Revised GRE did anyone see something like this?

[sollee]

Just don't call me an elitist for asking you to think about the OED, or whatever your preferred dictionary, as the English language's only accepted compilation of existing words. Because the majority of you seem to agree that there is no problem with using nonexistent (as far as dictionaries are concerned) words as long as they're avoided in written work, the majority of you thus seem to posit that the words featured in dictionaries are mere "suggestions" for how to speak English properly or correctly. That makes them pretty useless in terms of their authoritative ability to determine what words don't qualify as "existing" in the current list of English words. Making their ability, therefore, to determine the meaning of these questionable suggestions of words likewise pretty useless.

I am loathe to get involved in what reads to me as a very mean-spirited disagreement, but as a student of English I suppose it's possible you haven't had to take any Linguistics courses (although I hope that's not true) and are able to ignore the fact that the English language has been in a constant state of flux since its development. For centuries, "proper" speakers have been bemoaning the corruption of various words, the creation of new words that they considered unnecessary (in this context, we already have the phrase "more fun" so you don't see a purpose of or need for "funnest"), and the general "decline" of spoken (and written) English. There are several great books out there about this ongoing issue, PM me if you're at all interested in reading some of them, and I think you'll find it's less stressful to hear words misused when viewed from centuries worth of context.

Edited August 15, 2011 by sollee

[runonsentence]

sollee's absolutely right. (The history of trying to standardize spelling in the language is particularly humorous, to me.)

I don't want to derail the thread for those who are actually seeking help with the GRE, so I'll keep this response brief. My point is that characterizing the words you choose to use as "legitimate" and the ways that others speak as not "correct"—or calling their words those "which simply don't have reasons to be used"—is at best insensitive to others and, at worst, oppressive.

The difference between our viewpoints is that I see a dictionary as descriptive and you see it as prescriptive. A dictionary isn't indicative of how some social, cultural or economic groups speak (and how they have learned the language). As much as I might think the OED rocks as a work of research, not everyone in the country is aware of its existence, let alone consults it OR considers it as representative of their own way of speaking. The OED does make efforts to track and record "non-standard" uses (like your example of "fixin'"), but how could it keep up with every use?

Do a Google search of funnest. Below the hits for Q&A sites asking if it's okay to use, you'll see people using it in accordance with the hypothetical I outlined in my last post. Whether any of us like it or not, the word is in use.

Edited August 15, 2011 by runonsentence

[ThePoorHangedFool]

This is my last post I'll make on this issue.

"In the end, I've come to believe that there is a “fun” continuum. On one end you've got "fun," the noun, and everyone is happy to cluster around and be associated with it. That's the standard usage. Then, if you move on to "fun," the adjective, you've got a smaller but still significant group of people who will give their approval. That makes "fun" as an adjective informal usage. And then as you move on down the continuum you've got a much smaller group of people who are willing to grab "funner" and "funnest" by the shoulders and give them a big welcoming hug. That would be an example of language in flux. This small group clearly includes Steve Jobs, who has just thrust "funnest" into the spotlight. I predict the "funnest iPod ever" campaign will increase the general use of "funnest" and could even push it into the informal usage category. Now that's power."

(http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/is-funnest-a-word.aspx)

So congratulations, guys, I am apparently, once again, faced with the fact that I simply was born several decades too late. However, I'll close my participation in this conversation by saying that until "funnest" is listed in dictionaries as a standard superlative for "fun" (though I hope everyone paid attention to the fact that there are still some who begrudge "fun" as an adjective, let alone one turned into its superlative form with a currently-deemed-technically-incorrect suffix), I personally won't be using it in either my spoken vocabulary or written work. To those who desperately want to do so, I'll endure the informal adoption of "funnest" into our language silently and without comments provoking more discussions like this one.

Edited August 15, 2011 by ThePoorHangedFool

[autumn_leaf]

So congratulations, guys, I am apparently, once again, faced with the fact that I simply was born several decades too late. However, I'll close my participation in this conversation by saying that until "funnest" is listed in dictionaries as a standard superlative for "fun" (though I hope everyone paid attention to the fact that there are still some who begrudge "fun" as an adjective, let alone one turned into its superlative form with a currently-deemed-technically-incorrect suffix), I personally won't be using it in either my spoken vocabulary or written work. To those who desperately want to do so, I'll endure the informal adoption of "funnest" into our language silently and without comments provoking more discussions like this one.

don't you find that the restriction of using words until it is listed in the "dictionary" is completely arbitrary? slang or vernacular forms of language has always existed. If a guy came up to me and started speaking the way Shakespeare wrote I wouldn't understand half the things he said, but I guess he would still technically be correct in his usage.

my high school english teacher said that he always had a book on the usage of commas on him in case he had to argue with his professors, which apparently he had on several occasions and won. While being in command of language is important, the english language has many more caveats than I would like, while acceptable procedures in math is the same regardless of region.

[ktel]

You just wait until "funnest" is in the dictionary...

I don't think you're elitist. I did. But now I don't. I respect your opinion but don't understand why you will only accept words after someone else defines their existence. If every one did that, language would never change.

[Kitkat]

I need some help here...

I have been using kaplan and princeton to review, and then I decided to look at what ETS decided to throw out for the quatitative review- trying to wrangle a PC to take the power prep still, I have a mac

feeling alright about it until I read pages 35-39 of the ETS Math review PDF.

Can anyone tell me if they saw coordinate graphs that were as complicated as this?

go to http://www.ets.org/g...ative_reasoning

scroll down to where it says

"The content in these areas includes high school mathematics and statistics at a level that is generally no higher than a second course in algebra; it does not include trigonometry, calculus or other higher-level mathematics. The Math Review (PDF) provides detailed information about the content of the Quantitative Reasoning measure."

Then browse through pages 35-39, I when I was attempting to read them, I was like "oh my god, this is way too complex I is this really something that would be on the test?"

coordinate equations of circles? uhh what? Not a math major, and this is really challenging (multiple parabolas? REALLY?). You will restore me of my sanity if you can give me an impression of what kind of coordinate questions you may have seen on the revised gre, wasn't expecting this to say the least.

Thanks to anyone who answers this.

So as an update to this subject, I would say yes, you can get something like this on the exam. How do I know? Because I got it on the second section for the quant when I took it in September. Which leads me to the next topic .....

holy crap. i had nothing that looked like that. i don't think i even used the distance formula on mine.

quant: 660-760

so maybe if you get almost all of them right on the first test you'll get stuff like this on the 2nd section. i assume if you get those questions right you'd be in the 700-800 range.

Since it was in my second section, and I got a 740-800 range, I think that this point is correct. I think it is possible that it is something that might only come up if you are in the higher range. I got a few other questions that threw me for a loop on that section.