I buy clothes whenever my clothing gets old. (What is a noun clause?)

(Grammar Questions I Couldn't Answer)

In a previous entry in this series, I admitted that I don't fully understand what a noun clause is.

The question of noun clauses came up again in a recent staffroom discussion.

A co-worker asked me for my opinion on something he had noticed from the textbook (Reflect Listening & Speaking 5, Unit 2, Grammar: Noun Clauses p.34-35).

"I think I get noun clauses," he explained to me.  "It's a clause that acts as the subject or the object of a sentence.  I get that part.  But how do you explain this?"

He then directed my attention to the grammar explanation box on page 34, which read:

whoever, whenever, whatever

When the noun clause begins with whoever, whenever, or whatever, the meaning is "anyone, any time or anything."

We aim to give our customers whatever they want.

Okay, so far so good.  In the example sentence above "whatever they want" is obviously a clause, and it's obviously standing in the place of a noun.  (You can test this out by substituting a noun into the same slot--e.g. "We aim to give our customers a hat."  The sentence is still grammatical either way.)

But then, my co-worker directed by attention to Exercise J on page 35, in which the students were given sentence heads that they had to complete.

Number 2 of exercise J reads: "I buy new clothes whenever_______________"

My co-worker explained to me, "I tried to complete the sentence myself, like 'I buy new clothes whenever I feel sad', but then it's not functioning as a noun, right?"

I agreed.  "Yeah, that seems like a time adverbial to me.  So I would call that an adverbial clause, not a noun clause."

We checked the teacher's book to see what the suggested answer for this exercise was.

Now of course, because of the open-endedness of the prompt, the answer key said "answers may vary, but here are some possible answers."  Then, the possible answer for number 2 was: "I buy new clothes whenever my clothing gets old."

Both my co-worker and I were of the opinion that this was an adverbial clause, not a noun clause.  (Its not functioning as a noun in this sentence?  I mean, it's not a subject, it's not an object, it's not an indirect object, it's not a predicate nominative, etc.)

So, what was going on here?

The easiest option is that the textbook was just wrong.  

In my experience, in my many years in TESOL, it's not uncommon for mistakes to get printed in textbooks.  In fact, it happens quite often.  This could just be a mistake.

Right?  Or have we analyzed this sentence wrong?  Let me know in the comments if you disagree.

"So," asked my co-worker, "What about the word 'whenever' then?  Can it ever be used with a noun clause? (as the textbook claimed on page 34)  Or is it only used as for adverbial clauses?"

We tested out some examples.  My co-worker thought of, "I hate whenever you look at me", and he argued that this could possibly be a noun clause starting with "whenever".

But I argued that his sentence was ungrammatical.  It should be "I hate it whenever you look at me."  We debated for a while whether or not the "it" was necessary.

In the end, we never did come to a conclusion about whether or not "whenever" could be used with noun clauses.

If I remembered one day, I would choose to remember my wedding day.

(Grammar Questions I Couldn't Answer)

A co-worker of mine was preparing a lesson on unreal conditionals (i.e. 2nd conditionals).  

For the presentation stage of the lesson, he wanted to build a context around the sentence "If I could remember one day, I would choose to remember my wedding day."  (I believe the intended context was that if he could choose to preserve one day of his life perfectly in his memory, it would be his wedding.)

However, in the course of preparing the lesson, he realized that the textbook (Reflect 4 Listening and Speaking, Unit 4, Grammar p.62: Unreal Conditionals) defined the unreal conditional as:

If + past simple, would + bare infinitive.

He was worried that his example sentence didn't fit the pattern because he was using "If I could remember"--i.e. If + could + bare infinitive."

This sparked a debate among the staffroom as to whether "could+bare infinitive" was the same as the past simple in this context.  I took the position that it was.  (Certainly that's the way I've been teaching the 2nd conditional for years.  And I showed my co-worker worksheets that I had in my archive like this one in which I had used "could fly" as equivalent to the past simple).

But there was also a secondary question: why do we even need "could" in this sentence?  Why can't we just say: "If I remembered one day, I would choose to remember my wedding day" ?

