# clauses of different structures in one sentence



## yakor

Hi!
I know that an English sentence has strict stucture. So, I wonder if it is possible to use two or more  clauses with different structures in one the same sentence.
Do you understand me or I have to repeat it to you twice?
As you can see the first clause is a direct question, but the second is not, although the two contain question in themselves and could be put under the mark "?". Or it could be only said like,"Do you understand me or have I to repeat it to you twice?" (no rhetorical question is allowed)?


----------



## boozer

Do you understand me or I have to repeat it to you twice?
Personally, I have no problem with this one though I know many will insist that the second part should be a question:
_Do you understand me or do I have to/must I repeat this twice?
_
I am not going to dwell on the issue of _repeat _being the same as _say again. _


----------



## PaulQ

Do you understand me or I have to repeat it to you twice? -> This is not idiomatic English. Nobody would say that. _[Edit: apparently, they would...]
_
Both questions are real questions and even if they weren't, it would make no difference. Rhetorical questions follow the same rules as ordinary questions. 

Do you understand me or *do* I have to repeat it to you twice? "Twice" is not required, if you repeat something, then the repetition will be for the second time - i.e. 'twice'. Of course, *"...do* I have to repeat it to you *three *times? is OK.

"... have I to repeat it to you?" is OK but formal.


----------



## yakor

boozer said:


> I am not going to dwell on the issue of _repeat _being the same as _say again. _


Boozer, what did you say?


----------



## Chasint

yakor said:


> Hi!
> I know that an English sentence has strict stucture. So, I wonder if it is possible to use two or more  clauses with different structures in one the same sentence.
> Do you understand me or I have to repeat it to you twice?
> As you can see the first clause is a direct question, but the second is not, although the two contain question in themselves and could be put under the mark "?". Or it could be only said like,"Do you understand me or have I to repeat it to you twice?" (no rhetorical question is allowed)?


PaulQ is right. Boozer is wrong on this occasion.

_Do you understand me or I have to repeat it...? _

_Do you understand me or do I have to repeat it...? _ [This is normal idiomatic English. Note that it sounds impolite/brusque]

A more polite version: _Did you understand me or should I repeat it?  _or  _Did you understand or would you like me to repeat it?_


_______________________________________________________________
Note
There are other possibilities.

Do you understand me or *have I* to repeat it...?  [This is correct but unusual. Notice that it contains "have I" rather than "I have". The inversion is necessary.]

Do you understand me or must I repeat it ...? [This is normal idiomatic English. Note that it sounds impolite/brusque]


----------



## boozer

Biffo said:


> PaulQ is right. Boozer is wrong on this occasion.


That I am wrong often enough is beyond any doubt. However, look at the sentence I suggested in my earlier post and find as many differences as you can with the one you marked with a green tick. The one that you described as 'normal idiomatic English', however brusque.


----------



## Chasint

boozer said:


> That I am wrong often enough is beyond any doubt. However, look at the sentence I suggested in my earlier post and find as many differences as you can with the one you marked with a green tick. The one that you described as 'normal idiomatic English', however brusque.


Okay, I see what you mean. However the part I was disagreeing with was the following:


boozer said:


> Do you understand me or I have to repeat it to you twice?
> Personally, I have no problem with this one...


I wanted to make it clear that your personal opinion is different from the opinions of native speakers. It is is fact wrong.


----------



## boozer

Unfelicitous sentences like this one can be heard all the time - spoken by all manner of speakers. In writing, true, everyone is more careful. Okay, I said it at the very beginning - many will insist I am wrong in condoning such structures. This is not to say I have no idea 'what is right'...

PS. I see, though, that you are making full use of this opportunity to prove me wrong. Enjoy it - you've got me now.


----------



## yakor

PaulQ said:


> Do you understand me or *do* I have to repeat it to you twice? "Twice" is not required, if you repeat something, then the repetition will be for the second time - i.e. 'twice'. Of course, *"...do* I have to repeat it to you *three *times? is OK.
> 
> "... have I to repeat it to you?" is OK but formal.


