No. 'Zodat' is a subordinating conjunction, therefore the clause after 'zodat' has a verb-final word order. There's a nice example in Dutch and German here of 'omdat' which is also a subordinating conjunction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_%28grammar%29 under the header 'Subordinating conjunctions')
That's not strictly true. Often "so" is used with the same meaning as "so that". For example, the following three sentences mean that the reason you study is to be able to speak:
- You study so that you can speak.
- You study so you can speak.
- Je leert, zodat je kunt spreken.
However, a comma before "so" would change the meaning of the sentence. The following two sentences mean that the reason you can speak is that you study:
- You study, so you can speak.
- Je leert, dus je kunt spreken.
Not all language is conversational. The grammar and vocabulary used for writing, especially non-fiction and journalism, tends to be more old-fashioned or at least less simplified. In proper context, it would not be exceedingly rare to read such a phrase in even a recently-written novel or article.
I think not. Staat means "state, condition, status, posture" as a noun and "stand/exist [in a condition]" as a verb. In this context it is clear that it means stand, but "get up" would be opstaat. "Wake up" is either wakker, wordt wakker (will awaken) or ontwaakt. There may be a strange colloquial usage, though.
No, we are learning "so as", "so that" here. Secondly "to not sleep" is a split infinitive, which should be avoided. "To" should always be followed by the verb, so rearrange what you are going to say in your head before you say or write it, and it will come out better. Except if you are Jim "To boldly go" Kirk, the most famous split infinitive in the English language.
I do not want to make light of the fact sexism is a very serious issue here in the US. However, the use of "their" (as far as I have read) as a gender neutral singular pronoun is relatively new in English. Additionally, the phrase "To each his own" is a well established idiomatic phrase, as is the use of the masculine gender for unknown/generalized subjects, so I would argue that not only is it not sexist to use "To each his own" in the context in which it was, but it is more grammatically correct as well.
Many people feel that using "his" as the default singular deprecates women. Many even go so far as to use "her" in all situations in an effort to make up for the centuries "his" has been the standard of usage. For me it's a question of how it sounds, and to my ears, "their," in a sentence like "To each their own" simply sounds bad. In fact, I experience a visceral reaction, probably because my father was an English teacher who would get so worked up he would yell at the TV when the ad for Winston cigarettes came on ("Winston tastes good like a cigarette should.") Yes, that was a very long time ago but the effect of his grammatical influence has never left me. I am far from being sexist - just an overly sensitive victim of a very strict grammarian.
Thanks for the lingot! I didn't really mean to give the impression that my upbringing was oppressive. I wouldn't have had it any other way and my dad was a fantastic guy. But from your mention of your aversion to "Can I get a..." I'm sure you understand that one's education can sometimes cause undue stress. I don't know where you live but the phrase "Can I get a..." is used about a hundred times more than "May I have a..." in NYC.