And what was the difference between "If I remembered..." and "If I could remember..."

The whole thing reminded me of a similar grammar question I couldn't answer 4 years ago about the difference between "I wish I played with that dog" and "I wish I could play with that dog".  I wrote about those sentences in this blog post here.  I suspect they are related cases.

There is a crisis for people to monitor the disaster

(Grammar Questions I Couldn't Answer)

This one puzzled me for a long time, but I think I've actually worked it out now.  Let me know what you think.

We were playing a Make Sentences game with the new vocabulary from Unit 2, Impact 4, and we were on slide 4 of the game (see here), and one of the students wrote on the board "There is a crisis for people to monitor the disaster."

My native speaker intuition of course immediately told me that the sentence was wrong, and that it should be, "There is a crisis for the people to monitor."  But why?  Monitor is a transitive verb, so it should have an object after it, right?  So why was my native-speaker intuition telling me that "to monitor the disaster" was wrong in this case?

I wrote the sentence down, and have been thinking about it for several days, and I think I've got it now.  It's because "to monitor" is an infinitive of purpose.  So in the same way that we would say, "I have a pizza to eat" without putting on object after "eat", so we wouldn't put an object after "monitor".  

Or perhaps, more specifically, the object of "monitor" is already in the sentence--it's "a crisis", so we don't need to say it again in the infinitive.

How did I do?  Does that sound right?

Dinosaurs eating meat are called carnivores: Grammar Questions I Couldn't Answer

(Grammar Questions I Couldn't Answer)

Recently I was looking at the test for Impact 4 Unit 6.  The test instructions were: “Write the sentences again with a reduced relative clause. Tick the sentence if it does not need to be changed.”  

One sentence was: “Dinosaurs that ate meat are called carnivores.”

According to the answer key for the test, this sentence could not be rewritten as a reduced relative clause, and the correct answer was to just leave the sentence as it was.

However, according to the information contained in the student's workbook, (which is where the Impact textbooks hide their grammar explanations), it says (p.62), "If a relative pronoun is followed directly by a verb, it cannot be left out.  Sometimes we can use the verb in the -ing form or past participle instead: The scientists who study / studying ..."

This grammar point was fresh in my mind because I had just recently been teaching the same grammar point from Reflect Listening & Speaking 5 which also taught that if the relative pronoun is being used as the subject, it could be reduced by omitting the relative pronoun and changing the verb to the -ing form.  Here are some examples from the Reflect Listening & Speaking 5 book:

"The number of people who used public baths increased." becomes "The number of people using public baths increased."

"Almost half the people who saw the online advertisement clicked it" becomes "Almost half the people seeing the online advertisement clicked it."

So, by those rules, it should be possible to reduce "Dinosaurs that ate meat are called carnivores" to "Dinosaurs eating meat are called carnivores".  Except... "Dinosaurs eating meat are called carnivores" just doesn't sound right.  I can't put my finger on it, but there's something about that sentence that just doesn't sound right.

I discussed this sentence with a colleague.  She agreed with me that "Dinosaurs eating meat are called carnivores" didn't sound natural, but we couldn't figure out why.  She suggested that maybe it was because "Dinosaurs that ate meat are called carnivores" was in the past tense, so that is why we couldn't reduce it to the -ing verb.  I pointed to the two examples from the Reflect book (that I've quoted above) to illustrate that past tense verbs can also be reduced to -ing form: "The number of people who used public baths increased." and "Almost half the people who saw the online advertisement clicked it."  

(Actually my colleague wasn't entirely sure that sentences like  "Almost half the people seeing the online advertisement clicked it" sounded entirely natural to her, even though I pointed out to her that the Reflect book gave this as a correct sentence.  So we had some slight disagreement on our native speaker intuition.)

In the end, we never did figure it out.