I agree, it is logical, although simple speech is not always logical.
But  what do you mean under "formal"? Officially, in documents in official speech?


----------



## Chasint

boozer said:


> Unfelicitous sentences like this one can be heard all the time - spoken by all manner of speakers....PS. I see, though, that you are making full use of this opportunity to prove me wrong. Enjoy it - you've got me now.


Let's keep the discussion friendly and factual.

There are mistakes that are made by native speakers. There are mistakes that are made by non-native speakers. The sentence that we are discussing would never be said by a native speaker even as an error. 

If I want to prove you wrong, it is not for personal reasons but because I want readers of the forum to get the right answers.


----------



## yakor

PaulQ said:


> Both questions are real questions and even if they weren't, it would make no difference. Rhetorical questions follow the same rules as ordinary questions.


I'm not there with your this line. What do you mean? What would make no difference and in what? Which rules do you mean?


----------



## PaulQ

yakor said:


> I agree, it is logical, although simple speech is not always logical.
> But  what do you mean under "formal"? Officially, in documents in official speech?


Firstly, we must consider the context in which this is said. Perhaps a headmaster to a young pupil or a judge in court to almost anyone. It is the type of speech pattern that a person of great authority (in that situation) would say to a person of little or no authority. It has a precision (caused by the more old-fashioned style of speech) that implies a certain arrogance/demand to be obeyed/etc.) that comes from power.


----------



## yakor

Biffo said:


> The sentence that we are discussing would never be said by a native speaker even as an error.


But wait, PaulQ just said that 
"... have I to repeat it to you?" is OK but formal.                 
So, the first clause of the sentence OK and the second is ok in  formal speech, so I wonder why  to say that the sentence would never be  said by a native speaker even as an error.


----------



## yakor

PaulQ, You mean that to say "Have I repeat it to you?" sounds formally, that is, sounds like the question of the chief to the housemaid?


----------



## Chasint

yakor said:


> But wait, PaulQ just said that
> "... have I to repeat it to you?" is OK but formal.
> So, the first clause of the sentence OK and the second is ok in  formal speech, so I wonder why  to say that the sentence would never be  said by a native speaker even as an error.


The first clause is 100% correct. The only discussion is about the second clause:  (1) about the wording and (2) about the use of 'repeat' with 'twice'.  I shall leave out 'twice' in what follows.


Do you understand me or *I have* to repeat it?  [incorrect] 

Do you understand me or *have I* to repeat it? [correct but formal] 

Does that help or did you mean something else?


----------



## yakor

boozer said:


> Unfelicitous sentences like this one can be heard all the time - spoken by all manner of speakers.


It seems that the commas needed there.
Unfelicitous sentences,like this one, can be heard all the time - spoken by all manner of speakers.
Unfelicitous sentences,like this, can be heard all the time - spoken by all manner of speakers. 
Also, "one" is redundant to me.
Which sentences do you mean? The compound ones which are used with the clauses that are different in structure?


----------



## yakor

Biffo said:


> Does that help or did you mean something else?


I've got already that "twice" is not OK with "repeat" in English. (it's from the Russian idiomatic expression)
I mean only the order of the words in the second clause. Boozer says it could be said informally "have I repeat it to you?".
How could it be that you both tell the different?
 Boozer Unfelicitous sentences like this one can be heard all the time - spoken by all manner of speakers
And you The sentence that we are discussing would never be said by a native speaker even as an error.


----------



## boozer

yakor said:


> It seems that the commas needed there...


The commas are absolutely redundant and in fact spoil the sentence. Also, 'one' is just fine where it is...


----------



## Chasint

yakor said:


> I've got already that "twice" is not OK with "repeat" in English. (it's from the Russian idiomatic expression)
> I mean only the order of the words in the second clause. Boozer says it could be said informally "have I repeat it to you?".
> How could it be that you both tell the different?
> Boozer Unfelicitous sentences like this one can be heard all the time - spoken by all manner of speakers
> And you The sentence that we are discussing would never be said by a native speaker even as an error.


