinating conjunctions.


----------



## JamesM

majlo said:


> Thank you guys for your input but it seems you misunderstood me. I know that there should be _that _instead of _and _since the adverb _so _doesn't, as if, go together with the conjunction _and_. _I was so excited *that *I fell down _sounds perfectly fine to me non-native-speaker ears. _I was so excited _*and *_I fell down _does not. And therefore I suspect this might some kind of an error and what I need is a confirmation  Perhaps, teachers could provide some explanation?


 
I think it's already been covered, but there is no actual grammatical error here.  I would punctuate it with a comma: "I was so excited, and I fell down."  Putting two unrelated thoughts in a sentence can work well in the right context.  I remember a quote from Erik Satie in which he says: "Nobody loves me and I have cold hands."  This either strikes me as poignant or comical, depending on my mood.


----------



## papillon

majlo said:


> _I was so excited and I fell down._


If we insist on leaving the _and_ in this sentence, the word _so_ becomes problematic. The phrase _I was excited and I fell down_ actually sounds OK. Consider the related _I was drunk and I couldn't walk straight_. Even though we use the word _and_ to link the two sentences, there is a clear cause-effect connection between them.
The problem comes with the _so_. When people hear this word they automatically expect to hear a description, in this case of exactly how drunk excited you were; this description would be preceded by _that_. When you say _and_ instead, peope are confused.
There is no error in your sentence, but it just sounds strange.


----------



## Yôn

!!

This sentence is PERFECTLY FINE as it is!

Person: _Jon, how could you've managed to drop so many plates on the floor?
_Jon: _Well, I saw my best friend from ten years ago.  I was so exited and I fell down.

_ This sounds lovely to me. I just don't see any reason to change it. UNLESS, there's a different intention than something like that. That may be, so you might want to change it. However, under the proper circumstance, the opening sentence is just dandy.




Jon


----------



## foxfirebrand

I don't think anybody got at the matter of a _specific error_ until papillon identified the problematic word _so._ 

This is not a grammatical error but a rhetorical one, an inconsistency on the level of logic.  The word _and_ is "subsequential," but it can be implied that any two events that follow one another are  _consequentially _related.

The word _so_ does this, but it introduces the concept of _degree._ 

"I was excited, so I fell down" is grammatically correct, but it says something that violates common sense a little. You don't fall down every time you get excited. "I was excited, so naturally I fell down" underscores this absurdity even more.

But the idea that you can get _really_ excited,  excited enough to lose your ballance and fall down-- is not so absurd.

Since you are using _so_ to express this fairly specific clause of causality, you need a bridge to an "effect" clause, and _and_ is too diffuse in meaning, it carries too much of the  "merely subsequential."  

To put it more technically, "I got excited and I fell down" would be fallacious if it were used to convey cause and effect-- the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.  You need a reason to link the two actions causally, and "a high degree of excitement" qualifies.

But to make this statement of causality you can't confuse the issue by throwing "and" in there, the way it was used in the fallacious statement. You need "I got so excited (that) I fell down," as french4beth and dontaskme suggested in posts #3 and 4. I'm just groping around for the technical "why" of it.
.


----------



## Kevman

Here are my own gropings:

*So* can be used as an intensifier:
I'm so happy for you!
This place is so cool!
However, in these cases the phrase stands alone. Appending another clause with a conjunction induces the expectation that _so_ is indicating causality, so you ought to use a conjunction that indicates the relation:
I'm so happy because you got that promotion!
This place is so cool that the cats lie here all day.

Otherwise I think you have to make it clear somehow that you are talking about two unrelated things, perhaps through intonation:
I'm so happy _and_ you got that promotion!

I'm having trouble coming up with a really good example where it would be natural to make such a juxtaposition, though.


----------



## roxcyn

Hello!  I think the sentence is fine, it just needs more context.  I think it is one of those sentences that "sound funny" because it can have more than one interpretation.  Here are some more examples:

"The florist sent the flowers was very pleased"  (the embedded relative clause "who was" has been deleted, but if you think about it for some minutes it makes sense, BUT SOUNDS VERY STRANGE AT FIRST).

