Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! "Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode!

05-29-2011 , 05:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by private joker
Can everyone in the English-speaking world please stop saying "It is what it is!"

Jesus that pisses me off.
why
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-29-2011 , 05:58 PM
Because it's a meaningless cliche.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-29-2011 , 06:01 PM
That's poker.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-30-2011 , 01:14 PM
Better we say the much snapier, "The situation we have arrived at is not alterable; therefore we much forge ahead with the understanding that prior events cannot be changed in this particular circumstance."
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-30-2011 , 01:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by private joker
Because it's a meaningless cliche.
But It means this,

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrEleganza
"The situation we have arrived at is not alterable; therefore we much forge ahead with the understanding that prior events cannot be changed in this particular circumstance."
So therefore it's not meaningless.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-30-2011 , 01:23 PM
"So therefore" is redundant.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-30-2011 , 01:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuisance
So therefore it's not meaningless.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-30-2011 , 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussellinToronto
This kind of loose, rambling prose, which almost never makes use of periodic sentences, puts the reader's mind into a coma. I don't mind the second passage as much as the first because the first sentence is periodic in construction and the third sentence is short and to the point (and therefore breaks the monotony of the longer looser prose; obviously too many of these would be tedious in their own way). The final sentence is a real sprawl and could certainly use some editing, but I would say that occasionally these kind of sprawling sentences can be used for effect.

But the kind of writing exemplified by the first passage quickly becomes tedious. The first sentence is a bit hard to parse on first reading (though possibly easier in context) and it appends information in a clause that distracts attention from the main statement and should come elsewhere, not out of the blue here. The second sentence is just poor writing: it buries its main clause by sandwiching it between a modifying phrase and two subordinate clauses, the second of which is a very unhelpful simile.

In general, this author doesn't seem good at signalling the reader as to what is most important in the information he's trying to convey. (That, in fact, is the one thing that's clearly wrong with that last sentence: it starts our as if it's about the effects of crack in general--but that's not its point. And its use of simple conjunction that brings together two main clauses is often a sign of an author who doesn't have a sense of the hierarchy of ideas in his writing.)
Good analysis.

To me, it's redolent of a lack of attention to word-selection/rhythm/significance-of-details. There's so much that's of no consequence.
Quote:
1) They meant before he had begun avidly smoking crack, which is a withering drug. As a young man, he had a long, narrow, slightly curved face, which seemed framed by hair that bloomed above his forehead like a hedge.

2) Dismayed by his appearance, he doesn’t like to look in mirrors. He likes to sit on the floor, with his legs crossed and his propane torch within reach, his cigarettes and something to drink or eat beside him. Nearly his entire diet consists of fruit and juice. Crack makes a user anxious and uncomfortable and, trying to relieve the tension, Scott-Heron would sometimes lean to one side or reach one hand across himself to grab his opposite ankle, then perhaps lean an elbow on one knee, then maybe press the soles of his feet together, so that he looked like a swami.
", which is a withering drug." Well, duh. Tell me something that isn't howlingly* obvious.

"...slightly curved face..." Just can't picture that. Weak description.

"...seemed framed by hair..." A certain breed of cliched facial descriptions tends to devote a disproportionate amount of attention to the hair. Another uses the word "framed" to describe the hair in relation to the face. This one does both! (Less of the former, but still...) And there's the awful hedging verb "seemed." As in his face seemed framed with hair but there was a chance that it wasn't? For $6.99 come see The Man With Magical Hair That Can Trick You Into Believing That It Borders The Perimeter Of His Face.

"...look in mirrors..." A minor trifle that I would have forgiven if there weren't so many mistakes before it. Both "look at the mirror" at "look in the mirror" sound better, aurally.

Okay, I'm bored. There are more.

* I this adjective.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-30-2011 , 02:37 PM
lol I just wrote "...sound better, aurally." Oh wow. I should start rereading my posts.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-30-2011 , 05:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by private joker
Can everyone in the English-speaking world please stop saying "It is what it is!"

Jesus that pisses me off.
Haters gonna hate.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-30-2011 , 07:01 PM
An SAT-type question that I am in the process of creating. I would appreciate your input.

Being of a lesser position than the supervisor’s, the lowly employee deemed it wise not to question the order.

(A) Being of a lesser position than the supervisor’s
(B) Being of a less position than the supervisor
(C) A person of lesser position than that of the supervisor
(D) As someone of lesser position than the supervisor
(E) Because his position was less than the supervisor’s

The intended answer is hopefully pretty clear.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-30-2011 , 07:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nepenthe
An SAT-type question that I am in the process of creating. I would appreciate your input.

Being of a lesser position than the supervisor’s, the lowly employee deemed it wise not to question the order.