1. I am a native speaker of English
2. I agree with PaulQ who is a native speaker of English.
3. I disagreed with boozer whose native language is Bulgarian, not English.

Therefore my statement retains its logic.


----------



## pob14

I've said a lot of infelicitous things in my time, certainly.  But I have a hard time picturing a native speaker saying, "Do you understand me or I have to repeat it...?"  Possibly if they were very angry, and meant to say, "do I have to . . . " and just dropped it in the speed of speaking?  Seems unlikely, but it's true that people say all sorts of things.  My wife once called our daughter by the dog's name.  

Nothing personal against boozer; in fact, I think boozer is right about the commas (although I think we're wandering a bit off topic).


----------



## boozer

yakor said:


> ... Boozer says it could be said informally "have I repeat it to you?".
> ...



I never said that. 'Have I repeat it to you?' is plain wrong...


----------



## lucas-sp

A strange lapse from boozer. Or is it?

First of all, let's consider the sentence:





> Do you understand me or I have to repeat it to you twice?


It's really hard to comment on this sentence, because it has usage and word choice errors that make the sentence itself difficult to see. What would a native English speaker say? Probably something like:





> (COLLOQUIAL, CORRECT SENTENCE) Do you understand what I'm saying, or am I going to have to repeat myself?


That obviously looks and sounds the best, doesn't it? Now, yakor wants to ask about a mixed sentence like this:





> (COLLOQUIAL MIXED SENTENCE) Do you understand what I'm saying, or I'm going to have to repeat myself?


I agree for the most part with Biffo and Paul here. Native speakers actually tend to know whether they're going to ask questions before they start asking them. It would be bizarre to pair a question with a statement in this way. A more natural "error" would be to begin the sentence as a statement and then change it into a question mid-stream:





> (COLLOQUIAL, MORE PROBABLE MIXED SENTENCE) You understand what I'm saying now, right, or am I really going to have to repeat myself?


However, it is not _unprecedented_ that a speaker or writer would _purposefully_ change structures mid-sentence to create a rhetorical effect. This is called *anacoluthon*. Here's Shakespeare doing anacoluthon in _Henry V_: 





> "Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,That he which hath no stomach to this fight,Let him depart."


You can see clearly where the syntax shifts from a content clause to an imperative third-person command.

Now, if we re-punctuated the first mixed sentence we can get a successful anacoluthon:





> (COLLOQUIAL MIXED SENTENCE, NOW A FELICITOUS ANACOLUTHON) Do you understand what I'm saying, or -- I'm going to have to repeat myself, I see.


This punctuation is _necessary_ to mirror the break in syntax. If you're writing you need to show the reader that you're aware of what just happened syntactically - otherwise the reader will just think you're sloppy or careless.

So, in conclusion: The mixed structure _is_ wrong. As written by yakor in the first post, it is very wrong. But highly rhetorical situations call for highly rhetorical measures, and this structure of breaking syntax is not unprecedented in English.


----------



## Chasint

pob14 said:


> I've said a lot of infelicitous things in my time, certainly.  But I have a hard time picturing a native speaker saying, "Do you understand me or I have to repeat it...?"  Possibly if they were very angry, and meant to say, "do I have to . . . " and just dropped it in the speed of speaking?  Seems unlikely, but it's true that people say all sorts of things.  My wife once called our daughter by the dog's name.
> 
> Nothing personal against boozer; in fact, I think boozer is right about the commas (although I think we're wandering a bit off topic).


I agree. The only error in that sentence of boozer's was to write 'unfelicitous' instead of 'infelicitous'. Extra commas aren't needed.

Of course it is possible that a native speaker would type_ "I have to"_ instead of _"have I to"_ or maybe _"__or I have to repeat it"_  instead of _"do__ I have to repeat it" _but that would be a slip of the fingers. I think it is even less likely that a native speaker would speak the erroneous sentence out loud no matter how angry they might be. It just sounds wrong.