I posted the question on our group chat at work to see if anyone else had any ideas.  Some people had various suggestions, but we never did reach a consensus.  I'll duplicate that chat below.  (All names are replaced by "X___")

I posted:

Okay, is everybody ready to put their heads together for a grammar question?  X___ and I were looking at this sentence from the Pre-Advanced B unit 6 quiz.  The instructions are "Write the sentences again with a reduced relative clause. Tick the sentence if it does not need to be changed."  Number 12 is "Dinosaurs that ate meat are called carnivores".  According to the answer key, this sentence cannot be re-rewritten as a reduced relative clause.

But... according to the information in the students' workbook (p.62), it says, "If a relative pronoun is followed directly by a verb, it cannot be left out.  Sometimes we can use the verb in the -ing form or past participle instead: The scientists who study / studying ..."

So, can the sentence be re-written as "Dinosaurs eating meat are called carnivores."  X___ and I both agreed that it didn't sound right.  But why?  What rule is being broken?

Is it because it's in the past tense?  Maybe.  But, looking in or other textbooks, in the Reflect series--Reflect 5 Listening and Speaking, p. 62--they give several examples of reduced relative clauses in the past tense  (e.g. "The number of people who used public baths increased"... "the number of people using public baths increased")

So is  "Dinosaurs eating meat are called carnivores" actually wrong?

X___ posted:

Is it about defining and non defining? (Haven’t delved deep into thinking about this, but just based on these examples)

I replied:

I'd been thinking about defining non-defining, but I can't seem to find a consistent pattern.  "Dinosaurs that eat meat" is, I think, defining.  But if we change it to a non-defining example, like "Simon, who eats meat, teaches English", then we would get "Simon eating meat teaches English"--which to me at least still seems a bit off.

X___ posted:

You mentioned past tense, and for me that is a part of reason it feels wrong. In the other example referring to the past, you have 'increased' to place it in the past. However, in the dinos sentence it really sounds like dinos are still around eating meat. 

I replied:

I wonder... I'm looking at other examples now from the textbook.  Reflect 5 Listening and Speaking, p. 62 also has "Almost half the people who saw the online advertisement clicked it", which they say can be reduced to "Almost half the people seeing the online advertisement clicked it".  But in this case as well, we still have the word "clicked" to indicate that it's in the past.  So is that they key?  We need another past tense verb somewhere in the sentence to make it sound right?

What about if we put it into the present tense and say "animals eating meat are called carnivores".  Does that fix the problem, or does it still sound a little off?  I want to say that it still sounds a bit off to me.

...Also, what if we changed "are called" to "were called"--i.e. "Dinosaurs eating meat were called Carnivores".  Does that fix it?

X___ replied:

On the last sentence, I would say no, as we call them carnivores now. 

 

Animals eating meat are called carnivores sits better with me, but it isn't how I would ever say it myself....

X___ posted:

Yeah I think it felt weird because we know dinosaurs are extinct (or are they?) But still the animals eating meat feels a bit off too because I start to think , well when they are not eating what are they called. So maybe it's the defining aspect? 

...and there you have it.  In the end, no clear consensus was ever reached.

I pulled down a couple grammar reference books from my shelf (The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher's Course by Marianne Celce-Murcia and Diane Larsen-Freeman and Practical English Usage by Michael Swan) and did a quick search through those books for the rules on reducing relative clauses.  I didn't find anything.  (Possibly it's in those books, and I just missed it.  I don't know.)  So I'm going to give up for now.  If anyone knows the rule, please let me know in the comments.

No one knows for sure what caused the dinosaurs to become extinct.

(Grammar Questions I Couldn't Answer)

Recently I was teaching the present perfect in unit 6 of Expert IELTS 6.  

There was a supplement workbook that contained written exercises in which the students had to distinguish between the present perfect and the past simple.  The teaching assistant assigned it as homework, and was marking the answers.

One of the exercise was:

No one knows for sure what _________________ the dinosaurs to become extinct.  ( Expert IELTS 6 Workbook, page 59, exercise 4, number 5.)

Students had to choose between the past simple and present perfect.  A number of students chose the present perfect ("has caused"), but the answer key of course said "caused".

The teaching assistant, who was Vietnamese, approached me, and asked if perhaps the answer key might be mistaken.

