On Wednesday 04 April 2012 01:53:37 consultores wrote: > On 04/03/2012 02:38 PM, Lisi wrote: > > On Tuesday 03 April 2012 22:04:24 consultores wrote: > >>>> When I took the French Bac., the criterion laid down for the aural > >>>> English > >>>> exam was that marks would be awarded for speaking as would a native > >>>> speaker, > >>>> explicitly in preference to the "correct" usage. > >> > >> Here, i only can ask, what side of the dichotomy could be considered as > >> an undoubted true? > > > > I'm sorry, I don't understand you, or I would answer. You are indicating > > the problem. Words used in unusual ways are less comprehensible. (And > > yes, I am sure that many others will have understood you. But sadly, I > > have not.) > > > > Lisi > > Lisi > i tried saying that "correct/incorrect", the dichotomy, does not have > any meaning by itself, it needs to be appended by "for", or who/what > is involve.
I was quoting exam regulations, for which I was not responsible. You can see that I have put "correct" in quotation marks precisely because it needs more definition. But I would imagine that they meant "correct according to the grammar books". And I did say "who/what is involve": those in Paris who were responsible for the exam rules for the Baccalauréat. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201204040839.44187.lisi.re...@gmail.com