----------



## Chasint

lucas-sp said:


> ... it is not _unprecedented_ that a speaker or writer would _purposefully_ change structures mid-sentence to create a rhetorical effect. This is called *anacoluthon*. Here's Shakespeare doing anacoluthon in _Henry V_: You can see clearly where the syntax shifts from a content clause to an imperative third-person command.
> 
> Now, if we re-punctuated the first mixed sentence we can get a successful anacoluthon:This punctuation is _necessary_ to mirror the break in syntax. If you're writing you need to show the reader that you're aware of what just happened syntactically - otherwise the reader will just think you're sloppy or careless.
> 
> So, in conclusion: The mixed structure _is_ wrong. As written by yakor in the first post, it is very wrong. But highly rhetorical situations call for highly rhetorical measures, and this structure of breaking syntax is not unprecedented in English.


I'm not sure how relevant that is to the original question. However I do find it interesting and I have learned a new word!

I see that the Shakespearean example is mentioned on the Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacoluthon. I also see that, further down the page, anacoluthon is described as a grammatical error.

_We can hardly conclude even so desultory a survey of grammatical misdemeanours as this has been without mentioning the most notorious of all. The anacoluthon is a failure to follow on, an unconscious departure from the grammatical scheme with which a sentence was started, the getting switched off, imperceptibly to the writer, very noticeably to his readers, from one syntax track to another."
__The King's English, an English style guide written by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler 

_
With regard to Shakespeare, I would argue that that is not a true example. However that would be for a separate thread.

I agree with your conclusion. The sentence that is the subject of this thread is not [deliberate] anacluthon, it's a simple mistake.


----------



## boozer

Biffo said:


> I agree. The only error in that sentence of boozer's was to write 'unfelicitous' instead of 'infelicitous'...


'Unfelicitous' is a word as well. I myself was surprised to find this out on this forum some time ago. And now it seems to have grown on me. 
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unfelicitous
PS. Hmm, the site I'm trying to link to shows me this
Full Definition of UNFELICITOUS *:* infelicitous


----------



## Chasint

boozer said:


> 'Unfelicitous' is a word as well. I myself was surprised to find this out on this forum some time ago. And now it seems to have grown on me.
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unfelicitous
> PS. Hmm, the site I'm trying to link to shows me this
> *Full Definition of UNFELICITOUS*
> 
> *:* infelicitous


Maybe we should start a new thread on this. We have now strayed way off the original topic.


----------



## RM1(SS)

pob14 said:


> I have a hard time picturing a native speaker saying, "Do you understand me or I have to repeat it...?"  Possibly if they were very angry, and meant to say, "do I have to . . . " and just dropped it in the speed of speaking?  Seems unlikely, but it's true that people say all sorts of things.


I agree



pob14 said:


> Nothing personal against boozer; in fact, I think boozer is right about the commas (although I think we're wandering a bit off topic).


And I definitely agree about the commas.


----------



## yakor

PaulQ said:


> Both questions are real questions and even if they weren't, it would make no difference. Rhetorical questions follow the same rules as ordinary questions.


Difference in what do you mean?Which rules do the rhetorical questions follow? Could you be clear in expressing what you mean, really?


----------



## yakor

boozer said:


> I never said that. 'Have I repeat it to you?' is plain wrong...


Yes, I have mistaken you with PaulQ who said "... have I to repeat it to you?" is OK but formal". Sorry.


----------



## yakor

Biffo said:


> The sentence that is the subject of this thread  is not [deliberate] anacluthon, it's a simple mistake.


No. it is not the mistake. I asked if one could use the direct question and rhetorical in one the same sentence. 
I see the difference between "Am I going to ask you again?" and "I'm going to ask you again?"(a little bit rough)
So, you don't use the sentences of different structure in one the same sentence?


