[Vocabulary] What is the question for these sentences?

[kdaniel]

I asked the same question in Yahoo! Answers, and I am reposting it here. Please help me. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140609085403AA97NMk

Please frame the question for the following sentences

1. This is my third child.
2. He is our 7th president

Also consider these
1. There are 5 children. You are asking a question to which the answer is This is my third child
2. Please frame good questions. Please dont give any witty answer(however they are welcome)

 

[Rover_KE]

Welcome to the forums.

Click here to read previous answers to this frequently asked question.

 

[Barb_D]

See this thread too.

You can enter "whichest" or "manieth" in the search box and find many, MANY threads on this.

We don't have a good way to ask this. But I have yet to be convinced that if someone says "7" instead of "7th" you have lost any useful information.

 

[2006]

See this thread too.

You can enter "whichest" or "manieth" in the search box and find many, MANY threads on this. Of course those are not real words.

We don't have a good way to ask this. We do have a way. What 'ordinal number' president is President Obama?

...

 

[Barb_D]

Oh sure. That's really natural. I hear that all the time.

I am quite aware that "manieth" and "whicheth" are not real words. Did you think I wasn't? However, both are used in many, MANY threads that talk about this "problem" (which is not a problem for 99.9% of native speakers) and are therefore helpful search terms.

 

[lotus888]

I see that you're having a baby. Is this your first one?
No, this is my third child.

(INFORMALLY) What number president was Andrew Jackson?
He was our seventh president.


--lotus

 

[2006]

Oh sure. That's really natural. I hear that all the time. That's completely not the point! The point is that this question is being asked, and there is a real term, 'ordinal number', that is the solution.

Wishing we had a word like 'manieth' and ignoring the real way to ask the question is quite off the mark, as far as I am concerned.

...

 

[Raymott]

I doubt whether most native speakers would understand "What is the ordinal number of X?"
Anyhow, I think half of these questions are trolls. Or their mates are trolls. "Hey, here's a question to give those English boffins something to think about. Go on their website and ask for the question that will give 7th as an answer! LOL."
I think 'whichth' is the word Barb is looking for. If it's not, I'll give it as a guide to some other threads on this topic.

 

[Tdol]

Here are some previous discussions on 'whichth':
https://www.usingenglish.com/search/?q=forum whichth

I think the problem might be teachers who keep setting the question for homework, which is why it gets asked again and again, like the prime offender "Angry" and "hungry" are two words in the English language that end in "-gry". What is the third word?

 

[MikeNewYork]

That old riddle is not stated correctly. There are two words in in English that end in -gry, angry and hungry. What is the third word in the English language? Answer: language

 

[Tdol]

Sorry- I glazed over and saw the red mist simply at the thought of it. ;-)

 

[Barb_D]

I doubt whether most native speakers would understand "What is the ordinal number of X?"

I think 'whichth' is the word Barb is looking for. If it's not, I'll give it as a guide to some other threads on this topic.

Yes, sorry. It was.

 

[2006]

I doubt whether most native speakers would understand "What is the ordinal number of X?"

With respect, again that is not the point. The terms 'cardinal numbers' and and 'ordinal numbers' are part of the English language, just as 'even numbers' and 'odd numbers' are. Some people are aware of and use those terms.

 

[emsr2d2]

In BrE, I beg to differ. They are grammatical and some people understand them but it's a small proportion of the population and it's not a natural question.
I know what it means but if someone said "What ordinal number is the president of the United States?" I would be very much taken aback and it would take me a good few seconds to work out what the question actually is. It's not natural at all.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I agree with Emsr2d2. It makes no sense to ask a question that will lead to a "Huh" response from most people. I could go into a bar in New York and ask "Does phylogeny recapitulate ontogeny?" It is grammatical and correct, but inaccessible to most.

 

[2006]

In BrE, I beg to differ. They are grammatical and some people understand them but it's a small proportion of the population and it's not a natural question. Why can't (the collective) you understand that "natural" or not is quite irrelevant? The question is being asked and there is an answer.
I know what it means but if someone said "What ordinal number is the president of the United States?" No one asks that, as far as I know. The questions are in the nature of 'What question would I have to ask to get the answer 'Bill Clinton was the 42nd president of the USA.'?
the answer
would be very much taken aback and it would take me a good few seconds to work out what the question actually is. It's not natural at all. Do the people asking what the question should be insist that the question they are looking for has to be a (very) natural one? Of course they don't. I think the protestation over the 'unnaturalness' of the correct answer is quite overdone and essentially amounts to barking up the wrong tree.

...

 

[2006]

I agree with Emsr2d2. It makes no sense to ask a question that will lead to a "Huh" response from most people. I could go into a bar in New York and ask "Does phylogeny recapitulate ontogeny?" It is grammatical and correct, but inaccessible to most.

That's hardly a valid comparison; in fact, it's laughable.! I hope to have nothing more to say on this thread.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I share your hope. :lol:

 

[emsr2d2]

I find the naturalness or otherwise of English very relevant. I agree that "grammatical or not" should be the first consideration but after that, "natural or not" is extremely important. I like to think that our learners aim to actually use their English in an English-speaking country. I hope they don't want to sound as if they just learnt their English from a stuffy grammar book and as if they have shown no interest in how we actually speak.

 

[2006]

I find the naturalness or otherwise of English very relevant. I agree that "grammatical or not" should be the first consideration I am glad to hear that. but after that, "natural or not" is extremely important. I like to think that our learners aim to actually use their English in an English-speaking country. I hope they don't want to sound as if they just learnt their English from a stuffy grammar book and as if they have shown no interest in how we actually speak.

Obviously the reason it sounds unnatural is that it is not at all common. But as the grammar is not faulty, we have a choice to make: either such a sentence is acceptable or we have to say that the English language is unable to ask such a question. The latter is clearly not so!
Can this be my last post on this thread?