Grammar

First one seems correct, as "they" is plural so it should be "negate". However the sentence still feels awkward to me. "automatically negate any harmful supernatural effects" is just really weird to read.

Negate, it's an infinitive. To negates isn't correct in any context

>>8335040

The first, you fucking mongolian

>>8335057
>>8335058
>>8335061

Thanks guys, god bless you all

>>8335040
>effects affecting
Reword this, it's clumsy as a motherfucker. Best advice I ever got was to read everything aloud. If it don't sound right, it ain't right.

"..any supernatural effects from affecting..."

is better

also
"...any harmful supernatural effects from interacting with / manipulating / causing harm to / interfering with..."

are better still.

File: what.png (78KB, 282x300px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 282x300px

also i got another question, which one is correct?

And their bodies will automatically negate any harmful supernatural effects that will effect their bodies.

And their bodies will automatically negate any harmful supernatural effects that will affecttheir bodies.

>>8335086
thanks a lot anon, this is the full description, can you reword some bad words? thanks

Deusians are an extra-dimensional race of superhumanly powerful beings who were worshiped as gods by the ancient people. Though their origins are shrouded in myth, Deusians are basically human in their structure and appearance, but their biology is far more advanced. Deusians cease to age upon reaching adolescence, making them functionally immortal. Their bodies are also immune to all diseases, infection, and mind control powers. And they have the power to automatically negate any harmful supernatural effects affecting their bodies. Though they were thought extinct, ten thousand years have passed and now the last surviving child of Deusian has appeared.

>>8335088
Neither. Jesus Christ.

Word of the day: Pleonasm

File: Thumbs up.png (136KB, 634x354px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 634x354px

>>8335089
>>8335086

What I'm trying to say is that magic/anything supernatural (like dragon's fire) will not do anything to Deusians BUT they still can cast magic / Extremely powerful at magic

File: SdUmOxN.png (324KB, 644x352px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 644x352px

>>8335092
can you explain why it is wrong? English is not my first language, so please bear with me anon

>>8335089
>Though they were thought extinct

Maybe you should put that in the beginning, like

"Deusians are an extinct extra-dimensional race of superhumanly powerful beings"

File: 2cf55d4d.jpg (49KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1280x720px

>>8335109
ah ok but, how about the rest? I'm pretty sure my description is pretty bad

>>8335088
just kill yourself holy shit

>weebs

god fucking dammit i knew they were retarded but this thread is pure trash

>>8335101
Effect is a noun, not a verb and affecttheir is not a word.

File: xizjxzxjq123.png (583KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

583KB, 1280x720px

>>8335114
Well do forgive my stupidity, I'm not as smart as you anon

>>8335120
Who are you quoting, and why are you incapable of following English grammatical conventions?

>>8335127
ah typo i mean *affect their

>>8335131
then don't try to write shit fanfiction or retarded LNs or whatever, the cringe is killing me

>>8335089
Meh, I got 5 minutes and the beer has yet to kick in.

>Deusians are an extra-dimensional race of superhuman beings, once worshipped as Gods by the ancient people[which ancient people? this makes no sense without that information]. The origin of the Deusians is shrouded in mystery. Physically, they are similar to humans, however their biology is far more advanced; for example, the Deusians stop aging when they reach adolescence which makes them effectively immortal. Their bodies are also immune to all known diseases and infections, and they even possess mind-control abilities. Their bodies have the ability to counteract any harmful supernatural effects.
>Though they have been thought extinct for the last ten thousand years, the last surviving Deusians child has appeared [cue dramatic music, pan to Deusian child]

There's only so much correcting that can be done, you need to flesh this out. First draft etc. More detail. It is very outliney atm (ass to mouth).

>>8335138
Well you can ignore this thread if this too much cringe for you instead of telling someone to kill themselves

>>8335139
thanks a lot anon, I'm really sorry for wasting your time, i hope you a good life, and also >they even possess mind-control abilities.
actually what i meant is that, they cannot be mind-controlled by anyone. Thanks again anon

>>8335139
>>8335156

So how's this anon?

Deusians are an extra-dimensional race of superhuman beings, once worshipped as Gods by the ancient people of the world, The origin of the Deusians is shrouded in mystery. Physically, they are similar to humans, however their biology is far more advanced; for example, the Deusians stop aging when they reach adolescence which makes them effectively immortal. Their bodies are also immune to all known diseases and infections. In addition to that, they are absolutely invulnerable to psychic and telepathic powers. Their bodies have the ability to counteract any harmful supernatural effects. Though they have been thought extinct for the last ten thousand years, the last surviving Deusians child has appeared

Poop

>>8335324
うんち

>>8335127

It is also a split infinitive. When you use the infinitive form of a verb (to+verb), you shouldn't place words in between to and the verb. There's a few exceptions where doing so would actually clarify the sentence. If you haven't written at least a million words worth, avoid splitting the infinitive.

>>8335662
Actually there is no reason not to split infinitives in English.

>>8335662
Why would
>The artist was known to dribble paint on the canvas slowly
be correct, but
>The artist was known to slowly dribble paint on the canvas
would be incorrect?

>>8337044
Those are both correct, it's just that he's one of those autists that dislike s split infinitive.

>>8337029
>>8337044
>>8337076

>In general, however, split infinitives should be avoided in the formal register of an essay or other piece of academic writing, unless the alternative seems excessively awkward or clumsy. Usually it is sufficient to move the offending word so that it comes either before or after the infinitive.

Source: University of Bristol grammar guide.

>>8337104
>Source: University of Bristol grammar guide
>Appeal to authority
Do they give a reason why they should be avoided? No. There's no reason to avoid them.

