The SAT kicks Bosh's ass: part II

[Bosh]

Thanks for the help on the last one. My kids are having a hell of a time on the improving sentences question and I'm having a hell of a time helping. I know which answers are wrong instinctively, but how do I explain why exactly and make an in-class exercise about it. For example why, in a way I can explain to kids whose second language is English is:

1."Launched in 1959, the Luna space probles were the first to enter solar orbit and photograph the far side of the moon"

better than

"The Luna space probes were the first to enter solar orbit and photograph the far side of the moon, in 1959 they were launched."

or

2. "William Faulkner is famous for such books as"

better than

"William Faulkner's famous books include"

Help!

[Japher]

Something to do with passive tense... I never could get that stuff straight either.

or something

[Immortal Wombat]

In #2, the two sentences have two different meanings, neither of which is necessarily incorrect.

[Kontiki]

Actually, in the second example, you're changing the meaning of the phrase somewhat.

[Japher]

In #2a the subject of the sentence is Faulker, #2b has the book as the subject... it really matters what the sentence is about, is it about the book being famous or about the man being famous?

[aneeshm]

In example 1 , the first option is obviously better , because the second reminds me of Yoda . And we all know Yoda's grammatical ability . Simple way to explain it , isn't it ?

[Jaguar]

Re: The SAT kicks Bosh's ass: part II

Originally posted by Bosh
Thanks for the help on the last one. My kids are having a hell of a time on the improving sentences question and I'm having a hell of a time helping. I know which answers are wrong instinctively, but how do I explain why exactly and make an in-class exercise about it. For example why, in a way I can explain to kids whose second language is English is:

1."Launched in 1959, the Luna space probles were the first to enter solar orbit and photograph the far side of the moon"

better than

"The Luna space probes were the first to enter solar orbit and photograph the far side of the moon, in 1959 they were launched."

In the second, you have two independent clauses separated only by a comma. It's like saying "Agathon is an idiot, in college he got a worthless degree."

[Bosh]

hmmmm, interesting. thanks

after some study I think that the first one is a run-on.

[Japher]

@Jaguar

[DarkCloud]

for the faulkner example, neither is bad necessarily, but the second one is focusing on the books rather than on faulkner.

in the 1st : HE is famous for such books as.
in the 2nd: his BOOKS are famous such as ____

[reismark]

I'd choose the first option for the Faulkner example. Fame is something you apply to somebody, not to something.

[DanS]

In #1, it just reads better. I don't know as there is any real grammatical reason for it. As my history teachers stressed, always put dates first.

In 1999, we went to the game.
It wasn't until 2000 that we were aware of the problem.

Etc.

[JohnT]

1."Launched in 1959, the Luna space probles were the first to enter solar orbit and photograph the far side of the moon"

better than

"The Luna space probes were the first to enter solar orbit and photograph the far side of the moon, in 1959 they were launched."

1b is wrong because it puts the initiating action (the probes being launched) after the clause describing what happened after they were launched.

[DerSchwarzfalke]

The Faulkner one is basic. The first sentence is passive voice, the second sentence is active voice. One always wants active voice when he or she is writing.

First one is a bit tricky, I admit. The second sentence would require a semi-colon to siphon off the clause about the year of launch and even with that would be a bit clunky. As you said, it is a run-on sentence.

[Fake Boris]

Re: Re: The SAT kicks Bosh's ass: part II

Originally posted by Jaguar

In the second, you have two independent clauses separated only by a comma. It's like saying "Agathon is an idiot, in college he got a worthless degree."

You've got half the answer here. The real thing for the first sentence IMO is that it uses two independent propositions to say something that can easily be said with a participial complement.

You can juxtapose two independent propositions though, this in itself isn't incorrect.