Another: "Tom said that Bill had taken the cleaning out yesterday."
So which was it?  Did Tom say that YESTERDAY OR did Bill do that YESTERDAY?  

So:

I was so excited and I fell down.  (So is working like the adverb "very".  And may reflect a cause-effect relationship for the person)

I was very excited and I fell down.  (=I got so excited that I lost my balance and I fell down)


----------



## roxcyn

papillon said:


> If we insist on leaving the _and_ in this sentence, the word _so_ becomes problematic. The phrase _I was excited and I fell down_ actually sounds OK. Consider the related _I was drunk and I couldn't walk straight_. Even though we use the word _and_ to link the two sentences, there is a clear cause-effect connection between them.
> The problem comes with the _so_. When people hear this word they automatically expect to hear a description, in this case of exactly how drunk excited you were; this description would be preceded by _that_. When you say _and_ instead, peope are confused.
> There is no error in your sentence, but it just sounds strange.



It's not an "error" though, it's that people expect a different type of sentence because we are used to an immediate interpetation of a sentence.  Here is another example:

Since Jay always jogs a mile seems like a very short distance to him.  

Doesn't that seem funny at first?  But it is correct to say 

The kid saw the man who was wearing a jacket. 
Was the kid wearing the jacket or the man?


----------



## JamesM

> Since Jay always jogs a mile seems like a very short distance to him.


 
I'd say this is either missing punctuation or wrong. If you punctuated it as:" Since Jay always jogs, a mile seems like a very short distance to him," it would then make sense. Without the comma, it is at best misleading, and at worst, missing a word.



> The flourist sent the flowers was very pleased.


 
On this one, we'll just have to disagree. This is wrong, in my opinion. It is missing a word in order to make it a complete sentence.  (It's _florist,_ by the way.)


----------



## roxcyn

Yes, you got it for the first one.

The second one, the clause "who was" has been deleted, but it sounds very strange.


----------



## JamesM

roxcyn said:


> Yes, you got it for the first one.
> 
> The second one, the clause "who was" has been deleted, but it sounds very strange.


 
I'd say it sounds strange because it's wrong.


----------



## roxcyn

No, I will explain.  You really have to "read and think about it several times".  Here is the explaination:

The florist sent the flowers...
("Sent" is a verb that is modifying florist.  At first we think that the florist sent the flowers to someone else.  Since the verb is modifying florist, someone can realize that the flowers were sent to the florist.  In essense, the verb is being used as an adjective of "the florist")

....was very pleased.
(What?  How can that be possible?  Now we see that the verb is the first clause is an adjective).  

Another examples:
The patient sent the flowers was so happy.  
The doctor sent the medicine was excited.  

These are similar examples.  If these make sense to you, then you have to agree that "The florist sent the flowers was very pleased" makes sense. 

The idea of the exercise was to make people realize that "I was so excited and I fell over" can sound strange, but be correct at the same time .


----------



## JamesM

Let me try this again... I now see where I was misunderstanding.

"The florist sent the flowers was so happy."

Let me try one that's less confusing to me:

"The woman sent the flowers was so happy."  (this avoids the "florist" thing)   I believe this is an incorrect use of "sent".  I might be wrong.  I'm sure I've heard people say it, but I don't believe it's correct.  I believe it should be: "The woman who was sent flowers was so happy" or "the flowers sent to the woman made her happy."

I'd be interested to see what others have to say.


----------



## virr2

The problem comes with the _so_. When people hear this word they automatically expect to hear a description, in this case of exactly how drunk excited you were; this description would be preceded by _that_. When you say _and_ instead, peope are confused.

Papillon, why do you think that "so" causes confusion? "So" is the senteces: "He was excited, so he fell down", "I was tired, so I went to bed" is a conjunction which says that someone does something because of a certain reason. Here, it doesn't introduce the concept of degree, it does not emphasizes how great something is.