----------



## yakor

Also, it is not clear why it is correct to say "this one" instead of just "this". "one" is redundant to me.


----------



## yakor

lucas-sp said:


> Do you understand what I'm saying, or am I going to have to repeat myself?                      ...That obviously looks and sounds the best, doesn't it?


Too long. More simple and better is,"Do you understand me, or do I have to repeat it(what I said)?"


----------



## Chasint

yakor said:


> No. it is not the mistake. I asked if one could use the direct question and rhetorical in one the same sentence.
> I see the difference between "Am I going to ask you again?" and "I'm going to ask you again?"(a little bit rough)
> So, you don't use the sentences of different structure in one the same sentence?


Here are the original sentences.


yakor said:


> Hi!
> I know that an English sentence has strict stucture. So, I wonder if it is possible to use two or more clauses with different structures in one the same sentence.
> *Do you understand me or I have to repeat it to you twice?*
> As you can see the first clause is a direct question, but the second is not, although the two contain question in themselves and could be put under the mark "?". Or it could be only said like,"*Do you understand me or have I to repeat it to you twice*?" (no rhetorical question is allowed)?


The first is not used under any circumstances. It doesn't work in English You could improve it by saying, "Do you understand me? I have to repeat it [to you twice]?" but that would not hang together logically in English. The correct version, if you want to use this rhetorical mode, would be as follows:

"Don't you under_stand_ me? I have to repeat it _twice_?"  This would be said in an angry tone of voice.

The second sentence "Do you understand me or have I to repeat it to you twice?" has already been discussed. It is correct but somewhat formal sounding.


----------



## yakor

lucas-sp said:


> "Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,That he which hath no stomach to this fight,Let him depart."


I don't see where is *anacoluthon* here.
Rather proclaim it,(command)
,Westmoreland, (the person adressed)
,through my host,(the adverbal modifier"how?")
I don't understand what is proclaimed here. ...,that he which hath no stomach to this fight,


----------



## yakor

Biffo said:


> "Don't you under_stand_ me? I have to repeat it _twice_?"  This would be said in an angry tone of voice.
> 
> The second sentence "Do you understand me or have I to repeat it to you  twice?" has already been discussed. It is correct but somewhat formal  sounding.


Yes, I mean the angry tone of voice. You stressed stand and twice,  I had stressed it too. But you said that "repeat twice" has no sense in  English."twice" is redundant. I got it. But in everyday speech one  could say,"repeat twice", nothing strange at all. "twice" stresses an  angry tone only.
Also, I have no problem with direct questions in one  sentence...if one askes (without any angry tone),"Do you understand me,  or do I have to repeat it?"
What I mean is two things "Do you understand me? (I wonder if you get what I have said, or maybe what I want from you..)
"Or  I have to repeat it to you twice?(the rhetorical question, because I'm  not sure that you get me, I suppose that I should tell the same in a  second time.) 
I think it is correct to say in two different  sentences,"Do you understand me?(I really not sure if you get me) Or I  have to repeat it twice(again)? (because I'm not sure that you get me I  wonder if I have to repeat it again.) Something like that. I hope you  got me.


----------



## yakor

It seems  that the correct way is,"You understand me, or I have to repeat it to you twice?" (In an angry way)Correct?
(You understand me, or, if not(omitted), I have to repeat it to you twice?)


----------



## lucas-sp

yakor said:


> No. it is not the mistake. I asked if one could use the direct question and rhetorical in one the same sentence.
> I see the difference between "Am I going to ask you again?" and "I'm going to ask you again?"(a little bit rough)
> So, you don't use the sentences of different structure in one the same sentence?


There is no grammatical difference between questions and rhetorical questions. They are formed in the same way. So "Am I going to have to repeat myself?" might be either a rhetorical question or an authentic question. A rhetorical question is said without the expectation of any response, but it's still formed the same way as any other question.

Would we use two different structures of question formation in the same sentence? No. We would most naturally pick one form of sentence structure and then stick to using that.

