Skip to main content

grammaticality - Is the inversion in “Let’s see ʜᴏᴡ ᴄᴀɴ ᴡᴇ do this” an error for “Let’s see ʜᴏᴡ ᴡᴇ ᴄᴀɴ do this”?


I’m reading about the C++ Boost library, and the following sentence from Boost.ORG drew my attention:



Once the two steps have been successfully completed, the process can start writing to and reading from the address space to send to and receive data from other processes. Now, let’s see how can we do this using Boost.Interprocess.



I assume the sentence in bold should be written as let's see how we can do this.


Has the original sentence been mistakenly written by somehow (like perhaps by a non-native speaker, for example), or was this reversed order intended to emphasize something?



Answer



You are right. The correct sentence would be



Now let's see how we can do this.



The incorrect form you've read demonstrates a fairly common English mistake among non-native speakers, especially those whose native language allows for omission of the subject pronoun (such as the Romance languages).


The confusion arises from three points:



  • In a question, the word order would be "can we", whereas in a sentence or noun phrase, the order would be "we can", so the speaker/writer must remember which order to use in which case. It is an easy mistake to make as a non-native speaker.

  • This noun phrase (the object of the verb "see"), includes the word "how", which is a question word. This can cause some confusion unless the speaker/writer takes a moment to consider that this is, in fact, not a question.


  • In some languages, the subject pronoun "we" would not be used explicitly in either the question or statement form. Example (Spanish, no special characters):



    ..donde podemos encontrar el perro... ("where we can find the dog")
    ¿Donde podemos encontrar el perro? ("Where can we find the dog?")



    where the only difference is that one is written as a question.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.