"No," I said.  "The answer is definitely 'caused'."

"Are you sure?" she asked.  "We use the past simple for definite times in the past, and the present perfect for the unspecified times in the past.  So shouldn't the present perfect be acceptable here?"

"No, the present perfect is definitely wrong," I said.  "I mean, yes, you are right.  That is the rule that we teach for the present perfect.  But  the present perfect is definitely wrong here.  I can't tell you why, but it just sounds wrong."   (Sometimes the fact that native speakers make grammaticality judgements based solely on native speaker intuition is difficult to explain to non-native speakers.)

I promised the  TA I would research the answer, and then get back to her.

I asked around the staffroom, and got 2 different answers from colleagues:

"pres.perfect connects past and present time situations/statuses. The extinction is simply an event (sudden climate change) / immutable fact, therefore past simple is more suitable."

and 

"I think the 'exact time' is contained in 'what' - the something that happened in the past. I guess you could say 'what has happened to Bob', though..."

and

Is it also that they are making a choice between past and recent past? If it was the rhinos in Vietnam, we might say that there are many reasons that have caused them to become extinct? But dinosaurs are long gone?

I showed all these responses back to the teaching assistant.  "Well, there you go," I said to her.  "We've got three answers.  The trouble is, they're all different answers.  I don't know if that helps you at all, or just makes things more confusing."

She indicated it just made things more confusing.

"If I had to choose," I said, "I think the first explanation--the one about how the extinction is just an event in the past--is probably the right answer."

"The thing is," she said, "we use the present perfect when there's a past action with a present result, right?"

"Ah, I see what you mean," I said.  "You mean that because there aren't any dinosaurs alive now, then that's the present result."

She nodded.

"The thing is," I said, "in the actual sentence, that present result isn't being emphasized.  Arguably all past actions have present results.  But we only use the present perfect when the speaker is thinking about that present result."

Admittedly, I was just making stuff up as I spoke at this point.  But that was the best explanation I could think of on the spot.

What do you guys think?  Does that sound  reasonable, or am I off base here?

Using Strega Nona to Teach Noun Clauses

(TESOL Materials--Noun Clauses)

Some quick explanation: I was recently scheduled to teach noun clauses out of a course book which did not provide any context for the noun clauses.  (This was one of those textbooks which simply had the grammar rules in a little box, followed by controlled practice.)   Because I always like to teach the grammar point in some sort of context, I went through my archives to see if I could find any sort of story that used a lot of noun clauses, and settled on Strega Nona by Tomie dePaola.

Strega Nona is filled with complex noun phrases, so it seemed perfect.

Although, as I started designing material for this book, it turned out I had some confusion over exactly what a noun clause is.  (This is a grammar point that I haven't taught much in the past.  I believe it was Dave Willis who said that ESL textbooks focus almost exclusively on verb tenses, and tend to ignore complex noun phrases.)

I designed a noticing worksheet around Strega Nona that gapped out any noun phrases that contained verbs--HERE.  But I later decided that a lot of these noun phrases (e.g. "food to eat") were noun phrases with subordinate infinitive clauses, but not noun clauses.

I then revised my definition of noun clauses to mean any noun phrase that contained a subject and a verb, and prepared the feedback slideshow for that--HERE.  When I designed this slideshow, I was thinking that relative clauses were a sub-category of noun clauses.   

But... then I rethought it, and I decided that relative clauses were something different.  (The terminology gets confusing here, but I think that relative clauses are "noun phrases that contain a clause", but they are not "noun clauses".  Is that right?)

In the end, I decided that the actual noun clauses in Strega Nona were actually fewer in number than I had thought.  Possibly only 6

1. The one thing you must never do is touch the pasta pot. (subject of the sentence)

2. he didn’t see Strega Nona blow three kisses to the magic pasta pot  (functioning as the direct object of "see")

3. And this is what happened. ("what happened" functioning as the noun predicate after the copular verb)

4. That day came sooner than even Big Anthony would have thought, (object of comparison)

5. he didn’t notice the pasta pot was still bubbling and boiling (direct object of "notice")

6. She didn’t have to look twice to know what had happened. (direct object of "know")

...or possibly fewer.  There are still a couple sentences here I'm not entirely sure about.   