If we changed the sentence structure mid-sentence, we would have to have a good _stylistic_ reason to break a _syntactical_​ rule.


----------



## yakor

If someone says, "I could talk to him?" it wouldn't be the direct, usual question? I think It would be the opinion needed comfirmation, not if you don't know if you could talk to someone? I don't get you, lucas, when you tell that no difference between the rhytorical and usual question. Or in moden English grammar they became the same thing and you could avoid the strict order in the direct question?


----------



## Chasint

yakor said:


> It seems  that the correct way is,"You understand me, or I have to repeat it to you twice?" (In an angry way)Correct?
> (You understand me, or, if not(omitted), I have to repeat it to you twice?)


No that is definitely not possible; not in any tone of voice.


----------



## Chasint

yakor said:


> If someone says, "I could talk to him?" it wouldn't be the direct, usual question?...


No, that is not possible as an ordinary direct question. I cannot think of any occasion where that would be said. A possibility is "I can talk to him?". This would indicate surprise, e.g.

_Mrs, Thompson, as you know, your son has been in a coma but he has finally come round. Do you want to talk to him?"
"I can talk to him? Really?"
"Yes, you can talk to him."
"Thank heavens!"_

This is more a repetition of the previous sentence - it is a sign of disbelief rather than a normal question.


----------



## yakor

Biffo said:


> This is more a repetition of the previous sentence - it is a sign of disbelief rather than a normal question.


Sorry, but read the answer of lucas, who said that no difference between the direct and the rhetorical question.
Also, if his words are true why then one could ask,"Could I talk to him?" why not "I could talk to him?"


----------



## velisarius

Lucas and Biffo are off-line, so I will try to explain.
 Lucas said:
>>A rhetorical question is said without the expectation of any response, but it's still formed the same way as any other question.

Only context will tell you whether a question is real (expects an answer) or rhetorical. They are *formed the same way.*
"How many times do I have to tell you to behave yourself?" This has the form of a question but is rhetorical because I don't expect the kid to say "Five or six times".

"I could talk to him" is a statement but, as Biffo has shown in post #40, in certain unusual circumstances it can show questioning disbelief - in a tone of voice that is conveyed by a question-mark. This is not a "rhetorical question". It is Mrs. Thompson's repetition of the statement made by the nurse, and does not have the form of a question.

My advice would be to forget a moment about _anacolouthon_ and statements of disbelief; they seem to be confusing you. In post #1 the correct form of the rhetorical question is "do I have to repeat that?" As you can see, it has the same form as a regular question.


----------



## lucas-sp

yakor said:


> No. it is not the mistake. I asked if one could use the direct question and rhetorical in one the same sentence.


You're comparing apples and oranges, yakor. There are two separate sets of definitions you're working with here.

First we have *d**irect questions and indirect questions*; then we have *standard questions and rhetorical questions*. The two sets of definitions have nothing to do with each other.

First, a *standard question* is a question asked so as to receive an answer. A *rhetorical question* is a question asked without the expectation of any answer, but instead merely to make a point. These are *rhetorical/stylistic* distinctions.
A *direct question* puts the information asked for by the question in the main clause of the question. An *indirect question* puts the information asked for by the question in a subordinate clause within the question. Both direct and indirect questions can be formed by inversion ("Do you have Pepsi?"; "Could you tell me if you have Pepsi?"). You can also form questions using tag questions ("You have Pepsi, don't you?"), by replacing one of the words in a normal sentence with a question word ("You're out of which sodas?"), or by simply saying the sentence in a question voice (Waitress: "We don't have Pepsi." Client: "You don't have Pepsi?") These are *grammatical/syntactical *distinctions.

It's entirely possible to have a question that is both a direct question and a rhetorical question. For example: "What kind of a restaurant wouldn't have Pepsi? Are we living in the Dark Ages? Do you want me to die of thirst?"

The point remains: You cannot change the _grammatical_​ structure of a sentence half-way through that sentence without a valid reason.