>>8337279
Here's an example of a good reason to conclude that a certain construction is ungrammatical: if you look through a corpus of English, you'll find countless examples of noun phrases. Many of those noun phrases contain a head noun and an article or other determiner. In every case, the determiner precedes the head noun. You won't find any cases of the opposite (you'll find "the dog," never "dog the"). It is therefore logical to conclude that the determiner-first order is part of English, while the noun-first order is not. In other words, the determiner-first order is grammatical, the noun-first order is ungrammatical. You could also do an acceptability study where you present participants with a number of sentences with the relevant construction, and you find out what native speakers' judgments on the different types are. You would find that people would rate determiner-first, as in "the dog," very high, and noun-first, as in "dog the," very low.
This evidence would support the hypothesis that the determiner-first order is grammatical, and the noun-first order is ungrammatical.

>>8337355
Yes, but if native speakers use split infinitives, they're automatically grammatically correct.

>>8337279
Appeal to authority isn't a fallacy when it's a legitimate authority. He didn't appeal to Michael Jordan, he appealed to a university's style guide.

>>8338069
Yes, but what makes said style guide have authority over how one should or should not use split infinitives?

>>8335187
>Deusians are an extra-dimensional race of superhuman beings, once worshipped as G[g]ods by the ancient people of the world,[.] The origin of the Deusians is shrouded in mystery. Physically, they are similar to humans,however [but] their biology is far more advanced;[.F] for example, the Deusians stop aging when they reach adolescence[,] which makes them effectively immortal. Their bodies are also immune to all known diseases and infections. In addition to that, they are absolutely invulnerable to psychic and telepathic powers [weird and unclear claim]. Their bodies have the ability to counteract any harmful supernatural effects. Though they have been thought extinct for the last ten thousand years, the last surviving Deusians[no s] child has appeared [unspeakable dangling modifier: say "the race" rather than "they"].

>>8338055
Are you on drugs? Native speakers all make mistakes constantly. That's not how we determine correct spelling and grammar. If it was, "your so hot" would be correct English. Eventually a common usage may become accepted, but it's not automatic or quick: think of the singular "they"--commonly used, inevitably going to become accepted, but still an error.

>>8338055
hol' up, just gotta ax, is you sayin that i aint be makin no mistakes speakin like dis then?

>>8338081
The number of professors in English departments who follow similar guidelines. Split as many infinitives as you like in your fiction, but be careful when writing essays for marking or publication.

>>8335040
One of the worst sentences I've ever read. Borderline illegible.

>>8335187
Scrap the entire thing, seriously. Cringe worthy.

>>8339381
Some split infinitives are fine. There is nothing grammatically wrong with split infinitives unless you follow the (largely discredited) forcing-English-to-be-Latin grammar. In Latin, it is impossible to split infinitives, so it used to be considered wrong in English as well. However a lot of split infinitives sound awkward, and if you know the people reading your essay/article/tract/etc. will judge you for using them don't.

>>8339373
No, it's called Ebonics. Ebonics is a dialect; it's not "wrong".

>>8339329
You clearly know nothing about linguistics. English grammar is descriptive, not prescriptive; what is commonly said and accepted is fine. It might not be correct in a certain dialect, e.g. formal english, ebonics, etc., but there's nothing "wrong" about, for example, singular 'they'. Read a fucking book about it you pleb.

Hey lit friends. Does a duolingo-esque website exist for learning grammar? Woulf khanacademy work for this?

>>8339771
First, get Frank Palmer's "Grammar", then, Quirk's and Greenbaum's "A University Grammar of the English Language", and, finally, "A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language" (Quirk et al.).

>>8339770
Wrong. Language evolution has *always* been a dialectic between the conservatives and the forces of change. Each plays his part.

> they is terrible grammarians
will always be considered retarded by some.

>>8339329
Where do you think the rules come from dude? You think people learn to speak "properly" from grammar guides? Where do you think the grammar guide comes from?

>>8339381
There is literally nothing wrong with splitting infinitives. People do it all the time in all registers of writing. There is a good reason that people do it, too. In English, the "infinitive" verb is not an infinitive like it is in Romance languages. The particle "to" in the English infinitive is an auxiliary verb, like "should," "can," or "will." The only difference with "to" is that it is non-finite, meaning it's not marked for tense. There is no problem with "splitting" an auxiliary from its verb with an adverb, and there is no problem with "split infinitives" either. Actually, the entire notion of "split infinitives" is based on a misunderstanding of English syntax.
>We must now carefully study our actions.
>Babylon will suddenly fall.
>The spreader beam is used to slowly lift the 3000-lb pipe.

>>8339792
You realize when people talk about singular they, they're talking about they being used (in its plural form) to describe a single person of unidentifiable gender, right? They're not talking about they being conjugated singular in reference to plural subjects.

>>8335040
Neither, you are splitting the infinitive 'to negate'.

The first one but if you're seriously considering putting that sentence in a literary work you should probably just hang yourself. Seriously. That shit is Deviantart inflation erotica written by an autistic 13 year-old on summer break level.

>>8335040
>effects affecting

is shit.

>>8339910
Yeah and it looks shitty, sounds shitty and is shitty.

Don't split infinitives, kids.

>>8340343
But that's just like, your opinion. There is really no reason why infinitives should not be split.

>>8340343
Did you actually read the post you replied to?

>>8340343
If you're inclined to always put the adverb outside the infinitive, why aren't you inclined to do so with regular auxiliary+verb constructions? In other words, why can you say
>I believe that one should never split an infinitive.
but not
>I'm inclined to never split an infinitive.