Is number 1 a noun clause or a relative clause with an omitted "that"?  (ie. perhaps the main noun phrase is "the one thing" and "[that] you must never do" modifies "the one thing")

Is number 4 an object of comparison?  Or is it just a subordinate clause?

Maybe I should add this whole thing to my "grammar questions I couldn't answer" project.  What are the real noun clauses here?  (Comments are welcome from anyone out there who thinks they know.)

Anyway, here are my materials:

Strega Nona Slideshow (originally from this post HERE): slides, pub

Gapfill: docs, pub

Slideshow for feedback--first version including relative clauses: slides, pub

Second version with [what I think are] only 6 noun clauses (see caveats above): slides, pub

Video on Youtube: HERE 

Lesson Plan (for sharing with my co-teacher): docs, pub

General comprehension questions (these were made by my co-teacher): docs, pub

Update: scrambled sentences (an alternative to the gapfill worksheets): docs, pub

Activity	Notes
Strega Nona Listening for general comprehension: slides, comprehension questions	Start the slides from 153. I’m going to use the slides for the first listening just because I enjoy telling the story, but you could also use the video for the first listening
2nd Listening: gapfill and listen and check with video Feedback with answer sheet And slideshow on noun clauses	I’ve included any noun phrases with subordinate verb phrases in the gapfill, just to increase the difficulty and raise awareness.  For the feedback on the slideshow, however, I’ve only included what I think are definitely noun clauses (subject and verb).  Hopefully I’m getting the grammar right here. Let  me know if you have any feedback
Kahoot embedded noun clauses	Time allowing.

to complete it correctly

(Grammar Questions I Couldn't Answer)

During an in-class writing exercise, a student wrote the sentence: "It was a complex task for me to complete it correctly."

My native speaker intuition told me that she should delete the "it" after "complete it".

But why?

"complete" is a transitive verb, so it should require an object.

So why was there no object after complete here?

"result in" vs "resulting in"

(Grammar Questions I Couldn't Answer)

I was doing a lesson on useful language for cause and effect, and using Peter Pan cartoons as a prompt.

One of the students wrote, “Peter Pan made a mysterious noise, result in Captain Hook tried to find him.”

I corrected her, and said “You need to say ‘resulting in’ ?

She was confused.  “Result in” is one of the phrases for cause and effect collocation that the textbook had presented.   “What’s the rule?  When do we need to use the -ing form?  Why can’t I just say “result in” like in the textbook?

I had to think on my feet a little bit.  “You have to use the -ing form because it’s the participle clause,” I said.  “You could also do this as a relative clause. “Peter Pan made a mysterious noise, which resulted in Captain Hook trying to find him.’  Or you could break it into 2 sentences with another subject: ‘Peter Pan made a mysterious noise. This resulted in Captain Hook trying to find him.’

She gave me a confused look that students often give me when I give them too much information at once.

“I can see you're confused,” I said.  “I’ll give you some example sentences with simpler grammar.”

I wrote several sentence on the board.

“ ‘I saw the man running through the park’--this is a participle clause.  Now, we could also do this as a relative clause: ‘I saw the man who was running through the park.’  Or, we could say, ‘I saw the man. He was running through the park.’ “

But then I of course realized that this didn’t illustrate my point at all, because in each example we were using the -ing form of the verb.

So in the end, I just had to admit to the student I wasn’t sure why we used -ing form.

the fewer local shops there will be in the future.

(Grammar Questions I Couldn't Answer)

This one comes from ELT Twitter:
Someone tweets: Weird grammar question from a student I don't know the answer to. Why can't you make this sentence without 'there': The more we buy in big malls, the fewer local shops there will be in the future.

Weird grammar question from a student I don't know the answer to. Why can't you make this sentence without 'there': The more we buy in big malls, the fewer local shops there will be in the future.