----------



## lucas-sp

yakor said:


> Originally Posted by *lucas-sp*
> 
> 
> Do you understand what I'm saying, or am I going to have to repeat myself? ...That obviously looks and sounds the best, doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> Too long. More simple and better is,"Do you understand me, or do I have to repeat it(what I said)?"
Click to expand...

Just to say again: The sentence I proposed is _more natural_ and _more representative_ of everyday spoken English. Sometimes adding words makes a sentence smoother to say and hear. Also, there is a difference between "understand what I'm saying" and "understand me." Your sentence is not nearly as colloquial. If you start working with _actual sentences produced by native speakers_ you will learn to get a sense of when we prefer a wordier sentence, and when we prefer a shorter sentence, etc.


----------



## yakor

velisarius said:


> >>A rhetorical question is said without the expectation of any response, but it's still formed the same way as any other question.


You and lucas mean that it is correct to tell that the rhetorical question in English is formed by the reversal?(The verb is put first)?
Also, if I ask the question and expect an answer I could use the same order of the words as in a usual sentence??
I see that the order in a rhetorical question could be the same as in a statement and the usual question. But the order in a usual question couldn't be the same as in a statement. Or one could ask the question, using the order of the words of a statement? (What you like more; the TV or cinema?)


----------



## yakor

Biffo said:


> This is more a repetition of the previous sentence - it is a sign of disbelief rather than a normal question.


 In grammar there is no term as a repetition. There is a statement and the question. If it is no question at all then it is the statement, isn't it?
You could put the mark "!" at the end of the sentence instead "?", or even "!?" and so on. And it would be the statement with corresponding intonation.


----------



## yakor

lucas-sp said:


> A *direct question* puts the information asked for by the question in the main clause of the question. An *indirect question* puts the information asked for by the question in a subordinate clause within the question.


You write  too complicatedly. An indirect question is a subordinate clause. A direct question is a main clause.


----------



## yakor

lucas-sp said:


> Both direct and indirect questions can be formed by inversion ("Do you have Pepsi?"; "Could you tell me if you have Pepsi?").


1) If a standard question in English could be written as a statement with the mark "?", so why to use inversion at all?
2) The interrogative sentence "Could you tell me if you have Pepsi? is a direct question as well as "Do you have Pepsi?" Also, where is the inversion of the indirect question here?


----------



## velisarius

yakor said:


> You and lucas mean that it is correct to tell that the rhetorical question in English is formed by the reversal?(The verb is put first)  Yes, "Am I my brother's keeper?" "If you poison us, do we not die?" These are rhetorical questions - the same in form as ordinary questions.
> 
> Also, if I ask the question and expect an answer I could use the same order of the words as in a usual sentence? NO. That is the mistake you are making now: to ask a question we say "can I use the same order of words ...?" "A usual sentence" (I think you mean a statement). A question normally requires the inversion of subject and verb - "can one ask the question?" "what do you like more?" Failure to invert in this way is a serious mistake in English. It isn't usually enough to use ONLY tone of voice and a question mark, when asking a question, either in speech or in writing.
> 
> I see that the order in a rhetorical question could be the same as in a statement and the usual question. (?) But the order in a usual question couldn't be the same as in a statement. Normally, yes that is correct.
> 
> Or one could ask the question, using the order of the words of a statement? (What you like more; the TV or cinema?) No. See my examples above.


----------



## yakor

lucas-sp said:


> Also, there is a difference between "understand what I'm saying" and "understand me."


Not always.


----------



## yakor

But if the order of words in a rhetorical question could be both as in a statement and the standard question, how does one  make difference between the rhetorical question and a statement with interrogative intonation, between the rhetorical question and the standart question?


----------



## Chasint

yakor said:


> In grammar there is no term as a repetition. There is a statement and the question. If it is no question at all then it is the statement, isn't it?
> You could put the mark "!" at the end of the sentence instead "?", or even "!?" and so on. And it would be the statement with corresponding intonation.