(A) Being of a lesser position than the supervisor’s
(B) Being of a less position than the supervisor
(C) A person of lesser position than that of the supervisor
(D) As someone of lesser position than the supervisor
(E) Because his position was less than the supervisor’s

The intended answer is hopefully pretty clear.
I would not use "less" or "lesser" to modify "position."
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-30-2011 , 07:24 PM
Not clear imo.

And lower rank > lesser position. ("Being of lower rank than the supervisor...").

Also, the entire clause, in all its incarnations, seems redundant/purposeless. "The lowly employee deemed it wise not to question the order of his supervisor,"1 for instance, carries two tacit messages: one, he's not questioning the order of his supervisor because of his status as a subordinate; two, he's of lower rank than his supervisor (obv).

Your question would work if you change the position of our big shot from "supervisor" to one that doesn't automatically imply that she's superior to our lowly employee. That way you can signal her superiority without being redundant. Also, get rid of "lowly" for the same reason.

Example: Being of lower rank than the VPC2, the employee deemed it wise not to question the order.

1 Which is the most elegant/concise way that I can think to phrase it, without thinking too hard about it.
2 Totally made-up acronym! Just an example.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-30-2011 , 07:30 PM
I agree with taking out the "lowly." Thanks for the suggestion. But I cannot change the "lesser" in the original sentence because a major part of what the question is designed to test is a student's ability to distinguish between "less" and "lesser." Replacing it with "lower" defeats this purpose.

The other major concept the question is designed to test deals with comparison errors. The general rule, of course, is that similar things should be compared: person <-> person, concept <-> concept, and so on.

If the correct response is not clear, why not? Which answer would you tentatively pick assuming the question and answer choices stay intact?

Edit: Finally, on the actual SAT there are plenty of situations in which the correct answer isn't the most concise or efficient. That's part of the game. I would thus prefer to start by focusing on what is grammatically wrong / redundant before focusing on how the sentence could be rewritten for optimal efficiency.

Last edited by nepenthe; 05-30-2011 at 07:36 PM. Reason: Edit 2: Oh, and also, the original question does not say "order of his supervisor" as you mistakenly quoted.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
05-30-2011 , 07:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussellinToronto
I would not use "less" or "lesser" to modify "position."
Ok, and I respect that. But the most relevant consideration here should be whether or not either expression is grammatically wrong.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
05-30-2011 , 07:43 PM
C.

Quote:
If the correct response is not clear, why not?
Nah it's alright, given the goals of the question. It's just that I would totally reconstruct the sentence, and all of the available options seem wrong w/r/t style/usage (even though one is "technically" correct).
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
05-30-2011 , 08:56 PM
The sentence is too wordy and kind of redundant anyway. I would just say "The lowly employee deemed it wise not to question the order of his supervisor."

That says it all, for it describes the two positions: an employee (adjective: lowly, denoting rank) and a supervisor (implying a higher rank). The clause you want to jam in there is superfluous.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
05-30-2011 , 10:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by private joker
The sentence is too wordy and kind of redundant anyway. I would just say "The lowly employee deemed it wise not to question the order of his supervisor."

That says it all, for it describes the two positions: an employee (adjective: lowly, denoting rank) and a supervisor (implying a higher rank). The clause you want to jam in there is superfluous.
As mentioned before, I will get rid of "lowly," thus cutting down on the most obvious redundancy. Otherwise, your post misses the point of the exercise.

Does anyone have an answer other than C, btw?
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
05-30-2011 , 10:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nepenthe
Otherwise, your post misses the point of the exercise.
I understand that the point of the exercise is to find the clearest way to state the dependent clause, but I'm saying it's a ****ty sentence in the first place and you can come up with a better example.

Quote:
Does anyone have an answer other than C, btw?
I would say D if forced to pick between several crappy sentences.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
05-30-2011 , 10:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nepenthe
As mentioned before, I will get rid of "lowly," thus cutting down on the most obvious redundancy. Otherwise, your post misses the point of the exercise.

Does anyone have an answer other than C, btw?
I would have gone with D, but I suck at grammar.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
05-30-2011 , 11:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by miajag
"So therefore" is redundant.
This reminds me of "hence why". a;lsdflasdfkl;adls;fkl;
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
05-31-2011 , 12:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by coffee_monster
I would have gone with D, but I suck at grammar.
I also would have selected D
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
05-31-2011 , 12:27 AM
Out of the choices, I think D is pretty clearly the best one.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
05-31-2011 , 12:41 AM
OK, quite a few of you are saying D. But isn't that a wrong comparison? The employee's "position" is being compared with the "supervisor."

Another similar yet simpler example might be the following:

"He is a person with more character than his wife."

vs

"He is a person with more character than that of his wife."
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
05-31-2011 , 12:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by private joker
I understand that the point of the exercise is to find the clearest way to state the dependent clause, but I'm saying it's a ****ty sentence in the first place and you can come up with a better example.



I would say D if forced to pick between several crappy sentences.
A slight nitpick: it's a participial modifier, not a dependent clause.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote

      
m