— Tim Hampson (@timhampson) June 16, 2021

I respond:

Interesting one. I think the original sentence (before transformation) would be "There will be fewer local shops in the future". This would be the existential "there", as in "there is a tree" But then, "the fewer" gets moved to the front for emphasis

— Joel Swagman (@JoelswagmanJoel) June 16, 2021

By which I meant: "the fewer local shops" all gets moved to the front. 
So I think I got half of it.  But where does "the" come from in "the fewer".  And what kind of transformation is this? 

who it is they’re meeting

(Grammar Questions I Couldn't Answer)

This question comes from Unit 2 Listening 1 of Q Skills 5.
A sentence in that listening read: 
Find out what kind of person is doing this kind of travel, what they’re doing when they get there, and just who it is they’re meeting. 

A student wondered whether "who it is they’re meeting" was a mistake.  Shouldn't it be "Who are they meeting?"

My initial response was to say that it was an indirect question.  But upon reflection, that didn't answer the question, because "Who are they meeting?" becomes "Find out who they are meeting".  Where was the "it is" in "who it is" coming from?

These are/ They are

(Grammar Questions I Couldn't Answer)

From a student speaking task:
"Today I'm going to talk about volunteer opportunities.  We have three options.  These are food program, take care of children program, and teaching English program."

My intuition is telling me "They are" is more appropriate here then "these are", but I can't think of what rule to tell my student.

The first option is the most expensive option that you will travel to an overseas country.

 (Grammar Questions I Couldn't Answer)

This is one that (with the help of some colleagues in the staffroom), I think I did actually find an answer for eventually.  But I'd appreciate a second opinion if anyone else wants to have a look at this.  Did I get the right answer in the end?

When marking a student’s speaking video, I came across the following sentence: "The first option is the most expensive option that you will travel to an overseas country."

My native speaker intuition told me that something was wrong, and having taught relative clauses recently, I was pretty sure I knew what it was.  The relative pronoun “that” was referring back to “option”, but “option” was neither the subject or the object of the following clause, so the relative clause was incorrectly formed.
My native speaker intuition was also telling me that the sentence could be fixed by replacing "that" with "which is that"--i.e.   "The first option is the most expensive option which is that you will travel to an overseas country."  But I couldn't figure out what the explanation for this was so I couldn't explain it to the student.

I asked some colleagues around the staffroom, and we discussed and batted some ideas around, and looked in some grammar books.  Eventually, we decided that "...which is that you will travel to an overseas country" is not actually a relative clause, but what the grammar books called a "that-clause".  

So I ended up writing the following feedback to the student:

"The first option is the most expensive option that you will travel to an overseas country."--This is a good attempt at a relative clause, but you can't actually use "that" as a relative pronoun here, because (as we discussed in class) the relative pronoun has to be the subject or the object of the next clause.  As a relative pronoun, "that" would refer back to the noun preceding it (in this case "option").  So you could say, for example:  "This is the most expensive option that you can choose"---(the relative clause is "You choose that" mean "You choose the option").  But you can't say "that you will travel to an overseas country."  You could, however, use "which" to refer to the previous clause (see p.76 of the textbook--"which" can refer to the whole of the previous clause").  You could then connect which to a "that clause"--(which is a declarative clause, different than a relative clause) and say "The first option is the most expensive option, which is that you will travel to an overseas country."

What do you think?  Did I explain this accurately to the student?

I wish I played with that dog

(Grammar Questions I Couldn't Answer)

This question actually comes from a colleague, who asked me about it in the staff room.

My colleague had been teaching the grammar point "I wish" out of the textbook English World 6 Unit 10 p.106.
English World 6 presents the grammar the same way all the other textbooks do: "I wish + past tense", for example "I wish I had more money."

My colleague was illustrating this for his students.  "So 'I want to play the guitar' becomes 'I wish I played the guitar'.  And 'I want to play with that dog' becomes 'I wish I played with that dog' ."

However, at this point, my colleague's native speaker intuition immediately told him that "I wish I played with that dog" was not correct, and that the correct sentence was "I wish I could play with that dog."  However my colleague could not explain to his students why the addition of "could" was necessary in the second sentence, but not in the first.  Nor could he explain why this sentence needed a "could" when the textbook simply gave the formula of "I wish + past tense".