I'm beginning to wonder if you want to learn how natives speak English or whether you want to change English to meet your expectations.    Nevertheless I'll explain.



> This is more a repetition of the previous sentence - it is a sign of disbelief rather than a normal question.


I stand by what I said before but this time I shall design an example specifically to answer this point.

Non-native's version
John:_ You're crazy!_
Bill:_ I'M crazy or YOU're crazy?_  [This is understandable but sounds 'foreign'. No native speaker would say it.]

Standard version  [English for beginners]
John:_ You're crazy!_
Bill:_ Am I crazy or are YOU crazy?_  [This is correct English but has little dramatic effect]

Native speaker's version  [emphatic]
John:_ You're crazy!_
Bill: _ I'M crazy? No, YOU're crazy!_

This last can be thought of as an indirect question. Written out in full it might be, "Are you saying *I'M crazy?* Well, I think _*YOU're crazy!*"_


----------



## JulianStuart

You *cannot tell the difference* between a normal question (asked in the expectation of a response) and a rhetorical question (asked with no expectation) *just by looking at the structure.*  They are formed the same way.  

A simple declarative statement intoned as a question (no inversion) is written as a statement with a ? at the end.  The lack of inversion and this way of forming a question is _completely unrelated to whether it is rhetorical or not_.


----------



## lucas-sp

yakor said:


> You write  too complicatedly. An indirect question is a subordinate clause. A direct question is a main clause.





yakor said:


> 2) The interrogative sentence "Could you tell me if you have Pepsi? is a direct question as well as "Do you have Pepsi?" Also, where is the inversion of the indirect question here?


Not quite. The difference between the direct and indirect questions lies in the expectation of the answer. Compare:

Do you have Pepsi?
Yes, we do have Pepsi. 

Could you tell me if you have Pepsi? 
Yes, I could tell you that.  _wrong answer - answering this part of question might be considered rude_

Could you tell me if you have Pepsi? 
Yes, we do have Pepsi.  _correct answer_



yakor said:


> You and lucas mean that it is correct to tell that the rhetorical question in English is formed by the reversal?(The verb is put first)?


In English we can make questions - _all questions _- in a variety of ways. 

Inversion: Should we make Maurice do it? Do we even want Maurice to do it?
Tag-questions: You're going to make me ask Maurice to do it, aren't you?
No-change, question introduced by tone of voice (used to express shock, disapproval, or incredulity): You guys asked Maurice to do it?
Often the no-change question will be augmented with question words: You guys _really_ asked Maurice to do it?
_
Any one of these forms of sentences could be used to pose a rhetorical question, or to ask a serious question. Only context allows you to determine whether a question is meant rhetorically or not._


> so why to use inversion at all?


Because inversion is the most neutral, most polite, and least emphatic way to ask questions in English. We teach native speakers inversion because you _will never be wrong_ forming a question using inversion - but you could easily be wrong if you use a different structure.


----------



## Liam Lew's

Biffo said:


> Non-native's version
> John:_ You're crazy!_
> Bill:_ I'M crazy or YOU're crazy?_  [This is understandable but sounds 'foreign'. No native speaker would say it.]


 When written, these errors disturb the reading flow. I see non-natives making this mistake very often in this Forum. I always get stuck in a passage when reading such a sentence, because it mostly doesn't fit the rest of the text and I expect something else to follow.



			
				yakor said:
			
		

> But if the order of words in a rhetorical question could be both as in a statement and the standard question, how does one  make difference between the rhetorical question and a statement with interrogative intonation, between the rhetorical question and the standard question?


How to differentiate rhetorical and normal questions?
It's about mimic, intonation, gesture and context. A rhetorical question sounds different to a normal question.
But sometimes I see people answering to rhetorical question, since it's not always that easy to interpret body language, intonation and context correctly. But most of the time it shouldn't be a problem to differentiate a rhetorical question from a normal question. In written language it's a bit harder. It's mainly the context that show's that it's a rhetorical context.


----------