----------



## JamesM

virr2 said:


> The problem comes with the _so_. When people hear this word they automatically expect to hear a description, in this case of exactly how drunk excited you were; this description would be preceded by _that_. When you say _and_ instead, peope are confused.
> 
> Papillon, why do you think that "so" causes confusion? "So" is the senteces: "He was excited, so he fell down", "I was tired, so I went to bed" is a conjunction which says that someone does something because of a certain reason. Here, it has nothing to do with degree, it does not emphasizes how great something is.


 
I hope you don't mind my jumping in here.

"...so X that..." is a very common construction in English.  Johnny Carson, a late-night talk show host used to have a running gag with the audience.  He would start with some statement like, "Last night's Emmy Awards party was huge."  The audience would yell in response, "How huge was it?"  He would reply, "It was so huge that..." followed by some one-line joke.  

I agree with Papillon that "so X" sets up an expectation for "that".  Otherwise, it is a very weak word that doesn't describe the situation on its own.  "I was very happy" gives a relative level of happiness on the speaker's personal scale of happiness.  "I was so happy" is, as you said, no indicator of degree of happiness.  We expect the stronger use of it:  "(blank) was so (adjective) that (blah-blah-blah)."


----------



## roxcyn

I appreciate your opinion and I thank you for your explination.  When the sentence is being used as a whole "sent" is used as an adjective.  

So: The patient sent (adjective) the flowers.... (that's not complete just like "The patient who was sent the flowers... is not complete)

However to our ears we think it is being used as a verb, but it really is being used like an adjective:

[The patient sent (adjective) the flowers]: Noun phrase
[....was (verb) very (adverb) pleased(adjective).]: Verb phrase

I must comment that this sentence is in a language book, and it makes sense to me, so I would say it is right.  However, each person would be thinking for awhile about it and may even reject it. 

However since we are so off topic, please send me a private message if you want to discuss it future.  Thanks .


----------



## virr2

One more thing, "so" in isolation may be problematic, however in a sentence (where the word order is strict) is shouldn't lead to confusion. For instance:

I was so ... - here you expect an adjective (e.g. _I was so excited_)
I was excited, so ... - here you expect a result  of the situation (e.g. _I was so excited, so I jumped_)

Cheers, Virr


----------



## panjandrum

A small point about the ambiguous use of sent.

_The woman (who had been) sent the flowers was very happy._

A normal reader assumes that there is no ellipsis, that the woman did the sending, until the puzzling ending of the sentence forces a re-think.  That kind of communication failure is not good.  That is why it is unnatural to omit words in this sentence.

Change the verb to give.
_The woman (who had been) given the flowers was very happy._
No problem now because there is no risk of confusion.  The equivalent of the misunderstood version of the first sentence would be:
_The woman gave the flowers was very happy. _


----------



## danielfranco

Wait... wait wait... waitwaitwait...
I'm all turned about, twisted, as it were...
So the error in the first sentence is the use of "so" to express what one of the proper adverbs like "very, greatly, distressingly, awfully" should have expressed instead. And because "so" is used to set up a relationship ("I was so whatever-whatever that...") then it makes for a cumbersome sentence in the example "I was so excited and I fell out of my chair". Did I get it right? Okay, then.

Now, the florist with the flowers... erm... was the florist given the flowers, or did the florist sent the flowers to somebody, and was happy to have done his duty? Because I would have thought that the florist receiving the flowers sent to him might be happy, but the florist who sent the flowers should be ecstatic then.
Rightly falling out of a chair, like.

[sotto voce]
Or so they seemed to say...


----------



## roxcyn

I was so excited and I fell down.  

I was so excited: so = very.
I was excited, so I fell down: so = conjuntion

For example: "I was so drunk and I fell down."  

The florist (who was) sent the flowers was very please.

Daniel, you delete the "who was" from the sentence and then "sent" is being used as an adjective. So, when you first hear it or read it, you think that the florist sends the flowers (because that's what a florist does, sends the flowers to people). However, the florist received the flowers and was very pleased by receiving them.