So to summarize:
"I wish I played guitar"--sounds grammatical
"I wish I played with that dog"--sounds ungrammatical

"I'll be honest," I said.  "I've never thought about this until just now.  But maybe we can puzzle it out.  I wonder if "play guitar" is describing a state of being able to play guitar, and is thus more of a state verb.  Maybe state verbs take the past simple, but action verbs need "could" ?

This seemed like it must be a fairly common usage, and I expected to find this explained in a grammar reference book.  But we consulted several grammar reference books on this (including Practical English Usage by Michael Swan and The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher's Course by Marianne Celce-Murcia and Diane Larsen-Freeman) and could find nothing about state verbs or exceptions to the "I wish + past tense" formula.

Having thought about it more, I wonder if the distinction is not between state verbs and action verbs, but between habits and present actions.  So, "I wish I played with the dog" would be acceptable if you were describing a habit--e.g. "I wish I played with that dog every day", whereas for a desired present action, you would use the past continuous--e.g. "I wish I was playing with that dog".

That's my best guess.  Anyone else have any thoughts?

I wouldn’t think of your taking the trouble.

(Grammar Questions I Couldn't Answer)

This question doesn't come from the students--it's actually a question I asked myself.

We're reading Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH in one of my teen classes, and while copying the text over from this website to a google docs (for the purposes of printing it out for the students), the google docs grammar checker flagged the "your" in this sentence as being ungrammatical.

‘Oh, I don’t know exactly,’ Jeremy said. ‘A couple of miles, I suppose.’
‘Mother, did you hear? You’ll be two miles up in the air.’
‘Martin, it won’t be necessary to go so high on this trip.’
Jeremy said cheerfully: ‘No, but I can, if you’d like.’
‘No, thank you. I wouldn’t think of your taking the trouble.’

So should it be "you're taking the trouble" ?
I Googled both "your taking the trouble" and "you're taking the trouble" and they both appear to be equally common.  So which form is correct?

My native speaker intuition is telling me that the sentence sounds perfectly natural.  But looking at the grammar, I think the rules are telling me it should be the accusative "you" here instead of "your".  I'm thinking "think of" is a phrasal verb, and that "you taking the trouble" would be the noun phrase following it, so the pronoun would normally take the accusative in this situation.  Do I have that right?
And I think that it would be obvious if we changed the pronouns, right?  e.g. "I wouldn't think of him taking the trouble"

So why is it common to say "your taking the trouble" ?

"If that Mocking Bird won't sing"

(Grammar Questions I Couldn't Answer)

So, my wife (L1 Vietnamese) continues to find problems with conditional sentences in children's books.  (For the previous one she spotted, see HERE).
According to the rules of the first conditional, (as presented in textbooks for students of English as a second language) the form is "if+ present simple, will + base form" e.g. "If it's nice tomorrow, I'll go to the beach."  In other words, the present simple should be used in the if-clause, and the will future in the result clause. (See my worksheets on the first conditional, and on conditionals).  (Other future forms like "going to" can also be used in the result clause).
However, in the nursery rhyme "Hush Little Baby", there are two examples of won't being used in the if-clause.  See below.

Hush, little baby, don't say a word.
Papa's going to buy you a mockingbird
And if that mockingbird won't sing,
Papa's going to buy you a diamond ring
And if that diamond ring turns brass,
Papa's going to buy you a looking glass
And if that looking glass gets broke,
Papa's going to buy you a billy goat
And if that billy goat won't pull,
Papa's going to buy you a cart and bull
And if that cart and bull turn over,
Papa's going to buy you a dog named Rover.
And if that dog named Rover won't bark,
Papa's going to buy you a horse and cart.
And if that cart and bull fall down,
You'll still be the sweetest little baby in town

I've read in some grammar books that the ESL textbooks are actually over-simplifying the conditionals, and in reality a lot of different structures are possible. So this was my first response to my wife.
Upon looking at this poem more carefully, my second response is that "will" here is not being used as a future marker, but as a marker of intentionality.
And that's my best guess at it. Anyone else have further thoughts?

