My last thread

[Kelandon]

Originally Posted By: Unknown NPC

Originally Posted By: Master1

I've taken the PSAT twice. And how could you have already taken it, or are you referencing past years?

How could someone about the same age as you and a comparable position in society to yours have done something you have done (twice, no less)?

Intruiging indeed.

It hasn't been offered yet this year (it's offered on 10/13 and 10/16). So if anyone says, "I took the PSAT this year," (which, admittedly, is not quite what you said) it's fair to ask, "How?" I presume, as did the above poster, that you mean in a previous year.

Also, Alo is right: The PSAT (and the SAT and the ACT and, to the best of my knowledge, the GMAT — so standardized tests in general) avoids testing split infinitives, ending sentences with prepositions, and any other grammatical rules that are highly disputed.

[Student of Trinity]

I went through a phase of avoiding split infinitives, but at some point I barfed. Whether you like it or not, the split infinitive is an option in English, and it provides a nuance that's otherwise hard to get.

 

'Boldly to go' suggests that you are bold, and so you go; there is only a weaker connotation that the manner of your going is also bold. 'To go boldly' suggests that you are going, and maintaining your state of boldness as you go; the nail of your going itself being bold in manner is not being hit on the head. 'To boldly go' treats 'boldly go' as an ad hoc new verb, a variation on 'go' that includes boldness of manner. It explicitly makes the boldness not in you, but in your going. That's a handy nuance to be able to express.

 

Splitting infinitives is an engine exploit in English grammar, which allows ad hoc coining of composite verbs. That's a useful thing. That's why people keep doing it.

 

The idea that grammar books can lay down the law about what is correct is ridiculous, though for a surprising and very non-trivial reason. The reason is that grammar really is innate. Native speakers of any language acquire a powerfully discriminative instinct for correct usage. People know immediately when something just doesn't sound right, and ought to be put differently. So grammar rulebooks are like signposts in a world where everyone has built-in GPS.

 

If the popular verdict on a usage changes with place and time, as it often does, that's just a fact about the language. Likewise if there is widespread confusion or disagreement among native speakers on an issue.

[Alorael at Large]

Except there are also usages that are common but wrong, and I'm prescriptivist enough to believe that use won't make them right. Just because "just desserts" shows up several times more often than "just deserts" doesn't mean it's right. Despite how often the invitation is offered, you cannot go on a trip with my buddies and I.

 

—Alorael, who can privately admit that meanings and grammar shift over time. Those might eventually be acceptable. But they're not yet, and it's okay to point that out!

[Locmaar]

Originally Posted By: waterplant

Abandon punctuation all Ye who enter here!

Bear in mind that punctuation can save lives:

Let's eat Grandpa! vs. Let's eat, Grandpa!

[Dintiradan]

Likewise with capitalization and the infamous 'Uncle Jack' example.

 

And what Student of Trinity said about splitting the infinitive. It's the difference between the adverb modifying the infinitive and the infinitive being applied to the modified verb, which is subtle but there.

[A less presumptuous name.]

Unknown NPC, I find that a sound understanding of grammar conventions and rules helps not only with the PSAT, but with all English-related classwork.

 

And I acknowledge and, formally, abide by English grammar rules. That doesn't mean I agree with their legitimacy.

[Aoslare]

It's worth pointing out that there is more than one set of rules used when people speak or write the English language. "Gonna" is a proper word for most native speakers to use in speech, but the same people will usually cringe if they see it in writing, rather than "going to."

 

"Just desserts" is an example of idiom change over time. It isn't really about grammar, it's just about one piece of the lexicon. The problem is that the phrase "just desserts" in the sense of after-dinner pastries makes nearly as much sense as "just deserts" in the sense of what one is served with -- in fact, "desert" in that sense has the same root as "dessert" does. So I think this is an example of lexical drift, but given the domination of common usage of "desserts" I see no reason to call that wrong.

[Student of Trinity]

I have to admit that to me, 'just deserts' means either Arabian terrain or what a conscript does on leave. I've always figured that 'dessert' was the noun for something deserved. Though maybe 'just desserts' would have looked funny to me, too, if I had ever had cause to write it.

 

One bit of grammatical change that I'm watching sadly is the demise of 'as though' in favor of 'like'. Nobody has partied as though it were 1999 for a long time, now, or said anything as though they meant it.

 

I even find myself doing it. I'm only sad because when I do notice it, I feel bad, from lingering grammatical instinct or (possibly) schooldays trauma. In fact 'as though' is longer to write and harder to say than 'like', and I really don't see what extra work it's doing to justify this.

[Aoslare]

Well, there are different implications. "Like" implies similarity whereas "as though" implies conditionality -- even though like is used as a conditional marker, the association is there.

[Alorael at Large]

I use "like" as though it were implying conditionals and "as though" like it denotes similarity.

 

—Alorael, recommends reading unedited transcripts of conversations. In writing, the way people talk is nearly incomprehensible. And spoken, the way people write sounds painfully stilted. Written and spoken languages are actually quite different. It's not so unreasonable to have different languages entirely for the two realms. Say, national language of choice and Latin?