Grammar

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

>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"

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

just kill yourself holy shit

>weebs

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

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

Well do forgive my stupidity, I'm not as smart as you user

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

ah typo i mean *affect their

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

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).

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

thanks a lot user, 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 user

So how's this user?

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

うんち

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.

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

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?

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

>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.

>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.

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.

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

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.

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

>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"].

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.

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

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.

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

Scrap the entire thing, seriously. Cringe worthy.

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.

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

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?

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.).

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

>effects affecting

is shit.

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

Don't split infinitives, kids.

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

Did you actually read the post you replied to?

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.