I did have a mother. I know I did

(Grammar Questions I Can't Answer)

So, we continue reading a lot of children's books to my daughter, and my wife (L1 Vietnamese) thinks she found another grammar mistake in a children's book.  (See HERE for the last mistake she found in Green Eggs and Ham.)

This time it's from Are You My Mother? by P.D. Eastman.  After searching everywhere for it's mother, the exasperated little bird says at one point: "I did have a mother.  I know I did."

"Why is it in the past tense?" asked my wife.  "Shouldn't it be in the present tense: 'I do have a mother, I know I do' ?"

I couldn't really give a good answer to that question.

Interestingly enough, however, my wife also caught that their are two different versions of this sentence.  In the original book, it's in the past tense.  But in the Bright and Early Board Books version of the same story, the exact same sentence is now in the present simple.

"If you will let me be, I will try them."

(Grammar Questions I Couldn't Answer)

We've been reading a lot of Green Eggs and Ham to our daughter, and my wife (L1 Vietnamese) thinks she found a grammar mistake in the book.

" 'If you will let me be, I will try them.'  It should be 'If you let me be, I will try them', right?"

Indeed, this is what we teach when we teach English as a foreign language.  When teaching the first conditional for possible futures, we teach it as "if+ present simple, will + base form" e.g. "If it's nice tomorrow, I'll go to the beach." (See my worksheets on the first conditional, and on conditionals).
But I've read in some grammar books that the ESL textbooks are actually over-simplifying the conditionals, and in reality a lot of different structures are possible. So this was my first response to my wife.
...but then I thought about it a while longer, and I wondered if there might be a better reason why "will" was in the if-clause in this sentence.  Was it because this was not just a condition, but an offer?
I'm not 100% sure, so I thought I'd throw it out to the Internet to see if anyone else had opinions.

If any changes, what will you do?

(Grammar Questions I Couldn't Answer)

...actually I think I've got this one, but I'll throw it out to the blogosphere for a second opinion.

During an activity in which the students were supposed to brainstorm possible job interview questions, a student wrote the sentence "If any changes, what will you do?"

I corrected it as "If there are any changes, what will you do?"

The student was confused.  "But why do I need a full clause?" she asked.  "Don't we often use abbreviated phrases like 'If possible' or 'If necessary' without any subject in the If-Clause?"

Thinking on my feet, I said those were different because those were adverbial clauses.  Then I changed my mind and said they were adjectives.  (Both "possible" and "necessary" can modify nouns, right?  "a possible plan" or "a necessary plan")

"the same as me" versus "the same with me"

(Grammar Questions I Can't Answer)

In speaking activities, I find myself constantly correcting my Vietnamese students when they say, "The same with me."

"No, it's the same as me," I'm always saying.

One day, a student asked me, "What's the difference between the same as me and the same with me?"

"The same as me is correct," I answered.  "The same with me is wrong."

But the students had actually looked up this question themselves, and there were several grammar forums online discussing the difference.
One example HERE

"The same as" - comparison. Two or more things are the same.
"the same with" - Could say, "It's the same with me". In agreement with something

...which, yeah, come to think of it, that's right, isn't it?

I applied for a position a grade higher than my current job.

(Grammar Questions I Couldn't Answer)

This sentence comes from the worksheet I prepared for my students on "Grade, Tier, Class".  (Originally it comes from the dictionary, from which I took all my example sentences for that worksheet).

A student asked why "higher" comes after "a grade".  Since it's an adjective, shouldn't it come before the noun it's describing, and not after?

I couldn't answer, so I asked around the office.
My manager said, "Because it's a comparative structure.  I think it's as simple as that." 

Maybe he's right.  We do usually put the comparative after the noun, right?  So we say: "the tall boy" but "the boy is taller than the girl"
But then what happens to the "is" in "a grade higher".

Maybe it's a reduced relative clause--"I applied for a position [which is] a grade higher than my current job." ?