ShmoopTube

00:00

[ musical flourish ]

00:02

And here's your Shmoop du jour, brought to you by syntax.

00:06

If we were taxed on all of our sins, well, the national deficit would be, uh, history.

00:12

All right, check out the following passage.

00:14

[ mumbles ]

00:20

[ mumbling continues ]

00:30

All right.

00:31

The syntax of the third paragraph suggests that the speaker... what?

00:35

And here are the potential answers.

00:38

[ mumbles ]

00:44

All right. Well, syntax may sound like a fancy word,

00:47

but all it really means is the way in which words are put together.

00:49

It's the pattern of grammar, sentence structure, and everything else that shapes a piece of writing.

00:54

Our speaker is not a fan of simple syntax to say the least.

00:58

So we can definitely nix choice A.

01:00

If our speaker's syntax were clear and concise, it'd be straightforward

01:04

and to the point, and this guy doesn't go from point A to point B.

01:07

At least not in a straight line.

01:09

Option B doesn't look like it's gonna make the cut.

01:11

For one, it's never a good idea to spend a lot of time

01:14

trying to figure out what a writer intended, especially when he's dead.

01:18

Without a ouija board, we have no idea what this guy intended

01:21

when he wrote this, so all we can analyze is the writing on the page.

01:24

Even if we were to start guessing his intentions, we wouldn't guess

01:27

that he wanted to confound or confuse his audience.

01:30

Seems like he's doing his best to enlighten them if you ask us.

01:33

Anyway, moving on.

01:34

There are all sorts of things wrong with choice D.

01:36

First, it says that the speaker uses "hackneyed idioms,"

01:40

which means overused common sayings.

01:43

You know, like "out of the blue," "sick as a dog," or "a chip on the shoulder."

01:47

As far as we can tell, there aren't any idioms like these and none of the writing seems hackneyed.

01:52

D also claims the writer uses these imaginary hackneyed idioms

01:55

to weaken the counterargument.

01:57

That'd be kind of hard. There's no counterargument to be found in this paragraph.

02:01

The writer spends all of his time making his points, not recognizing other people's points of view.

02:05

Huh. Kind of like Congress.

02:07

All right, option E might be right on one level.

02:10

The speaker might be challenging his audience's

02:12

preconceived notions about life,

02:14

but he's not using obscure diction,

02:16

meaning vague, weird, or hard-to-understand words.

02:19

Despite the convoluted syntax, the individual words the speaker uses

02:23

are pretty straightforward. And anyway,

02:25

how would purposely using hard-to-understand words

02:27

ever help challenge people's notions? Like, we hate that at Shmoop here.

02:31

Wouldn't it just make it harder for everyone to understand your point?

02:34

Yeah, duh. Go read the standard textbooks and wake up.

02:37

See if that helps you. [ chuckles ]

02:38

Standing up in front of people and speaking gibberish

02:41

isn't gonna win any hearts or minds.

02:43

So choice E is a no.

02:44

Option C, on the other hand, is a yes all the way.

02:47

The speaker has a real knack for figurative language,

02:50

which is when a writer appeals to the senses

02:52

or compares two things in an interesting or inventive way.

02:56

One example in paragraph three is when the speaker compares

02:59

the death of most people

03:01

to being stillborn.

03:03

It's not a thought with which we'd comfort a grieving widow,

03:06

but it is unique and definitely figurative.

03:09

Most importantly, it helps us understand the speaker's

03:11

argument that our mortal life

03:13

is only a tiny fraction of the life we can keep leading

03:17

after death.

03:18

We can't decide if this essay is cheerful

03:20

or depressing.

03:23

Huh. Thoughts?

03:24

[ weeping ]

Full Transcript