----------



## roxcyn

panjandrum said:


> A small point about the ambiguous use of sent.
> Change the verb to give.
> _The woman (who had been) given the flowers was very happy._
> No problem now because there is no risk of confusion. The equivalent of the misunderstood version of the first sentence would be:
> _The woman gave the flowers was very happy. _


 
Yea that last one makes sense to me, however I have to think about it for some time .


----------



## virr2

roxcyn said:


> I was so excited and I fell down.
> 
> It's not "wrong", it just that "so" = very OR it can mean a conjuntion.
> 
> For example: "I was so drunk and I fell down."



Roxcyn, but surely you don't call "so" in "I was so drunk and I fell down" a conjunction  ?


----------



## virr2

roxcyn said:


> The florist sent the flowers...
> ("Sent" is a verb that is modifying florist. At first we think that the florist sent the flowers to someone else. Since the verb is modifying florist, someone can realize that the flowers were sent to the florist. In essense, the verb is being used as an adjective of "the florist")
> 
> .



Roxcyn, can a verb modify a noun? I've always been taught that verb denotes action or a state of being. 

Best regards,

Virr


----------



## danielfranco

A verb can modify a noun for sure. A verb can be used as an adjective. But that's, I was taught, a gerund. Otherwise known as the present participle. The progressive form of the verb, with the ending "-ing" (you might've noticed how the verb "to end" modifies the "-ing" in this sentence I just wrote).
I understand that "the florist" recieved the flowers. But I really don't agree that you can drop the part of the construction that completes the modifying phrase "... sent the flowers". To modify "the florist" in that manner, I insist you need to say something like "to whom the flowers were sent", or at least an americanism such as "the florist who got the darn flowers [which, after this much handling, are probably wilted already]".

Just my humble opinion, though.


----------



## roxcyn

virr2 said:


> Roxcyn, but surely you don't call "so" in "I was so drunk and I fell down" a conjunction  ?



See my above post, I edited it .


----------



## roxcyn

danielfranco said:


> I understand that "the florist" recieved the flowers. But I really don't agree that you can drop the part of the construction that completes the modifying phrase "... sent the flowers". To modify "the florist" in that manner, I insist you need to say something like "to whom the flowers were sent", or at least an americanism such as "the florist who got the darn flowers [which, after this much handling, are probably wilted already]".



It is a reduced relative clause [sent] (that modifies the noun [florist]).  It is _grammatical_, *but* it seems unusually.  I propose a translation in Spanish of the sentence.  Maybe that will help you.

The florist *[who was sent] *relative clause, modifies the noun
The florist *[sent]* reduced relative clause, modifies the noun *

*At first it sounds strange because our mind thinks that it is being used as the simple past tense (send - sent), but it is being used as a reduced relative clause. 

Sent the flowers, the florist was very pleased. 
The florist sent the flowers, was very pleased.
[Maybe those two options can make you understand].

I hope that helps, if not, please send a private message 


El florista mandado las flores estaba muy satisfecho.


----------



## virr2

danielfranco said:


> A verb can modify a noun for sure. A verb can be used as an adjective. But that's, I was taught, a gerund. Otherwise known as the present participle. The progressive form of the verb, with the ending "-ing" (you might've noticed how the verb "to end" modifies the "-ing" in this sentence I just wrote).
> 
> Just my humble opinion, though.



Danielfranco, a gerund is not a verb. It is a verbal noun ( a noun derived from a verb). Gerund  is not a  present participle. It is identical to gerund in form, but it differs in usage . 
The progressive form of the verb, formed by adding -ing to a verb is not a gerund but a present or imperfect infinitive. Thus, in "He is reading book" "reading is participle, and in "Reading is my favourite thing to do", "reading" is a gerund.


----------



## virr2

danielfranco said:


> A verb can modify a noun for sure. A verb can be used as an adjective. But that's, I was taught, a gerund.



Another thing is that we shouldn't say that a verb can be used as an adjective without a further explanation, because somebody may jump to quick conclusions. A verb can modify a noun in a sense that participles (both present and pat) can be used as adjectives but only in certain position. In "A broken heart" and "an interesting book", "broken" and "interesting" (past and present participles) can be used as adjective; in a sentence: "We were married by a bishop", "married (a past participle) doesn't function as an adjective.

Cheers, Virr


----------



## danielfranco

virr2, you right. 
Once again, I got twisted about. The gerund is a present participle, but only used as a noun, and not as an adjective (but the present participle can).
Also, I found this article about "Reduced Relative Clauses". They have some rules, but unfortunately none of them explain to me how the florist phrase could be allowed... I'm sure there's more to be said about the topic elsewhere, for those inclined to keep up with the subject. 
However, I haven't wrapped my head around the florist example. I suppose 
I'll sit down and think about it at length some other day, because the Spanish example doesn't ring a bell, either. 
It's a sentence construction that I must have been subconsciously avoiding in both languages, I guess.
Thanks for the clarification efforts.


----------



## virr2

danielfranco said:


> virr2, you right.
> Once again, I got twisted about. The gerund is a present participle, but only used as a noun, and not as an adjective (but the present participle can).



Hi Danielfranco,
one more thing to clear some things up: geruns is not a present participle, although their froms are identical. Past participle can also be used as an adjective, e.g. "a broken toy."

The article you found is very interesting. I will read it and if you want I will share my opinions with you on it. 

Cheers


----------



## danielfranco

Okay.
One more try, then:
A verb with an "-ing" ending could be a present participle if used as a modifier. If it were called upon to act as a noun, it would then change it's name to "Gerund" while in fact remaining a verb with a "-ing" ending stapled to its derrière.

virr2, if you find anything noteworthy about reduced relative clauses, I'd appreciate your input greatly, and I'm sure our forum-brethren would, too.
Laters.


----------



## maxiogee

virr2 said:


> Roxcyn, can a verb modify a noun? I've always been taught that verb denotes action or a state of being.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Virr



Imagine the two florists who were involved in the sample sentence. The one who sends them having received an other from her customer, and the one who has received them - for a birthday(?), maybe.

The floirst who sent the flowers was glad of the business, the florist who received the flowers was glad to be remembered.


----------



## virr2

danielfranco said:


> A verb with an "-ing" ending could be a present participle if used as a modifier. If it were called upon to act as a noun, it would then change it's name to "Gerund" while in fact remaining a verb with a "-ing" ending stapled to its derrière.




A verb with the suffix *-ing* is always present partciple (e.g. "I am *watching *a film")
Verb cannot act as a noun. Gerund acts as a verbal noun (e.g. "*Watching *TV can be bad for children"). As you can see present participle and gerund have identical form - "watching", however their syntactic function is different.
_Watching TV_ - "watching" is gerund, "TV" is the object, the whole sentence is a noun within "Watching TV can be bad for children."

In a way, you're right
verb+ing *may be *present participle
verb+ ing *may be* gerund 

but it all depends on the syntax.

Cheers, Virr


----------



## virr2

maxiogee said:


> Imagine the two florists who were involved in the sample sentence. The one who sends them having received an other from her customer, and the one who has received them - for a birthday(?), maybe.
> 
> The floirst who sent the flowers was glad of the business, the florist who received the flowers was glad to be remembered.



Maxiogee, I believe it is the semantics of the verb (here: _sent_ and _received_) that establishes connection between "florist" and "flowers" 
I've been taught that a verb cannot modify anything, it can only be modified.

Cheers, Virr


----------



## maxiogee

virr2 said:


> Maxiogee, I believe it is the semantics of the verb (here: _sent_ and _received_) that establishes connection between "florist" and "flowers"
> I've been taught that a verb cannot modify anything, it can only be modified.
> 
> Cheers, Virr



I disagree, on both counts. The modifying can be done without the help of Interflora® 

The woman who ran for the bus caught it, the woman who didn't run didn't catch it.

Many deer as they fled the forest-fire, passed by our house.


----------

